AMD EPYC 9654P vs Intel Core i7-11850H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a starkly one-sided comparison. The AMD EPYC 9654P wins all eight head-to-head benchmark matchups, with the Intel Core i7-11850H failing to claim a single victory in the database. The most dramatic divides occur in multi-threaded workloads, where the EPYC’s 96 cores and 192 threads overwhelm the mobile chip’s 8 cores and 16 threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 98,875 against the Intel’s 16,673, a delta of -83.1% from the perspective of the i7. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of two entirely different market segments.

The single-core results are comparatively closer, yet the EPYC still wins. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 9654P scores 1,981 versus the i7-11850H’s 1,703, a 14% deficit for the Intel part. The EPYC’s advantage shrinks in this test because the i7’s boost clock of 4.80 GHz is significantly higher than the EPYC’s 3.70 GHz. However, the EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture and higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz compensate enough to take the win. For users prioritizing raw single-thread performance, the i7 is closer to parity, but the data does not show it winning any test.

Given the benchmark scores, the choice is clear based on workload. The EPYC 9654P is the only option for heavily parallel server workloads, rendering, scientific computing, or any task that scales across many cores. The i7-11850H, with its lower TDP of 35 watts and integrated UHD Graphics 750, is designed for mobile systems where power efficiency and portability matter. Neither processor is a substitute for the other; the data suggests they serve mutually exclusive use cases. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $10625, while the i7’s is $395, but the performance gap in multi-core tests is far larger than the price gap, indicating the EPYC’s position as a high-end server part.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is immediately visible in the process node and foundry. The Intel Core i7-11850H uses a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel, while the AMD EPYC 9654P uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. This node advantage gives the EPYC a transistor density edge, with the database listing 78,840 million transistors across 12 chiplets, each measuring 72 mm². The Intel die is a monolithic 190 mm² design. The EPYC’s 5 nm node allows for a massive core count: 96 cores and 192 threads, versus the i7’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel i7-11850H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 9654P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but a massive shared 384 MB L3 cache. This 16x difference in L3 capacity is a decisive factor for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, as the EPYC can hold far more data on-die. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not, making the EPYC suitable for error-sensitive server environments.

Memory support is another clear separator. The i7-11850H uses DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 9654P uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s. This nearly 9x bandwidth advantage is critical for the EPYC’s multi-core throughput. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the i7 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The EPYC’s I/O capabilities are designed for enterprise storage and networking, whereas the i7’s lanes are sufficient for a mobile laptop’s GPU and SSD.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1787 for the i7, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU or server management controller, while the i7 includes UHD Graphics 750. The EPYC’s TDP is 360 watts, over ten times the i7’s 35 watts, reflecting its server-oriented power delivery and cooling requirements. The release dates also differ, with the i7 launching on 2021-05-10 and the EPYC on 2022-11-09, indicating a generational gap of over a year.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Intel Core i7-11850H has 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC offers 12 times the core count and 12 times the thread count.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9654P wins all single-core tests in the database. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 1,981 versus the i7’s 1,703, a 14% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 13,958 versus 2,353, a much larger 83.1% gap, despite the i7’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz.

Q: Is the EPYC 9654P faster in multi-core workloads?

A: Yes, overwhelmingly. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 98,875 versus the i7’s 16,673, an 83.1% difference. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 22,141 versus 8,002, a 63.9% difference. The EPYC’s higher core count and memory bandwidth drive these results.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Intel i7-11850H supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9654P supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not.

Q: Do they have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel i7-11850H includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD EPYC 9654P does not have integrated graphics, as it is designed for server use where a discrete GPU or remote management is standard.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-11850H has an average benchmark score of 24,935, and the EPYC 9654P has an average score of 24,465. Despite the EPYC’s dominance in the head-to-head tests, their averages are nearly identical, differing by less than 2%. This is because the i7 has additional PassMark scores recorded, while the EPYC only has Cinebench and Geekbench results, which skews the average.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based solely on the database records:

