CPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unequivocal picture: the AMD EPYC 9374F wins every single head-to-head comparison in the Cinebench suite, and it does so by decisive margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 against the Intel Core 7 350's 8,030, a delta of -88.5% for the Intel part. That is not a marginal gap; it is a chasm. The EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads simply overwhelm the Core 7 350's 6 cores and 6 threads in any workload that scales across cores.

The single-core results are closer in relative terms but still firmly favor AMD. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9374F posts 9,841 while the Core 7 350 manages 2,046, a -79.2% delta. The EPYC's 3.85 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock are both substantially higher than the Core 7 350's 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, and the data shows that raw clock advantage translates directly into single-threaded performance dominance.

Cinebench R15 and R20 tell the same story. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7,026 versus 1,220 for Intel (-82.6%). In R15 single-core, it's 991 versus 292 (-70.5%). R20 multi-core sees 29,276 versus 5,373 (-81.6%), and R20 single-core is 4,133 versus 758 (-81.7%). Across all six benchmarks, the Intel Core 7 350 wins zero tests; the EPYC 9374F wins all six.

What makes this particularly striking is that the average benchmark scores of the two processors are nearly identical. The Intel Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17,779, while the AMD EPYC 9374F sits at 17,693, a difference of only 0.5% in Intel's favor. Both processors land at the 71st percentile among all CPUs. Yet in the Cinebench tests where they meet head-to-head, the EPYC dominates because those tests heavily weight multi-core throughput, where the EPYC's core count advantage is insurmountable.

The Intel part's strength lies elsewhere. Its PassMark scores, not directly compared head-to-head here, show a different profile: data compression at 143,123, encryption at 10,933, extended instructions at 12,045, floating-point math at 42,809, integer math at 33,734, multithread at 15,170, physics at 1,173, random string sorting at 17,238, and single-thread at 4,100. These are respectable numbers for a 15 W mobile processor, but they do not appear in the head-to-head table, so the Cinebench results stand as the definitive comparison.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core 7 350 wins zero. The EPYC's largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it leads by 88.5%, and its smallest margin is in R15 single-core, where it leads by 70.5%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has an average benchmark score of 17,779, slightly ahead of the AMD EPYC 9374F's 17,693, a 0.5% difference in Intel's favor. Both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads. This 5.33x core advantage and 10.67x thread advantage explains the EPYC's dominance in multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, higher than the AMD EPYC 9374F's 4.30 GHz. However, the EPYC's higher base clock of 3.85 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for Intel, combined with its massive core count, yields better single-core Cinebench scores in every test.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the AMD EPYC 9374F is rated at 320 W TDP. The EPYC consumes over 20 times the power, reflecting its server-class design and much higher performance ceilings.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 350 does not. The EPYC also supports twelve-channel memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Core 7 350 is built on Intel's Wildcat Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It is a mobile-focused design with an integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) GPU, reflecting its intended use in thin-and-light laptops. The AMD EPYC 9374F, by contrast, uses AMD's Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa codename, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It is a server/workstation part with no integrated graphics whatsoever.

The cache hierarchies could not be more different. The Intel part allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. That 256 MB L3 is more than 42 times larger than Intel's 6 MB, a critical advantage for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

The EPYC 9374F also carries a transistor count of 52,560 million spread across 8 dies of 72 mm² each, whereas the Intel Core 7 350's transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. The AMD part's chiplet design is a hallmark of its server architecture, allowing for high core counts with better yields. Intel's monolithic design, while efficient for mobile power envelopes, cannot scale to 32 cores within a 15 W TDP.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The EPYC 9374F supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s and ECC support. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only over a single-channel memory bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. For memory-bound server workloads, the EPYC's bandwidth advantage is nearly 8-fold.

PCIe connectivity also differs sharply. The EPYC 9374F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with only 6 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's PCIe Gen 5 support at 128 lanes enables massive I/O expansion, while the Intel part's 6 lanes are suited only to basic mobile peripherals.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 350 | AMD EPYC 9374F |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 32 |

| Threads | 6 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Launch MSRP | $469 | $4850 |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2022-11-09 |

The release dates are notable: the Intel Core 7 350 is a 2026 product, while the AMD EPYC 9374F launched in 2022. Despite being nearly four years newer, the Intel part cannot match the EPYC in any head-to-head Cinebench test. The EPYC's launch MSRP of $4850 is over ten times the Intel's $469, reflecting its enterprise positioning and the massive performance envelope it offers.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9374F is the performance king in every head-to-head Cinebench comparison, winning all six tests with deltas ranging from -70.5% to -88.5% against the Intel Core 7 350. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a server-class powerhouse. For workloads that can utilize its multi-core might, rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, data analytics, the EPYC 9374F is the only choice between these two.

The Intel Core 7 350, however, is not without its merits. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or lightly-cooled mobile designs, and its integrated Xe3 Graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, though this does not translate into a single-core win in any Cinebench test. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 17,779 is actually 0.5% higher than the EPYC's 17,693, suggesting that in workloads not represented in the head-to-head table, the Intel part can hold its own.

The practical verdict depends entirely on use case. For a mobile user who needs a low-power processor for everyday tasks, light productivity, and occasional content consumption, the Intel Core 7 350's 6 cores and 15 W TDP are appropriate. Its 6 MB L3 cache and single-channel memory are sufficient for such workloads. The EPYC 9374F would be absurd in that context, a 320 W server chip with no integrated graphics and a twelve-channel memory requirement is not a mobile solution.

For a server administrator or workstation builder, the EPYC 9374F is the obvious pick. Its 5.33x core advantage and 42.67x L3 cache advantage over the Intel part translate into the 88.5% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead. The ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are essential for enterprise reliability and I/O expansion. The 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the Intel's 59.7 GB/s. The 320 W TDP is a non-issue in a server chassis with adequate cooling.

The benchmark data also places both processors at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, and their average scores are within 0.5% of each other. Yet the head-to-head results reveal that the Cinebench suite, a standard measure of CPU rendering performance, overwhelmingly favors the EPYC. The Intel Core 7 350's average score is buoyed by its PassMark results in areas like data compression and encryption, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. Those strengths do not translate into Cinebench wins.

In summary, the AMD EPYC 9374F is the definitive performance winner in direct comparison, but it is a server part through and through. The Intel Core 7 350 is a mobile part that loses every head-to-head test yet offers a far lower TDP, integrated graphics, and a much lower launch MSRP of $469 versus $4850. Choose the EPYC for raw compute, choose the Core 7 350 for mobility and efficiency. The data supports no other conclusion.