Ultra 5 125H vs EPYC 7552
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7552 outperforms Core Ultra 5 125H by a whopping 176% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 75 | 529 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.38 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Intel Meteor Lake-H |
| Power efficiency | 18.26 | 47.28 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Meteor Lake-H (2023) |
| Release date | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,025 | $375 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H 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 cores | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 4 |
| Efficient-cores | no data | 8 |
| Low Power Efficient-cores | no data | 2 |
| Threads | 96 | 18 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | 22 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 192 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | Intel 4 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 110 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H 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 configuration | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | FCBGA2049 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, ONNX RT |
Security technologies
EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | 96 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel® Arc™ graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 2.2 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2400 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.2 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 28 |
| PCI support | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.58 | 13.99 |
| Recency | 7 August 2019 | 14 December 2023 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 14 |
| Threads | 96 | 18 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 28 Watt |
EPYC 7552 has a 175.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 242.9% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads.
Ultra 5 125H, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and 614.3% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7552 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 5 125H in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 5 125H is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7552 and Core Ultra 5 125H, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
