AMD EPYC 9654P vs Intel Core i5-11500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an extraordinary disparity between these two processors. Across all six shared Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9654P wins every single contest, and the margins are consistently massive. The narrowest gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC 9654P scores 13,958 against the Core i5-11500's 2,049, a 581.2% advantage. Every other test falls within a remarkably tight band of 581.3% to 582.5% superiority for the AMD part.

In multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC 9654P's dominance becomes even more pronounced. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the AMD processor at 98,875 points versus Intel's 14,513, a 581.3% lead. The R20 multi-core test produces nearly identical proportions: 41,527 for AMD against 6,095 for Intel, again a 581.3% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core tells the same story, with the EPYC 9654P scoring 9,966 versus 1,462, a 581.7% advantage. These figures indicate that the EPYC's 96 cores and 192 threads simply overwhelm the Core i5's 6 cores and 12 threads in any parallel workload.

Single-thread performance tells a more nuanced story, though the result remains one-sided. The EPYC 9654P achieves 1,406 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 206 for the Core i5-11500, a 582.5% delta. In R20 single-core, AMD scores 5,862 against Intel's 860, a 581.6% lead. Even in R23 single-core, where clock speed typically matters more, the EPYC's 3.70 GHz boost clock combined with Zen 4 architecture produces 13,958 points, dwarfing the Core i5's 2,049. The Core i5-11500 actually has a higher boost clock at 4.60 GHz, yet it still loses by over 5.8x in every single-thread test.

The head-to-head record stands at 6 wins for AMD and 0 for Intel. There is no benchmark category in this comparison where the Core i5-11500 emerges ahead. The data shows a processor that was designed for a completely different performance tier, and the scores reflect that positioning without exception.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the EPYC 9654P wins all six shared benchmarks, the analysis of distinct strengths requires looking at the broader recorded data. The AMD EPYC 9654P's benchmark portfolio includes Geekbench results: 22,141 multi-core and 1,981 single-core. These scores place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 24,465. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11600 at 24,563 (0.4% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650H at 24,364 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-12450HX at 24,576 (0.5% behind). This clustering indicates that despite its overwhelming Cinebench victory over the Core i5-11500, the EPYC 9654P's overall average sits in a similar performance band to those mid-range desktop and mobile parts.

The Core i5-11500, meanwhile, has its own benchmark results beyond the shared Cinebench tests. In PassMark tests, it records 210,796 in data compression, 10,592 in data encryption, 15,111 in extended instructions, 51 in find prime numbers, 34,422 in floating point math, 58,352 in integer math, 17,107 in multi-thread, 823 in physics, 24,505 in random string sorting, and 3,131 in single-thread. Its average benchmark score is 23,718, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U at 23,709 (0.0% delta), the Intel Xeon 6333P at 23,823 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core 3 100HL at 23,545 (0.7% ahead).

The practical interpretation is straightforward: the EPYC 9654P wins every workload measured in this comparison. The Core i5-11500's PassMark results show it is a capable desktop processor for everyday tasks, but it cannot compete with the EPYC in any recorded benchmark. The server processor's wins are not marginal; they are categorical.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9654P belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa codename, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 78,840 million transistors spread across 12 dies, each measuring 72 mm². The Intel Core i5-11500 uses Rocket Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process, with a single die measuring 276 mm² and no transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 9654P provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-11500 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache alone is 32 times larger than the Core i5's entire cache hierarchy. This enormous cache capacity directly supports the EPYC's server-oriented workload profile.

Memory architecture also differs completely. The EPYC 9654P supports DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, yielding 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core i5-11500 uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Core i5 does not. PCIe connectivity favors the EPYC as well: it offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core i5 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Core i5 includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

Socket and platform differences are absolute. The EPYC 9654P uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Core i5-11500 fits Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC's power envelope is 360 W TDP versus 65 W for the Core i5, a 5.5x difference that reflects the server-grade design. Production status also differs: the EPYC is marked Active, while the Core i5 is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads. The Intel Core i5-11500 has 6 cores and 12 threads, which is 16 times fewer cores and 16 times fewer threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9654P scores 13,958 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core i5-11500 scores 2,049. The AMD processor finishes 581.2% ahead in this test.

Q: Does the Core i5-11500 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i5-11500 includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD EPYC 9654P does not have integrated graphics in the recorded data.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The EPYC 9654P supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i5-11500 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9654P has an average benchmark score of 24,465, while the Core i5-11500 averages 23,718. The difference is approximately 3.1% in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 9654P and the Core i5-11500 both list multiplierUnlocked as false.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD EPYC 9654P and Intel Core i5-11500:

• Cores: 96 (EPYC) vs 6 (Core i5)
• Threads: 192 vs 12
• Base Clock: 2.40 GHz vs 2.70 GHz
• Boost Clock: 3.70 GHz vs 4.60 GHz
• TDP: 360 W vs 65 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 vs Intel Socket 1200
• Architecture: Zen 4 vs Rocket Lake
• Codename: Genoa vs Rocket Lake
• Process Node: 5 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 78,840 million vs not recorded
• Die Size: 12x 72 mm² vs 276 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core vs 80 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 384 MB shared vs 12 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR5 vs DDR4
• Memory Bus: Twelve-channel vs Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s
• ECC Memory: Yes vs No
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 Lanes vs Gen 4, 20 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: None vs UHD Graphics 750
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation vs Desktop
• Production Status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release Date: 2022-11-09 vs 2021-03-15
• Launch MSRP: $10625 vs $192
• Part Number: 100-100000803 vs SRKNY

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity for workload selection. The AMD EPYC 9654P is engineered for server and workstation environments where massive parallel throughput, enormous cache capacity, and high memory bandwidth are essential. Its 96 cores, 384 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it suitable for virtualization, database workloads, and high-performance computing tasks that scale across many threads. The 581% to 582% Cinebench advantages over the Core i5-11500 quantify this purpose.

The Intel Core i5-11500 serves an entirely different segment. With 6 cores, 12 threads, a 65 W TDP, and integrated graphics, it targets mainstream desktop use. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC's 3.70 GHz, yet the recorded single-core benchmarks still show the EPYC ahead by over 5.8x, indicating that architectural efficiency and cache size outweigh raw clock speed in these measurements. The Core i5 also supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 4, which suits typical consumer motherboards.

For a buyer who needs maximum multi-threaded performance in a server chassis, the EPYC 9654P is the only choice based on this data. For a desktop user whose workloads match the PassMark profile of the Core i5-11500, that processor remains functional, but the benchmark record shows it cannot compete with the EPYC on any measured axis. The EPYC's 77th percentile ranking versus the Core i5's 76th percentile, despite the massive Cinebench gaps, reflects that the average benchmark score includes a broader mix of workloads, but in the tests shared between these two, the EPYC wins decisively every time.