• Cores: 8 (Intel) versus 96 (AMD)
• Threads: 16 (Intel) versus 192 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 2.10 GHz (Intel) versus 2.40 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz (Intel) versus 3.70 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 35 watts (Intel) versus 360 watts (AMD)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1787 versus AMD Socket SP5
• Process Node: 10 nm (Intel) versus 5 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: Not listed for Intel; 78,840 million for AMD
• Die Size: 190 mm² (Intel) versus 12x 72 mm² (AMD)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (Intel) versus 64 KB per core (AMD)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (Intel) versus 1 MB per core (AMD)
• L3 Cache: 24 MB shared (Intel) versus 384 MB shared (AMD)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (Intel) versus DDR5 (AMD)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (Intel) versus Twelve-channel (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s (Intel) versus 460.8 GB/s (AMD)
• ECC Memory: False (Intel) versus True (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 Lanes (Intel) versus Gen 5, 128 Lanes (AMD)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 750 (Intel) versus None (AMD)
• Market Segment: Mobile (Intel) versus Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Release Date: 2021-05-10 (Intel) versus 2022-11-09 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $395 (Intel) versus $10625 (AMD)
• Part Number: SRKT4 (Intel) versus 100-100000803 (AMD)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records eight benchmark comparisons, and the AMD EPYC 9654P wins every one. The results are grouped into two distinct patterns: massive multi-core leads and smaller, but still decisive, single-core leads.

In the Cinebench suite, the EPYC’s dominance is absolute. For Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 9,966 versus the i7’s 1,680, a delta of -83.1% for the Intel part. The R15 single-core test shows a similar percentage gap: EPYC at 1,406 versus i7 at 237, again -83.1%. Moving to R20, the multi-core score is 41,527 (EPYC) versus 7,002 (i7), and single-core is 5,862 versus 988. The R23 results continue the trend: multi-core 98,875 versus 16,673, and single-core 13,958 versus 2,353. The consistent -83.1% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates the EPYC’s per-core performance advantage is compounded by its core count.

The Geekbench results show a different scaling. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 22,141 versus 8,002, a delta of -63.9%. This is a smaller gap than Cinebench, suggesting the Geekbench workload is less scalable across the EPYC’s 96 cores. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC scores 1,981 versus 1,703, a delta of only -14%. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, reflecting the i7’s superior boost clock of 4.80 GHz. However, the EPYC still wins, meaning its Zen 4 architecture and higher base clock of 2.40 GHz overcome the i7’s clock speed advantage in this test.

The i7-11850H has additional PassMark benchmarks recorded in its profile, but these are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the EPYC lacks corresponding scores. Therefore, the only measurable outcomes are the eight wins for the EPYC. The data shows no benchmark where the i7 leads, even marginally.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9654P is the winner in every recorded test. However, the nature of the wins suggests distinct use-case advantages.

The EPYC 9654P wins decisively in all multi-threaded scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 98,875 versus 16,673 indicates it is suited for CPU-intensive parallel tasks: video rendering, 3D simulation, scientific analysis, and database processing. The 384 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth support workloads that stream large datasets across many cores. The EPYC’s server market segment and ECC memory support further align with data center reliability requirements. For any task that can utilize 96 cores, the EPYC is the clear choice.

The EPYC also wins single-core tests, but the margin narrows significantly, especially in Geekbench where the delta is -14%. This implies that for lightly threaded applications, the i7-11850H is not far behind. The i7’s 4.80 GHz boost clock is the highest in the comparison, giving it a theoretical advantage in latency-sensitive tasks. However, the recorded data shows the EPYC’s single-core performance is still superior, likely due to the 5 nm Zen 4 architecture’s efficiency.

The Intel Core i7-11850H’s wins are not in performance but in deployment characteristics. Its 35 watt TDP and integrated graphics make it viable for mobile workstations or laptops where cooling and battery life are constrained. Its smaller die size of 190 mm² and lower launch MSRP of $395 reflect its consumer positioning. The EPYC’s 360 watt TDP and $10625 launch MSRP require enterprise infrastructure. The i7 also supports DDR4, which is cheaper and more common in laptops, while the EPYC’s DDR5 is modern but expensive.

In summary, the EPYC 9654P wins every benchmark, but the i7-11850H wins on portability and power envelope. The data does not support the i7 winning any computational test, yet its mobile design and lower power draw make it the only choice for battery-powered systems. The EPYC is the unequivocal performance leader, while the i7 serves a niche that the EPYC cannot due to its size and power requirements.