AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Core i7-11600H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD EPYC 9454P wins all eight head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core i7-11600H failing to claim a single victory. The scale of the margin varies dramatically by workload type, from a modest single-core edge to overwhelming multi-core dominance.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9454P scores 8214 against the Core i7-11600H's 1339, a 513.4% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where 34226 versus 5580 yields an identical 513.4% delta. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 81492 against 13286, again 513.4% ahead. These three results are consistent: the EPYC's 48-core, 96-thread configuration simply overwhelms the 6-core, 12-thread mobile part in threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core results tell a more nuanced story, though the EPYC still wins. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 1159 against 188, a 516.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core records 4831 versus 787, a 513.9% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core delivers 11504 against 1875, a 513.5% margin. These deltas are surprisingly close to the multicore figures, suggesting the EPYC's per-core performance is not merely competitive but substantially ahead in this benchmark suite.

Geekbench provides the closest contest. In Geekbench multicore, the EPYC scores 19941 against 6563, a 203.8% advantage. But in Geekbench single-core, the gap narrows dramatically: 2011 versus 1924, a mere 4.5% difference. This is the only benchmark where the Intel part comes within striking distance, indicating that in lightly threaded, integer-focused workloads, the Core i7-11600H's 4.60 GHz boost clock can partially compensate for its architectural disadvantages.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the EPYC 9454P averages 20422 across its benchmark set, while the Core i7-11600H averages 19921. The percentile rankings are close too, with the EPYC at the 74th percentile of all CPUs and the Intel part at the 73rd. This near-tie in overall percentile, despite the EPYC's massive multi-core wins, reflects the fact that the EPYC's benchmark suite does not include the PassMark tests where the Intel part excels, and the single-core Geekbench result is nearly even.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9454P is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and belongs to the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with 52,560 million transistors distributed across an 8x 72 mm² die configuration. The Intel Core i7-11600H uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H, on Intel's 10 nm process with a 190 mm² die size.

Core counts diverge sharply: the EPYC offers 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Core i7-11600H provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are similar (2.75 GHz versus 2.50 GHz), but the Intel part boosts higher at 4.60 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.80 GHz. The power envelope is equally divergent: the EPYC is rated at 290 W TDP, while the mobile Intel chip draws 35 W.

Cache hierarchies reflect their different roles. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's massive L3 cache is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory support separates them further. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Intel chip. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Core i7-11600H includes UHD Graphics 750. The EPYC targets the server/workstation segment and uses AMD Socket SP5, whereas the Intel chip is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1787. Both are currently active production parts, with the EPYC released in November 2022 and the Intel chip in May 2021.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division: the AMD EPYC 9454P is the superior processor for multi-threaded, memory-intensive server and workstation workloads, while the Intel Core i7-11600H remains relevant only in scenarios where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. The EPYC wins 8 of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, but the magnitude of those wins varies from 4.5% to 516.5%, so the choice depends entirely on workload.

For threaded rendering, the EPYC is in a different class. Cinebench R23 multicore scores of 81492 against 13286 mean the EPYC completes multi-core workloads roughly six times faster. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap enabled by 48 cores versus 6, 256 MB L3 cache versus 18 MB, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 51.2 GB/s.

However, the record shows the Intel part is not without merit. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock and 35 W TDP make it suitable for mobile systems where battery life and thermal limits are primary constraints. The Geekbench single-core result, with the EPYC only 4.5% ahead, indicates that for single-threaded applications, the performance difference is nearly negligible. The Intel part also includes integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely.

The nearest rival data provides context. The EPYC's closest competitors in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (0% delta), Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (-0.2%), AMD Ryzen 5 5600 (-0.2%), and AMD EPYC 7713 (0.3%). The Core i7-11600H's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX (0%), Intel Core i7-11800H (-0.4%), AMD EPYC 7713P (-0.5%), and Intel Core i5-11600K (0.7%). These groupings show that the EPYC 9454P and Core i7-11600H occupy similar overall performance tiers in the database, despite their radically different architectures and target markets.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454P scores 81492, while the Intel Core i7-11600H scores 13286, giving the EPYC a 513.4% advantage.

Q: How close is single-core performance?

A: In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC scores 2011 against the Intel part's 1924, a 4.5% difference. This is the narrowest margin in any head-to-head benchmark.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 9454P has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Core i7-11600H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 9454P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-11600H does not.

Q: Does the Intel processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i7-11600H includes UHD Graphics 750. The EPYC 9454P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9454P provides 460.8 GB/s via twelve-channel DDR5, while the Core i7-11600H provides 51.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9454P wins in every benchmark category recorded, but the practical application split is clear. The EPYC dominates in all Cinebench tests, both multicore and single-core, with deltas exceeding 513%. This makes it the obvious choice for server virtualization, database processing, scientific computing, and any workload that leverages its 48 cores, 96 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache. The twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth support memory-hungry applications that the Intel part cannot handle.

The Intel Core i7-11600H wins in the contexts that the benchmark scores do not directly capture. Its 35 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops and compact mobile workstations, whereas the EPYC's 290 W TDP requires a server platform. The Intel part's integrated UHD Graphics 750 provides display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC cannot offer. The higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz helps in lightly threaded tasks, as evidenced by the narrow 4.5% Geekbench single-core margin, though the EPYC still wins that test.

For mobility and energy-sensitive deployments, the Core i7-11600H is the only viable option between the two. For raw compute throughput, the EPYC is unmatched in this comparison. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the EPYC, but the Intel chip's advantages lie in platform requirements and power constraints, not in benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The EPYC 9454P uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Core i7-11600H uses Tiger Lake on Intel's 10 nm process. Core counts are 48 versus 6, and threads are 96 versus 12. Base clocks are 2.75 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, while boost clocks are 3.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP ratings are 290 W versus 35 W.

Cache configurations differ: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 256 MB shared L3, while the Intel part has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus on the EPYC versus DDR4 with a dual-channel bus on the Intel chip. Memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory support is present only on the EPYC.

PCIe capabilities are Gen 5 with 128 lanes on the EPYC versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Intel part. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel chip includes UHD Graphics 750. Sockets are AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel BGA 1787. The EPYC targets the server/workstation market, while the Intel part targets mobile. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $4598, and the Core i7-11600H's launch MSRP is $395.