AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Core i3-1220P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. Across every recorded test, the AMD EPYC 9454P outpaces the Intel Core i3-1220P, with the same relative gap of 83.7% in each Cinebench workload. This uniformity is notable because it spans both single-core and multi-core tests, indicating that the EPYC part holds its advantage regardless of thread scaling.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9454P scores 8214 against the i3-1220P's 1341. The single-core R15 result shows a similar ratio: 1159 versus 189. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC records 34226 in multi-core while the Intel chip manages 5591. In R20 single-core, the gap persists at 4831 versus 789. The R23 tests continue the pattern: 81492 against 13314 in multi-core, and 11504 against 1879 in single-core. Every one of these six head-to-head results is a win for the AMD processor, with the delta holding at exactly 83.7% across the board.

The consistency of that 83.7% delta across all six tests is worth pausing on. It suggests that the performance differential is structural rather than workload-dependent. Whether the benchmark stresses one core or all available cores, the EPYC 9454P maintains the same proportional lead. The i3-1220P cannot close the gap in any scenario captured by these measurements.

The database also records the average benchmark scores for each processor. The Intel Core i3-1220P posts an average score of 21066, while the AMD EPYC 9454P averages 20422. Interestingly, the i3-1220P actually has a higher average score than its larger rival in this metric. This is because the i3-1220P's benchmark set includes many PassMark workloads where it performs relatively well, whereas the EPYC 9454P's recorded benchmarks are limited to Cinebench and Geekbench tests, which are heavily weighted toward raw compute throughput.

Both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means that despite their enormous differences in core count, raw compute performance, and market positioning, they occupy the same percentile ranking. That shared percentile reflects the fact that the percentile calculation draws on the full benchmark suite, including workloads where the i3-1220P's efficiency-oriented design performs competitively.

The nearest rival data offers additional context. The i3-1220P sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, Intel Core Ultra 7 256V, AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, and Intel Core Ultra 7 155U. The EPYC 9454P, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G, AMD Ryzen 5 5600, and Intel Core Ultra 7 258V, while sitting 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7713. These comparisons show that each processor is competitively positioned within its own performance tier, even though the two tiers themselves are far apart in the Cinebench results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454P wins decisively, scoring 81492 against the Intel Core i3-1220P's 13314, a gap of 83.7%.

Q: Is the Intel Core i3-1220P competitive in any measured benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the EPYC 9454P winning all six Cinebench tests. However, the i3-1220P's average benchmark score of 21066 is higher than the EPYC's 20422, because the i3's benchmark list includes additional workloads beyond Cinebench.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9454P leads by the same 83.7% margin in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 11504 versus 1879 for the i3-1220P.

Q: What percentile rank do both processors hold?

A: Both sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database, despite their vastly different core counts and performance profiles.

Q: Which processors are the closest rivals to each of these chips?

A: The i3-1220P's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, which is 0.1% ahead. The EPYC 9454P is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G at 0% delta.

Q: Does the EPYC 9454P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory is supported on the EPYC 9454P. The Intel Core i3-1220P does not support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9454P wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its dominance is most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 48 cores and 96 threads produce scores that are multiples of the i3-1220P's output. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores more than six times the Intel chip. That is the kind of margin that matters for sustained compute workloads, rendering tasks, and heavily parallel server applications.

The EPYC's single-core advantage is equally decisive in proportional terms, though the absolute numbers are smaller. A single-core score of 11504 in R23 versus 1879 for the i3-1220P indicates that the Zen 4 architecture delivers substantially more instructions per clock at the same boost frequency, or at least that the combination of architecture and memory subsystem yields far higher efficiency per thread. The EPYC's base clock of 2.75 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz are both lower than the i3's 4.40 GHz boost, yet the EPYC still wins single-core tests by a wide margin. This points to architectural superiority rather than raw clock speed.

