AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core 5 210H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9474F and the Intel Core 5 210H occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both hold the same 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The EPYC 9474F is a 48-core Zen 4 server behemoth with 96 threads, a 360W TDP, and a $6780 launch MSRP, while the Core 5 210H is an 8-core, 12-thread Raptor Lake mobile chip with a 45W TDP and a $342 launch MSRP. Benchmark data shows the EPYC dominates every shared Cinebench test by margins ranging from 397.9% to 633.6%, making the comparison less about performance parity and more about workload fit. The Core 5 210H brings integrated Iris Xe Graphics, dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support, and a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, but it cannot compete with the EPYC's twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The data clearly separates these two: one is built for massive server throughput, the other for mobile efficiency.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9474F in multi-core rendering compared to the Intel Core 5 210H?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 86,790 versus the Core 5 210H's 11,830, a delta of 633.6%. The gap is even larger in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC's 36,451 beats the Core 5's 6,504 by 460.4%.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 210H win in any benchmark category?

A: No. In the six shared head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 9474F wins all of them. The Core 5 210H has zero wins (winsA: 6, winsB: 0), though it does have additional PassMark results that the EPYC does not share, including a single-thread score of 3,539 and a data compression score of 217,805.

Q: What are the memory and PCIe capabilities of each processor?

A: The EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory, plus 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Core 5 210H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus without ECC, and provides only 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock, and does that matter for the results?

A: The Core 5 210H has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.10 GHz. Despite that advantage, the EPYC still wins single-core tests by wide margins, scoring 12,252 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,771 for the Core 5, a 591.8% difference.

Q: Are both CPUs currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in production status. The EPYC 9474F was released on 2022-11-09, while the Core 5 210H came later on 2024-12-17.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: The EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC also features a much larger L3 cache at 256 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the Core 5.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on platform. The AMD EPYC 9474F is the undisputed choice for server and workstation workloads where multi-threaded throughput is king. Its 48 cores and 96 threads deliver Cinebench R23 multi-core scores of 86,790, which is 633.6% higher than the Core 5 210H. The EPYC also offers twelve-channel DDR5 memory with ECC support and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, making it suitable for memory-bandwidth-hungry applications like virtualization and large-scale data processing. Its 360W TDP and SP5 socket are designed for rack-mounted servers, not desktops.

The Intel Core 5 210H is a mobile processor, evidenced by its BGA 1744 socket and 45W TDP. It is the right pick for laptops needing a balance of CPU performance and integrated graphics, as it includes Iris Xe Graphics 48EU. While it loses every shared benchmark to the EPYC by massive margins, its lower power envelope and integrated GPU make it practical for portable systems. The Core 5 also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving OEMs flexibility in system design. The 77th percentile ranking for both CPUs indicates they are comparable in overall standing within their respective market segments, but the benchmarks show they are not competitors—they serve entirely different physical and thermal environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a one-sided contest. In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 9474F scores 8,748 multi-core against the Core 5's 1,757, a 397.9% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 1,234 versus 247, a 399.6% lead for the EPYC. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC's multi-core score of 36,451 crushes the Core 5's 6,504 by 460.4%, and single-core R20 follows the same pattern: 5,145 versus 918, a 460.5% delta. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC reaches 86,790 and the Core 5 manages only 11,830, resulting in a 633.6% difference. Single-core R23 also shows a significant gap at 591.8%, with scores of 12,252 and 1,771 respectively. The trends are consistent: the EPYC leads by roughly 400% in older R15 tests and grows that lead to over 600% in the more demanding R23 multi-core workload, suggesting the EPYC's advantage scales with thread count and cache size.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The EPYC 9474F uses 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the EPYC versus 2.20 GHz for the Core 5, but boost clocks reverse the order: 4.10 GHz for the EPYC and 4.80 GHz for the Core 5. TDP is dramatically different, with the EPYC at 360W and the Core 5 at 45W. Sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1744. Memory support differs as well—the EPYC supports only DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, whereas the Core 5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with no ECC and no listed bandwidth figure. PCIe lanes are 128 for the EPYC versus 8 for the Core 5, both Gen 5. The Core 5 includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Market segments also differ, with the EPYC targeting Server/Workstation and the Core 5 targeting Mobile. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $6780, while the Core 5's is $342.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and scale-based. The EPYC 9474F is built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa codename, using a 5 nm process at TSMC and featuring 52,560 million transistors across a die size of 8x 72 mm². The Core 5 210H uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename and Raptor Lake Refresh generation, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 256 MB shared L3; the Core 5 has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, but only 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 cache is a critical advantage for multi-threaded server workloads. The EPYC's memory controller is twelve-channel DDR5 with ECC, while the Core 5's is dual-channel with support for older DDR4 memory. Both are locked multipliers, but the EPYC's part number is 100-100000788 and the Core 5's is SRQ6RQ5MN. The EPYC's architecture is optimized for throughput with massive core counts and memory bandwidth, while the Core 5's is optimized for mobile power efficiency with a smaller core count and integrated GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput is the priority. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 86,790 makes it suitable for video rendering, scientific simulations, and heavy compilation workloads that can utilize 48 cores and 96 threads. The 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth support data-intensive tasks like database hosting and virtual machine consolidation. The 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow for extensive I/O expansion, including multiple GPUs or high-speed network adapters. The 360W TDP is acceptable in server environments where cooling is abundant and power is not a constraint. The EPYC also wins single-core tests, with a 591.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core, so even lightly threaded tasks run faster on the EPYC despite its lower boost clock.

The Intel Core 5 210H wins in mobility and system integration. Its 45W TDP makes it practical for laptops, and the integrated Iris Xe Graphics 48EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic graphical tasks. The dual-channel memory controller supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 gives laptop designers cost and availability options. The higher 4.80 GHz boost clock helps with bursty workloads, though benchmark data shows it is still far behind the EPYC in absolute terms. The Core 5 also has access to additional PassMark tests not shared with the EPYC, such as data compression at 217,805 and integer math at 61,503, which indicate its relative strengths in those specific mobile workloads. For a user needing a capable mobile CPU with integrated graphics and low power draw, the Core 5 is the only practical choice between the two—the EPYC cannot function in a mobile form factor due to its socket, TDP, and lack of integrated graphics.