AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i7-11850H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9474F and Intel Core i7-11850H represent two vastly different corners of the processor market: one is a 48-core server behemoth, the other an 8-core mobile chip. The benchmark data confirms they are not competitors in any practical sense, but the numbers reveal a fascinating study in architectural extremes. The EPYC 9474F wins every single head-to-head benchmark, yet both processors share the same overall percentile ranking, which suggests the database's comparison pool treats them as equivalent in overall capability despite their radically different designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the uniformity of the performance gap. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9474F leads by a nearly identical margin of roughly 420.5% to 420.7%. This consistency is remarkable. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 86,790 points against the i7-11850H's 16,673, a delta of 420.5%. The single-core R23 test tells the same story: 12,252 versus 2,353, a 420.7% advantage. This suggests the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental scaling factor tied to core count and architecture efficiency.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 results mirror this pattern exactly. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F posts 8,748 versus 1,680 (420.7% delta), and in R20 multi-core it reaches 36,451 against 7,002 (420.6% delta). Even the single-core variants show identical deltas: 1,234 versus 237 in R15 and 5,145 versus 988 in R20, both at 420.7%. This uniformity across different Cinebench versions indicates that the EPYC 9474F's advantage is structural—it is not a case of one benchmark favoring a particular feature, but rather a consistent throughput advantage that scales with the workload.

The Intel i7-11850H's best result is its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16,673, which is still less than 20% of the EPYC 9474F's score. The data shows zero wins for the Intel chip across the six shared benchmarks. The EPYC 9474F's 48 cores and 96 threads simply overwhelm the i7's 8 cores and 16 threads in every scenario. The delta percentages are so consistent (all within 0.2 percentage points of 420.6%) that they suggest a near-perfect linear scaling from core count, which is unusual given that most processors show diminishing returns in multi-threaded workloads.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing unequivocal: the AMD EPYC 9474F is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. For any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or compute tasks, the EPYC 9474F delivers roughly 5.2 times the performance of the Intel Core i7-11850H. The verdict for the EPYC 9474F is clear for server, workstation, or heavy multi-threaded compute tasks where the 48-core configuration can be fully utilized.

However, the Intel Core i7-11850H is not without its place. Its launch MSRP of $395 and 35W TDP make it a fundamentally different product. The i7-11850H is designed for mobile platforms where power efficiency and thermal constraints are critical. The data shows it holds its own in the broader benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 24,935 and a percentile rank of 77, placing it in the same percentile as the EPYC 9474F. This is remarkable for a chip with one-sixth the cores and one-tenth the power envelope.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: choose the EPYC 9474F for raw compute performance in a server context, and choose the i7-11850H for a mobile platform where the 35W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 750 make it feasible. The EPYC 9474F's 360W TDP and Socket SP5 requirement make it unsuitable for any mobile or even desktop consumer build. The i7-11850H, with its BGA 1787 socket, is soldered to the motherboard and cannot be upgraded, which is a trade-off typical of mobile processors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is immense. The AMD EPYC 9474F is built on TSMC's 5 nm process node, while the Intel Core i7-11850H uses Intel's 10 nm process. This node advantage is compounded by the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Genoa) versus the i7's Tiger Lake-H architecture. The EPYC 9474F packs 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies of 72 mm² each, while the i7-11850H uses a single 190 mm² die with no transistor count listed in the data.

Cache configurations are radically different. The EPYC 9474F features 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-11850H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is over ten times larger, directly supporting its server workload profile where large datasets are common.

Memory support further separates these chips. The EPYC 9474F uses DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7-11850H uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus at 51.2 GB/s. This 9x difference in memory bandwidth is critical for multi-threaded server workloads. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the i7 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Core i7-11850H has 8 cores and 16 threads. This 6x difference in core count is the primary driver of the performance gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-11850H supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. This is a 9x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i7-11850H includes UHD Graphics 750, while the AMD EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics listed in the data. The EPYC relies on discrete GPUs for display output.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F has a TDP of 360W, while the Intel Core i7-11850H has a TDP of 35W. This is a 10x difference in power envelope, reflecting their different market segments.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-11850H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, higher than the AMD EPYC 9474F's 4.10 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC still wins all single-core benchmarks due to its architectural efficiency.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, the data lists both the AMD EPYC 9474F and Intel Core i7-11850H as "Active" production status, despite their different release dates (November 2022 for the EPYC and May 2021 for the i7).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins in every shared benchmark category, so its strengths are absolute across the tested workload. The data shows it dominates in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core variants. For server virtualization, database workloads, scientific computing, or any task that can utilize 48 cores and 96 threads, the EPYC 9474F is the clear choice. Its 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth at 460.8 GB/s make it particularly suited for memory-intensive server applications.

The Intel Core i7-11850H, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has its own domain of strength. Its 35W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 750 make it viable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are primary concerns. The i7-11850H's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz could provide better responsiveness in lightly threaded mobile tasks, though the data does not include such tests. Its dual-channel DDR4 memory at 51.2 GB/s is adequate for mobile workloads, and the BGA 1787 socket indicates it is designed for embedded, soldered applications.

The percentile data shows both processors rank at the 77th percentile against all CPUs, which is unusual given their performance disparity. This suggests that the i7-11850H's mobile efficiency and the EPYC 9474F's raw server power are valued differently in the database's scoring methodology, with the average benchmark score of 25,103 for the EPYC and 24,935 for the i7 being nearly identical. This near-equality in average score, despite the EPYC's massive benchmark wins, likely reflects the inclusion of different benchmark suites that favor mobile efficiency.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals fundamental incompatibilities. The AMD EPYC 9474F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel Core i7-11850H uses Intel BGA 1787, meaning they cannot be swapped into the same system. The EPYC is built on a 5 nm process with 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, while the i7 uses a 10 nm process on a single 190 mm² die. The EPYC's base clock is 3.60 GHz versus the i7's 2.10 GHz, though the i7 boost clock of 4.80 GHz exceeds the EPYC's 4.10 GHz.

Cache differences are stark: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 256 MB shared L3, while the i7 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with 24 MB shared L3. Memory support diverges completely: DDR5 twelve-channel with ECC for the EPYC versus DDR4 dual-channel without ECC for the i7. PCIe lanes differ at 128 Gen 5 lanes for the EPYC versus 20 Gen 4 lanes for the i7. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the i7 includes UHD Graphics 750. Release dates are separated by about 18 months: the EPYC launched in November 2022, the i7 in May 2021. The launch MSRP also differs dramatically, with the EPYC at $6780 and the i7 at $395, though this cost difference reflects their entirely different market positions rather than a value judgment.