AMD EPYC 9554P vs Intel Core i5-12500H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H records an average benchmark score of 22625, while the AMD EPYC 9554P records 21899. Despite the EPYC winning every head-to-head benchmark in the database, the Intel part holds a higher aggregate average, a result of the different benchmark suites each chip was measured with.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9554P has 64 cores and 128 threads, compared to the Intel Core i5-12500H's 12 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC's core count is over five times higher, and its thread count is eight times higher.

Q: What are the percentile rankings of each CPU relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H sits in the 76th percentile, while the AMD EPYC 9554P sits in the 75th percentile. They are effectively peers in overall standing, despite their vastly different designs and market segments.

Q: What is the biggest single-benchmark margin between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 9554P scores 89490 versus the Intel's 19840, a delta of -77.8% from the Intel's perspective. This is the largest absolute score gap in the recorded head-to-head data.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-12500H includes Iris Xe 80EU integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 9554P has no integrated graphics listed in the database, which is typical for its server/workstation segment.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9554P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-12500H does not. The EPYC also supports a twelve-channel memory bus, compared to the Intel's dual-channel bus.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the AMD EPYC 9554P wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, and it wins by a colossal margin in multi-threaded workloads. The Intel Core i5-12500H is a mobile processor designed for laptops, while the EPYC is a server/workstation part. The EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads simply overwhelm the Intel's 12 cores and 16 threads in any heavily parallelized task.

However, the Intel chip is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 22625 is higher than the EPYC's 21899, and its percentile rank (76) is marginally above the EPYC's (75). This is because the Intel part has a broader benchmark suite recorded, including tests like PassMark integer math and floating-point math, where its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz helps. The EPYC's boost clock is only 3.75 GHz.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For a mobile workstation or high-end laptop user who needs strong single-threaded performance and a capable integrated GPU, the Intel Core i5-12500H is the only viable choice from this pair. For a server administrator or a professional running massive parallel compute workloads, the AMD EPYC 9554P is the overwhelming choice; the data shows no contest in multi-core scenarios. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $7104, and it is a server-class part, whereas the Intel is a mobile part with no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is one-sided. The AMD EPYC 9554P wins all six recorded comparisons, and every single one shows a delta of -77.8% for the Intel part. This uniformity is striking: regardless of whether the test is single-core or multi-core, the EPYC maintains the exact same percentage advantage.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 9020 versus the Intel's 1999. In R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 1273 versus the Intel's 282. The pattern repeats in R20: EPYC 37585 versus Intel 8332 in multi-core, and EPYC 5305 versus Intel 1176 in single-core. In R23, the EPYC scores 89490 in multi-core and 12633 in single-core, while the Intel scores 19840 and 2801 respectively.

The fact that the delta is identical (-77.8%) across all six tests suggests a systematic scaling factor rather than workload-specific behavior. The EPYC's single-core advantage is just as large as its multi-core advantage, which is unusual. Typically, a high-core-count server chip lags in single-threaded tests compared to a mobile chip with a higher boost clock. Here, the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture and higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) appear to compensate fully.

The Intel chip's best showing is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 19840. This is its highest absolute score in the head-to-head set, but it still trails the EPYC's 89490 by a factor of roughly 4.5. The Intel part has no wins to its name in the head-to-head data; the EPYC has six.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Core i5-12500H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9554P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 4.50 GHz; the EPYC's base is 3.10 GHz with a boost of 3.75 GHz.

Thermal design power is another major split: the Intel is rated at 45 W, while the AMD is rated at 360 W. The Intel uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Intel is a mobile part, the EPYC is a server/workstation part.

The memory support differs significantly. The Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The EPYC supports only DDR5, but with a twelve-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Intel does not.

PCIe lanes differ as well: the Intel has Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC has Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Intel includes Iris Xe 80EU integrated graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Core i5-12500H is built on Alder Lake, specifically the Alder Lake-H codename, using a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The die size is 217 mm². The AMD EPYC 9554P is built on Zen 4, codenamed Genoa, using a 5 nm process node from TSMC. Its die size is recorded as 8x 72 mm², and the transistor count is 52,560 million.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is over 14 times larger than the Intel's.

The Intel part uses a hybrid architecture (Alder Lake) with performance and efficiency cores, though the database does not break down the core types. The EPYC uses a homogeneous Zen 4 design with 64 full cores. The Intel's process node is larger (10 nm versus 5 nm), and its transistor count is not recorded, while the EPYC's 52,560 million transistors are explicitly listed.

The EPYC also has a higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) despite its much larger core count and power envelope. This suggests the Zen 4 architecture is more power-efficient per core, though the total TDP is significantly higher. The Intel part's boost clock is higher (4.50 GHz versus 3.75 GHz), which likely explains its competitive single-threaded performance in other benchmarks, even though the head-to-head Cinebench data shows the EPYC winning even those tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9554P wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so the data-driven answer is that it wins everywhere within the Cinebench suite. Its multi-core performance is overwhelming: the R23 score of 89490 is more than 4.5 times the Intel's 19840. For any workload that scales with core count, the EPYC is the clear winner. The EPYC also has a 256 MB L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, all of which point to server, virtualization, and heavy data-center workloads.

The Intel Core i5-12500H wins in the broader benchmark context, even if not in the head-to-head list. Its average benchmark score of 22625 exceeds the EPYC's 21899, and its percentile rank (76) is one point higher. The Intel part has numerous PassMark scores recorded, including data compression (253431), integer math (71714), and floating-point math (52227), which show its strength in general-purpose mobile tasks. Its integrated Iris Xe 80EU graphics is a major advantage for laptops, as it removes the need for a discrete GPU in many scenarios.

The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 3.75 GHz), which helps in lightly threaded tasks. Its lower TDP (45 W versus 360 W) makes it suitable for battery-powered devices, while the EPYC's 360 W TDP requires a server environment with robust cooling. The Intel's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support offers flexibility in memory choice, whereas the EPYC mandates DDR5.

In summary: the EPYC is the benchmark king for multi-threaded compute, and the Intel is the more versatile mobile processor with a higher aggregate score and integrated graphics. The data does not show any scenario where the Intel beats the EPYC in their shared Cinebench tests, but the Intel's broader benchmark record and higher average score indicate its strengths in other workload types.