AMD EPYC 9654P vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the Intel Core 5 210H and AMD EPYC 9654P?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P scores 13,958 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core 5 210H scores 1,771. This represents an 87.3% deficit for the Intel part in this test.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P features 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 210H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory configurations do these CPUs support?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The AMD EPYC 9654P supports DDR5 only, but over a twelve-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors support PCIe Gen 5?

A: Yes, both support PCIe Gen 5, but the lane counts differ significantly. The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 9654P has 128 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the production status and release date for each?

A: Both processors are marked as Active in production. The Intel Core 5 210H was released on 2024-12-17, while the AMD EPYC 9654P was released on 2022-11-09.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, reflecting their entirely different target segments. The Intel Core 5 210H is built on Raptor Lake-H architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 9654P uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa codename, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. This process difference is critical: the AMD part uses a much more advanced node, allowing for a far higher transistor density.

The AMD EPYC 9654P packs 78,840 million transistors across a die size of 12x 72 mm². The Intel Core 5 210H does not have listed transistor or die size figures in the database, but its 10 nm process and mobile-focused design inherently limit its scale. The EPYC 9654P is a server/workstation part with 96 cores and 192 threads, versus the Intel mobile chip's 8 cores and 12 threads. This 12x core advantage is the primary driver of the massive performance deltas in multi-threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The Intel Core 5 210H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 9654P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but a massive 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is 32 times larger than the Intel's, which is crucial for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support further separates the two. The Intel Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no listed memory bandwidth figure. The AMD EPYC 9654P supports DDR5 exclusively over a twelve-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. The PCIe configurations reflect the same divide: Intel offers 8 Gen 5 lanes, while AMD offers 128 Gen 5 lanes, a 16x difference.

The Intel Core 5 210H includes integrated graphics with Iris Xe Graphics 48EU, whereas the AMD EPYC 9654P has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the Intel part suitable for mobile systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU, while the EPYC is intended for headless server deployments. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they are not user-overclockable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is decisively one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9654P wins every single one. The Intel Core 5 210H records zero wins in this comparison.

In Cinebench R15, the EPYC scores 9,966 in multi-core versus the Intel's 1,757, a delta of -82.4% for the Intel part. The single-core R15 test shows the EPYC at 1,406 against Intel's 247, also an -82.4% delta. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20. The EPYC's multi-core score of 41,527 dwarfs the Intel's 6,504, representing an -84.3% delta. Single-core R20 sees the EPYC at 5,862 versus Intel's 918, again an -84.3% delta.

The most dramatic separation appears in Cinebench R23. The EPYC 9654P achieves a multi-core score of 98,875, while the Intel Core 5 210H manages only 11,830. This yields an -88% delta, meaning the Intel chip scores just 12% of the EPYC's multi-core result. In single-core R23, the EPYC scores 13,958 against Intel's 1,771, an -87.3% delta. Even in single-threaded tests, where the Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz might suggest an advantage, the EPYC still comes out ahead. This indicates that the Zen 4 architecture's single-core efficiency more than compensates for the lower clock speed.

It is notably the average benchmark scores in the database place both processors in the 77th percentile relative to all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 210H has an average benchmark score of 24,872, while the AMD EPYC 9654P has an average score of 24,465. The Intel part is slightly ahead in the aggregate average, likely due to its strong showing in PassMark tests that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the Intel Core i7-13620H (delta of -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (delta of 0.2%), Intel Core i7-11850H (delta of -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (delta of -0.4%). For the AMD EPYC 9654P, nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11600 (delta of -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650H (delta of 0.4%), Intel Core i5-12450HX (delta of -0.5%), and Intel Core i7-1360P (delta of 0.5%). These rival deltas are all within half a percent, indicating that the average scores cluster tightly.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals fundamental differences in every major category. The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads. Base clocks are close, with Intel at 2.20 GHz and AMD at 2.40 GHz, but boost clocks favor Intel: 4.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. Thermal design power is vastly different: the Intel part is rated at 45 W, while the AMD part is rated at 360 W.

The socket types are incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1744, while AMD uses Socket SP5. The process node differs: Intel uses 10 nm, AMD uses 5 nm. The foundries also differ: Intel fabricates its own chip, while AMD uses TSMC. The transistor count and die size are only listed for the EPYC, which has 78,840 million transistors and a 12x 72 mm² die.

Cache configurations show the EPYC's server focus: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 384 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel, AMD supports DDR5 only over twelve-channel. The AMD part has a listed memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the Intel part has none listed. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD part. PCIe lanes: Intel has 8 Gen 5 lanes, AMD has 128 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel part (Iris Xe Graphics 48EU). The market segments differ: Intel is Mobile, AMD is Server/Workstation.

Release dates are also far apart: Intel was released on 2024-12-17, AMD on 2022-11-09. The launch MSRP for the Intel Core 5 210H is $342, while the AMD EPYC 9654P has a launch MSRP of $10625. Part numbers are SRQ6RQ5MN for Intel and 100-100000803 for AMD.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 9654P is the dominant performer in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. The 96-core, 192-thread configuration with 384 MB of L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth delivers Cinebench R23 multi-core scores that are 88% higher than the Intel Core 5 210H. For workloads that scale across many cores, such as rendering, scientific computing, or large-scale virtualization, the EPYC 9654P is the obvious choice. Its 12-channel memory subsystem and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes further cement its position for server and workstation deployments that require massive I/O throughput.

The Intel Core 5 210H is not without merits, but they are not visible in this head-to-head comparison. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency is paramount. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU provides a display output without needing a discrete GPU, which is essential for laptops. Its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz could benefit lightly threaded tasks, although the benchmark data does not show this advantage materializing against the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture. The Intel part also supports DDR4 memory, which may offer cost flexibility in some mobile designs, though pricing cannot be discussed here.

The database shows both processors occupy the same 77th percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are within 1.6% of each other. This is misleading, however, because the average scores include different test suites. The Intel part's average is buoyed by PassMark tests like data compression, encryption, and integer math, where it posts scores of 217,805, 12,187, and 61,503 respectively. The EPYC's average is based on a smaller set of geekbench and Cinebench results. The head-to-head Cinebench tests are the only direct comparisons available, and they are uniformly in favor of the EPYC.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision rests entirely on the workload. If the task is multi-threaded, core-heavy, and requires maximum throughput, the AMD EPYC 9654P is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. If the task is mobile, power-constrained, or requires integrated graphics, the Intel Core 5 210H is the viable option, despite losing every direct benchmark comparison. The EPYC's 360 W TDP and server socket make it unsuitable for laptops, while the Intel's 45 W TDP and BGA socket are designed for exactly that form factor. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the EPYC in raw compute, but the two are not truly competing for the same users.