AMD EPYC 9654P vs Intel Core i5-12450HX Comparison

Intel Core i5-12450HX and AMD EPYC 9654P occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet benchmark data shows they land within 0.5% of each other in average overall score. This is a classic case where aggregate statistics obscure a massive chasm in workload-specific performance. The EPYC 9654P wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data set, often by crushing margins, while the Core i5-12450HX counters with a much lower power draw and a mobile form factor. The data shows a 96-core server monster versus an 8-core laptop chip, and the benchmark results reflect that divide clearly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9654P dominates every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with six wins out of six. The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 98,875 against the Core i5’s 11,390 — a delta of -88.5% from the Intel part’s perspective. That means the EPYC delivers roughly 8.7 times the multi-threaded rendering performance in that test. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: 41,527 for the EPYC versus 6,304 for the Intel, a -84.8% delta. The data indicates the EPYC’s 96 cores and 192 threads simply overwhelm the 8-core, 12-thread Intel part in heavily parallel workloads.

Single-core results also favor the EPYC, though the percentage gap is similar. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 13,958 versus 2,119 for the Intel — an -84.8% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 5,862 versus 889, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 1,406 versus 213. These are not close contests. Even in single-threaded tests, the EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture at a 3.70 GHz boost clock outperforms the Alder Lake part’s 4.40 GHz boost, which suggests IPC advantages and possibly better boost behavior under the test conditions.

The smallest relative gap in the head-to-head set is still enormous: Cinebench R23 multi-core at -88.5% is the outlier; the other five tests all cluster around -84.8% to -84.9%. That consistency is notable. It suggests the EPYC’s advantage is not workload-dependent in these Cinebench runs — it simply has more cores, more cache, and a higher-bandwidth memory subsystem, and the benchmarks scale accordingly. For the Intel Core i5-12450HX, there is no benchmark in this set where it manages to close the gap to within even 80% of the EPYC’s score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s Core i5-12450HX is built on Alder Lake-HX, a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 215 mm². It packs 8 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, and it has no ECC memory support. The chip includes integrated UHD Graphics 710, which the EPYC lacks entirely.

AMD’s EPYC 9654P is built on Zen 4 (Genoa) using a 5 nm process from TSMC. It features 96 cores and 192 threads, with the same 2.40 GHz base clock but a lower 3.70 GHz boost clock. The transistor count is listed at 78,840 million, spread across a 12x 72 mm² die configuration. Cache is significantly larger: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3 — that is 32 times the Intel part’s L3 capacity. Memory support is DDR5 only, over a twelve-channel bus, with a peak bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which aligns with its server positioning.

Other differences matter for integration. The Intel part uses the BGA 1964 socket and is marked as a mobile segment chip, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5 and targets server/workstation use. PCIe lanes also diverge sharply: the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory. The Intel chip’s multiplier is unlocked, whereas the EPYC’s is locked. Production status for both is listed as active, with the Intel part released in May 2022 and the EPYC in November 2022.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads. The Intel Core i5-12450HX has 8 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC offers 12 times the core count and 16 times the thread count.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare between the two?

A: The EPYC 9654P has 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-12450HX has 12 MB of shared L3. That is a 32-fold difference in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9654P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-12450HX does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9654P has a listed memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus. The Core i5-12450HX supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, but no bandwidth figure is listed for it in the data.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450HX includes integrated UHD Graphics 710. The AMD EPYC 9654P has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450HX has an average benchmark score of 24,576, while the EPYC 9654P has an average of 24,465. The Intel part is 0.5% ahead in this aggregate metric, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark in the data set.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous about raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9654P wins every benchmark where the two are directly compared, with deltas ranging from -84.8% to -88.5% against the Intel part. If the task is multi-threaded rendering, the EPYC is the only rational choice — its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 98,875 dwarfs the Intel’s 11,390. The EPYC also leads in single-core Cinebench tests, which is surprising given the Intel part’s higher boost clock, but the benchmark results speak for themselves.

However, the Intel Core i5-12450HX is not without merit. It draws a TDP of 55 watts versus the EPYC’s 360 watts, and it fits in a mobile socket (BGA 1964) with integrated graphics. The data shows the Intel part is competitive on average score purely because the benchmark suite includes a wider range of tests for it — the EPYC only has Cinebench and Geekbench results, while the Intel part has PassMark tests covering integer math, floating point math, and encryption. On the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel chip scores 3,340, which is a figure the EPYC does not have a direct counterpart for in the data.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For a server or workstation workload that can leverage 96 cores and 192 threads, the EPYC 9654P is the overwhelming winner. For a laptop or compact mobile system where power draw, integrated graphics, and a mobile socket are required, the Core i5-12450HX is the only viable option of the two. Pick the EPYC for raw compute density; pick the Intel for mobility and low power.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-12450HX | AMD EPYC 9654P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 96 |

| Threads | 12 | 192 |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 360 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 12x 72 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 78,840 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 384 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $284 | $10625 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9654P wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data set, so its territory is straightforward: any workload that runs the Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 suites. The multi-core wins are the headline — 98,875 in R23 multi-core versus 11,390 — but the single-core wins are equally decisive, with the EPYC scoring 13,958 in R23 single-core versus 2,119. The EPYC’s massive L3 cache (384 MB), twelve-channel memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s), and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it the pick for server virtualization, large-scale data processing, and high-throughput compute. Its ECC memory support and server socket further cement its role in datacenter environments.

The Intel Core i5-12450HX wins in scenarios the head-to-head benchmarks do not cover. It has integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely, so any system without a discrete GPU is automatically Intel territory. Its mobile socket and 55 W TDP make it suitable for laptops and compact builds where the EPYC’s 360 W TDP and SP5 socket are physically impossible. The Intel chip’s unlocked multiplier offers overclocking headroom that the locked EPYC cannot provide. The data also shows the Intel part has a higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.70 GHz), and while that does not translate to Cinebench wins, its PassMark single-thread score of 3,340 indicates it handles lighter, single-threaded desktop tasks without issue. For a mobile workstation or a gaming laptop, the Core i5-12450HX is the only one of these two that fits.