AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core i5-12450H Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD EPYC 9374F and the Intel Core i5-12450H is not a contest of peers; it is a study in extremes. The EPYC 9374F wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with deltas ranging from 316.4% to 690.1%. This is a server-class processor designed for throughput, while the Core i5-12450H is a mobile chip built for efficiency and integration. The data indicates that the EPYC 9374F is the only choice for any workload where raw multi-threaded or single-threaded compute power is the primary metric. The Core i5-12450H, with its integrated graphics and modest power envelope, belongs in systems where space, power, and mobility matter more than absolute performance. The recorded data shows no scenario where the Intel part wins a benchmark, making the verdict straightforward: pick the EPYC 9374F for any compute-heavy task, pick the Core i5-12450H only if the platform mandates a mobile processor with integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9374F dominates every measured benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 69,707 against 8,822.5, a 690.1% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is an order-of-magnitude difference in multi-threaded rendering. The single-core results tell a similar story: the EPYC 9374F posts 9,841 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,661 for the Intel part, a 492.5% delta. Even in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the gap is smallest, the AMD part still leads by 316.4%. The only areas where the Intel part could claim any advantage are qualitative: it has integrated UHD Graphics, which the EPYC 9374F lacks entirely, and it operates at a 45 W TDP versus 320 W. The data shows no benchmark win for the Core i5-12450H, but its feature set suggests it wins on portability, power draw, and the ability to drive a display without a discrete GPU. For any user prioritizing battery life or a compact mobile chassis, the Intel part is the only viable option from this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is as wide as the benchmark gap. The AMD EPYC 9374F is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 3.85 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is massive: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The silicon spans eight 72 mm² dies, totaling 52,560 million transistors. Memory support is DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC memory support. It uses AMD Socket SP5 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The TDP is 320 W, and it was released on 2022-11-09 with a launch MSRP of $4850.

The Intel Core i5-12450H uses Alder Lake-H architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 8 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its cache is smaller: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The die size is 217 mm². It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. It uses Intel BGA 1744, offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and includes integrated UHD Graphics. The TDP is 45 W, and it targets the mobile segment. The EPYC 9374F has four times the cores, more than five times the threads, and over twenty times the L3 cache. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 0.10 GHz, but that does not compensate for the core and cache disparity. The EPYC's twelve-channel memory bus versus dual-channel is another decisive architectural advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i5-12450H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 9,841 versus 1,661 for the Core i5-12450H, a 492.5% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC leads 991 to 238, a 316.4% delta.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-12450H does not.

Q: Do either of these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-12450H has integrated UHD Graphics. The AMD EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9374F provides 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus. The Core i5-12450H uses a dual-channel bus with DDR4 or DDR5 support, and its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between them?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 versus 8,822.5, a 690.1% delta.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unidirectional. The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every recorded comparison, and the margins are extraordinary. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7,026 against 1,350, a 420.4% lead. That is not a refinement; it is a category difference. In R15 single-core, the EPYC posts 991 versus 238, a 316.4% advantage. The single-core gap is smaller in percentage terms, but it still shows the server part is more than four times faster per thread in this test.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 29,276 for the EPYC versus 5,671 for the Intel part, a 416.2% delta. The single-core result is 4,133 versus 800, a 416.6% advantage. These two deltas are nearly identical, suggesting that the EPYC's per-core efficiency scales evenly with its multi-core advantage in this benchmark generation.

Cinebench R23 delivers the most extreme results. In multi-core, the EPYC scores 69,707 against 8,822.5, a 690.1% lead. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The single-core result is 9,841 versus 1,661, a 492.5% margin. The multi-core delta is disproportionately larger than the single-core delta, which indicates that the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads are being fully utilized, while the Intel part's 8 cores and 12 threads saturate quickly and cannot scale further.

The pattern across all six benchmarks is consistent: the EPYC 9374F leads by at least 316% and at most 690%. The Intel Core i5-12450H never gets within a factor of three. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 17,693, while the Intel part averages 17,239, a difference of 454 points, or roughly 2.6%. That average, however, is skewed by the Intel part's additional PassMark tests, which include data compression, encryption, and physics, none of which are measured for the EPYC. The head-to-head Cinebench tests are the only apples-to-apples comparison, and there the EPYC is dominant.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these two parts. The EPYC 9374F sits at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 17,693. Its closest rival is the Intel Core i7-1255U at 17,656, a delta of 0.2%. That means the EPYC's average score is essentially tied with a low-power mobile chip, but that average includes its relatively weak single-thread PassMark results. The Core i5-12450H also sits at the 71st percentile, with an average of 17,239. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17,278, a delta of -0.2%. Both parts occupy the same percentile tier, but their head-to-head Cinebench results show a massive performance gap. The explanation is that the Intel part has many more benchmark entries in the database, including PassMark tests that favor its architecture, while the EPYC's scores are concentrated in Cinebench and Geekbench, where it excels.

In Geekbench, the EPYC scores 18,263 multi-core and 2,306 single-core. The Core i5-12450H has no Geekbench results in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible. The Intel part does have 3DMark results: 5,001 for 16 threads, 4,233 for 8 threads, 3,091 for 4 threads, 1,743 for 2 threads, and 912 for single-thread. These scores are not shared with the EPYC, so they cannot be used for head-to-head analysis. The PassMark results for the Intel part, such as 54,782 in integer math and 40,568 in floating-point math, show it is a capable mobile processor, but none of those tests were run on the EPYC.

The verdict from the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The EPYC 9374F is a compute monster, and the Core i5-12450H is a mobile utility player. The database records six wins for the AMD part and zero for the Intel part. There is no workload category in the measured tests where the Intel part catches up. The only reason to choose the Core i5-12450H is if the system requires integrated graphics, a 45 W TDP, or a mobile socket. For raw performance, the EPYC 9374F is the only answer.