i5-12400F vs EPYC 7552

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7552
2019
48 cores / 96 threads, 200 Watt
38.58
+214%
Core i5-12400F
2022
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
12.29

EPYC 7552 outperforms Core i5-12400F by a whopping 214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking75631
Place by popularitynot in top-1002
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.3846.21
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency18.2417.88
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Alder Lake-S (2022)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,025$180

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-12400F has 526% better value for money than EPYC 7552.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores48 (Octatetraconta-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads9612
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz4.4 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache96 KB (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache192 MB (shared)18 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size192 mm2163 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors3,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketSP3FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Precision Boost 2+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5-4800, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size4 TiB128 GB
Max memory channels82
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/s76.8 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F.

PCIe version4.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes12820

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7552 38.58
+214%
i5-12400F 12.29

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7552 61282
+214%
i5-12400F 19520

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 38.58 12.29
Recency 7 August 2019 4 January 2022
Physical cores 48 6
Threads 96 12
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 65 Watt

EPYC 7552 has a 213.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads.

i5-12400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 207.7% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7552 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-12400F in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-12400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7552 and Core i5-12400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7552
EPYC 7552
Intel Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.6 42 votes

Rate EPYC 7552 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 13986 votes

Rate Core i5-12400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7552 or Core i5-12400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.