AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Core i7-11800H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9454P dominates the Intel Core i7-11800H across every recorded benchmark, winning all eight head-to-head comparisons. The most lopsided results appear in Cinebench workloads, where the EPYC 9454P maintains a consistent 389% advantage in both single-core and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9454P scores 81,492 against the i7-11800H's 16,663, a 389.1% difference. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R23 single-core, with the EPYC at 11,504 versus 2,352.

Cinebench R15 and R20 tell an identical story. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9454P posts 8,214 versus 1,679, a 389.2% lead. Single-core R15 shows 1,159 against 236, a 391.1% gap. R20 multi-core delivers 34,226 against 6,998 (389.1% ahead), and R20 single-core shows 4,831 versus 987, a 389.5% advantage. These near-identical percentages across all Cinebench versions indicate that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

Geekbench results narrow the margin considerably, though the EPYC 9454P still wins decisively. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 19,941 versus 7,986, a 149.7% lead. Single-core Geekbench shows 2,011 against 1,666, a 20.7% advantage. The single-core Geekbench result is the closest contest in the entire comparison, suggesting that the i7-11800H's boost clock of 4.60 GHz provides some competitive single-threaded capability, even if it cannot match the EPYC's overall throughput.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The EPYC 9454P averages 20,422 across its recorded benchmarks, while the i7-11800H averages 19,998. Both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in similar company despite their vastly different market positions. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20,425, 0% delta) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20,454, -0.2% delta), while the i7-11800H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX (19,928, 0.4% delta) and the Intel Core i7-11600H (19,921, 0.4% delta). These rival clusters highlight that the two processors occupy different performance tiers in the database's overall ranking, despite sharing the same percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454P wins all eight recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i7-11800H does not win a single comparison in the database.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9454P scores 81,492 against the i7-11800H's 16,663, a 389.1% difference. Geekbench multi-core shows a smaller but still substantial gap of 149.7% (19,941 versus 7,986).

Q: Is the single-core difference as large as the multi-core gap?

A: In Cinebench tests, the single-core gap is similar to multi-core, ranging from 389.1% to 391.1% across R15, R20, and R23. However, in Geekbench single-core, the EPYC leads by only 20.7% (2,011 versus 1,666), making this the closest benchmark result between the two.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 9454P's average benchmark score of 20,422 is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20,425) and sits 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20,454). The i7-11800H's average of 19,998 is 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX (19,928) and matches the Intel Core i7-11600H's 19,921 within 0.4%.

Q: What do the Cinebench percentages tell us about the architecture?

A: The consistent 389% delta across all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) in both single and multi-core suggests a fundamental throughput advantage for the EPYC 9454P, not a workload-specific optimization. The i7-11800H cannot close the gap in any rendering scenario.

Q: Does the i7-11800H have any benchmark where it comes close?

A: The closest result is Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 9454P leads by 20.7% (2,011 versus 1,666). Every other benchmark shows at least a 149.7% gap in favor of the EPYC.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9454P is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. For workloads that rely on Cinebench rendering, the EPYC delivers roughly 4.9 times the performance of the i7-11800H. Even in the most favorable single-core test for the Intel part, Geekbench single-core, the EPYC still leads by 20.7%.

The i7-11800H's only statistical consolation is its average benchmark score of 19,998, which places it within 2.1% of the EPYC's 20,422 average. This narrow average gap, however, masks the fact that the i7-11800H's benchmark pool includes 3DMark and PassMark tests that do not appear in the EPYC's recorded suite. When both processors run the same Cinebench and Geekbench workloads, the EPYC wins by margins ranging from 20.7% to 391.1%.

Server and workstation buyers should select the EPYC 9454P without hesitation. Mobile users who need the i7-11800H's integrated graphics or its 35 W thermal envelope will find that the EPYC's 290 W TDP and server socket make it an impractical alternative, but on raw performance, the EPYC is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The EPYC 9454P uses 48 cores and 96 threads, while the i7-11800H uses 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the EPYC runs at 2.75 GHz, while the i7-11800H runs at 1900.00 MHz. Boost clocks reverse the trend, with the i7-11800H reaching 4.60 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.80 GHz.

Thermal design power shows the largest gap: the EPYC 9454P draws 290 W, while the i7-11800H is rated at 35 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the i7-11800H uses Intel BGA 1787. Memory support differs entirely: the EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-11800H uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the i7-11800H. PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the i7-11800H provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i7-11800H includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9454P is built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies, each measuring 72 mm². The i7-11800H uses Intel's Tiger Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a single 190 mm² die. The EPYC's cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The i7-11800H has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

The EPYC 9454P belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, released on 2022-11-09, while the i7-11800H is part of the Core 11th Gen series, released on 2021-05-10. The EPYC targets the server and workstation market segment, while the i7-11800H targets mobile. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC's part number is 100-100000873, and the i7-11800H's part number is SRKT3.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9454P wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput matters. Its 48 cores and 96 threads crush multi-threaded workloads, as shown by the 389.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The 256 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for memory-intensive server applications. The 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide extensive I/O capacity for workstation builds.

The Intel Core i7-11800H wins in scenarios defined by portability and power efficiency. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC's 290 W, making it viable for laptops and compact mobile systems. The integrated UHD Graphics 750 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The i7-11800H's higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz does not translate into benchmark victories, but it does narrow the single-core Geekbench gap to 20.7%.

For data center operators, render farms, or scientific computing, the EPYC 9454P is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. For mobile professionals who need a capable processor with integrated graphics and low power draw, the i7-11800H serves a purpose that the EPYC cannot fulfill due to its socket, power, and form factor. The performance comparison, however, has a single conclusion: the EPYC 9454P is categorically faster in every measured test.