i7-14700F vs EPYC 7352

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7352
2019
24 cores / 48 threads, 155 Watt
25.41
Core i7-14700F
2024
20 cores / 28 threads, 65 Watt
27.08
+6.6%

Core i7-14700F outperforms EPYC 7352 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking199182
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.3165.53
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency15.5139.43
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Raptor Lake-R (2023−2024)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,350$359

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-14700F has 479% better value for money than EPYC 7352.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads4828
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.4 GHz
Multiplier23no data
L1 cache96K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)33 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size192 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F 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
SocketTR4FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F. 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 7352 and Core i7-14700F 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 7352 and Core i7-14700F 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 7352 and Core i7-14700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5-5600, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size4 TiB192 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/s89.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F.

PCIe versionno data5.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 7352 25.41
i7-14700F 27.08
+6.6%

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 7352 40370
i7-14700F 43014
+6.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.41 27.08
Recency 7 August 2019 8 January 2024
Physical cores 24 20
Threads 48 28
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 65 Watt

EPYC 7352 has 20% more physical cores and 71.4% more threads.

i7-14700F, on the other hand, has a 6.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 138.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F.

Be aware that EPYC 7352 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-14700F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7352 and Core i7-14700F, 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 7352
EPYC 7352
Intel Core i7-14700F
Core i7-14700F

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.


4.7 3 votes

Rate EPYC 7352 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 309 votes

Rate Core i7-14700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7352 or Core i7-14700F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.