AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i5-11600 Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two processors cleanly. The Intel Core i5-11600 is a desktop part, while the AMD EPYC 9474F is a server/workstation processor. The benchmark results are not close. The EPYC 9474F wins all six recorded head-to-head tests, with every delta showing an 82.4% advantage over the i5-11600. That is a consistent, overwhelming margin across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The i5-11600 sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24563. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12450HX (24576, 0.1% ahead), the AMD EPYC 9654P (24465, 0.4% behind), and two Ryzen X3D parts. For a desktop user, the i5-11600 is a functional 6-core, 12-thread processor. It is not competitive with the EPYC 9474F, nor should it be.

The EPYC 9474F also sits at the 77th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 25103. Its nearest rivals are all mobile or desktop Ryzen parts: the Ryzen 7 7735HS (25147, 0.2% ahead), Ryzen 7 6800H (25201, 0.4% ahead), Ryzen 5 8400F (25005, 0.4% behind), and Ryzen 5 7500F (24964, 0.6% behind). The EPYC's average score is dragged down by its lack of certain Passmark tests in the database, but its Cinebench results are far beyond the i5-11600.

Who should pick the i5-11600? A builder with a Socket 1200 motherboard, DDR4 memory, and a need for a basic desktop processor. It is end-of-life, so it is only relevant for existing platforms or budget builds where the rest of the system is already in place. The EPYC 9474F is for server racks, virtualization hosts, or workstations with Socket SP5 and DDR5. Its 48 cores and 96 threads are a different class entirely. If the workload is multi-threaded rendering or database processing, the EPYC 9474F is the only choice here. The i5-11600 cannot keep up in any meaningful way.

Architecture Differences

The i5-11600 uses Rocket Lake, built on Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 276 mm². It has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC 9474F uses Zen 4 (Genoa), built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 8x 72 mm² and 52,560 million transistors. That is a manufacturing node two generations apart, and the EPYC packs 48 cores and 96 threads.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The i5-11600 has 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC 9474F has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. That L3 difference is 244 MB in the EPYC's favor, which matters for large working sets.

Memory support is another fundamental split. The i5-11600 uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 9474F uses DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus, with 460.8 GB/s. That is a 9x bandwidth advantage, directly feeding the EPYC's core count.

PCIe differs as well. The i5-11600 has Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 9474F has Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the i5. The EPYC is an active production part; the i5 is end-of-life. The i5 launches in March 2021, the EPYC in November 2022.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9474F faster in single-core tests than the Intel Core i5-11600?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 12252 versus 2155 for the i5, a delta of 82.4% in the EPYC's favor. The same margin appears in R15 and R20 single-core tests.

Q: How much multi-threaded performance does the EPYC 9474F have over the i5-11600?

A: The EPYC scores 86790 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the i5 scores 15269. The EPYC is 82.4% ahead. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 36451 versus 6412, again an 82.4% gap.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The EPYC 9474F has 256 MB shared L3, versus 12 MB shared L3 on the i5-11600. The EPYC also has 1 MB L2 per core, double the 512 KB per core of the i5.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The i5-11600 supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s.

Q: Can I use the i5-11600 in a server motherboard?

A: The i5-11600 uses Intel Socket 1200 and does not support ECC memory. It is a desktop processor. The EPYC 9474F uses AMD Socket SP5 and supports ECC, targeting server and workstation platforms.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the i5-11600 wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the EPYC 9474F winning all six tests, with no wins for the i5-11600.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The i5-11600 has 6 cores and 12 threads; the EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the i5 and 3.60 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz for the i5 and 4.10 GHz for the EPYC. TDP is 65 W versus 360 W.

The socket is Intel Socket 1200 for the i5, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. Architecture is Rocket Lake versus Zen 4 (Genoa). Process node is 14 nm (Intel foundry) versus 5 nm (TSMC). Die size is 276 mm² versus 8x 72 mm². The EPYC has 52,560 million transistors; the i5 has no recorded transistor count.

Cache differs per level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 is 512 KB per core versus 1 MB per core. L3 is 12 MB shared versus 256 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 versus DDR5, dual-channel versus twelve-channel, 51.2 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s. ECC is not supported on the i5, supported on the EPYC. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Market segment is Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Production status is End-of-life versus Active. Release dates are 2021-03-15 versus 2022-11-09. Launch MSRP is $213 for the i5 and $6780 for the EPYC. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a uniform pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 9474F wins with a delta of 82.4%. There is no variation in the margin; every test shows the same percentage gap.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 scores 1538 and the EPYC scores 8748. The EPYC is 82.4% ahead. In R15 single-core, the i5 scores 217 and the EPYC scores 1234, again 82.4% ahead. The single-core lead is surprising for a 48-core server chip, but the EPYC's higher base clock (3.60 GHz) and newer Zen 4 architecture produce the result.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 6412 for the i5 versus 36451 for the EPYC. Single-core R20 shows 905 versus 5145. The margins remain 82.4%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 15269 versus 86790. Single-core R23 shows 2155 versus 12252. Every test, every delta, same percentage.

The i5-11600 has additional Passmark benchmark scores in the database: data compression at 218062, encryption at 11060, extended instructions at 15698, find prime numbers at 56, floating point math at 35478, integer math at 60158, multithread at 17918, physics at 891, random string sorting at 25178, and single thread at 3284. The EPYC 9474F has no recorded Passmark scores. The average benchmark score for the i5 is 24563, which pulls from these Passmark results and the Cinebench runs. The EPYC's average of 25103 is based only on its six Cinebench scores.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9474F wins every recorded benchmark. There is no category in the head-to-head data where the i5-11600 takes a victory. The EPYC's wins cover both multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, which means it dominates in rendering, simulation, and general compute workloads. The 48-core, 96-thread configuration with 256 MB L3 and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth makes it suitable for server virtualization, large database operations, and heavy multi-threaded compilation.

The i5-11600 has no head-to-head wins, but its Passmark scores indicate it has strengths for a desktop part. It scores 218062 in data compression, 60158 in integer math, and 35478 in floating point math. Those numbers are not comparable to the EPYC because the EPYC lacks Passmark data, but they show the i5 can handle everyday desktop tasks, light content creation, and general productivity. Its 65 W TDP and Socket 1200 compatibility make it a drop-in option for existing motherboards. The EPYC requires a completely different platform: Socket SP5, DDR5, and a 360 W TDP.

For use cases, the choice is straightforward. If the workload is server-side, multi-threaded, or memory-bandwidth intensive, the EPYC 9474F is the only option with data to support it. If the workload is desktop computing on an existing Intel platform, the i5-11600 is the practical pick, but only because the platform already exists. The EPYC's 82.4% advantage in every Cinebench test is the defining fact of this comparison. There is no scenario from the data where the i5-11600 outperforms the EPYC 9474F.