The Intel Core i3-1220P has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. However, its benchmark profile includes workloads not measured for the EPYC, such as PassMark data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, and physics calculations. In those tests, the i3-1220P posts scores like 180528 in data compression and 53507 in integer math. Without corresponding EPYC scores, a direct comparison is impossible, but the i3's average benchmark score of 21066, which exceeds the EPYC's 20422, suggests that the Intel chip holds up well outside the Cinebench suite.

For a user prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering performance, the EPYC 9454P is the only choice. For workloads represented by the broader PassMark suite, the i3-1220P may offer a more balanced profile, though the lack of overlapping benchmarks makes that conclusion tentative.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Core i3-1220P has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9454P has 48 cores and 96 threads. The i3's base clock is 1500 MHz and its boost clock is 4.40 GHz. The EPYC's base clock is 2.75 GHz and its boost clock is 3.80 GHz. The Intel part has a TDP of 28 watts, while the EPYC draws 290 watts.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The i3-1220P supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The EPYC 9454P supports DDR5 only, but over a twelve-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The i3-1220P does not support ECC memory; the EPYC does.

PCIe connectivity also diverges sharply. The i3-1220P offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The EPYC 9454P offers Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. The i3-1220P includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 64EU, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: the i3 uses Intel BGA 1744, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The i3 is a mobile-market processor, while the EPYC targets the server and workstation segment. Both parts are currently marked as active in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The EPYC 9454P has a launch MSRP of $4598. The i3-1220P has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-1220P is built on Alder Lake architecture, specifically the Alder Lake-P mobile variant. It uses a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The chip is a single monolithic die, though the database does not record transistor count or die size for this part.

The cache hierarchy of the i3-1220P is organized around per-core allocations. It has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared across the chip. This is a modest cache configuration suited to a mobile part with a 28-watt TDP.

The AMD EPYC 9454P uses Zen 4 architecture under the codename Genoa. It is built on a 5 nm process node at TSMC. The database records 52,560 million transistors and a die size of 8x 72 mm², indicating a chiplet-based design with eight compute dies.

The EPYC's cache configuration is substantially larger. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2. The L3 cache is 256 MB shared across the processor. That is more than twenty times the L3 capacity of the i3-1220P. The EPYC also supports twelve-channel memory, which, combined with its 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, gives it a massive advantage in memory-bound workloads.

The i3-1220P integrates graphics, supports DDR4 and DDR5, and uses a dual-channel memory bus. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, supports only DDR5, and uses a twelve-channel bus. The EPYC also includes ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i3. These architectural differences explain the performance gap observed in the benchmarks. The EPYC is designed for maximum throughput in server environments, while the i3 is engineered for power efficiency in mobile systems.

The Verdict

The data points to two processors with completely different design goals. The Intel Core i3-1220P is a mobile chip built for efficiency. Its 10 cores, 12 threads, 28-watt TDP, and integrated graphics make it suitable for laptops and compact systems. Its benchmark profile, which includes PassMark workloads like data compression and integer math, shows respectable scores for its class, and its average score of 21066 places it ahead of the EPYC in the database's overall metric.

The AMD EPYC 9454P is a server processor built for raw compute density. Its 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a platform for heavy parallel workloads. In every Cinebench test, it outperforms the i3-1220P by 83.7%. That margin is consistent and absolute.

Which processor should a user choose? The answer depends entirely on the workload. For rendering, simulation, database processing, or any task that scales across many cores, the EPYC 9454P is the clear pick based on the recorded benchmarks. Its multi-core Cinebench scores are multiples of the Intel part, and its memory bandwidth is unmatched in this comparison.

For mobile computing, the i3-1220P is the only viable option among the two, given its socket, TDP, and integrated graphics. It also holds its own in the database's average score metric, exceeding the EPYC despite losing every head-to-head test. Users who mainly run single-threaded applications or efficiency-sensitive mobile workloads should consider the i3-1220P. Users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput should choose the EPYC 9454P. The benchmark data does not leave room for ambiguity: the EPYC wins every measured comparison, and the i3 wins none.