AMD EPYC 7251 vs Intel Core i9-10980HK Comparison

The Intel Core i9-10980HK and AMD EPYC 7251 are both 8-core, 16-thread processors, but they target entirely different market segments: the former is an end-of-life mobile part, while the latter remains an active server/workstation chip. The benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel part across every single Cinebench test. The Intel Core i9-10980HK wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 0.9% to 1.1%. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where Intel leads 182 to 180, a 1.1% advantage. In every multi-core test—R15, R20, and R23—Intel holds a 0.9% edge, scoring 1291 vs 1279, 5381 vs 5331, and 12812 vs 12694 respectively. The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Intel chip averages 3706, while the EPYC 7251 averages 3671, placing both at the 56th percentile of all CPUs. The data presents a picture of near-parity, with Intel's mobile processor holding a slight but consistent performance lead over the server-focused AMD chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive win for the Intel Core i9-10980HK occurs in the single-core Cinebench R15 test, where it scores 182 against the EPYC 7251's 180, a 1.1% delta. This is the only test where the margin exceeds one percent, but it sets the tone for the entire comparison. In the more demanding Cinebench R20 single-core test, Intel again takes the lead with 759 vs 752, a 0.9% advantage. The multi-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 1291, edging out the EPYC's 1279 by 0.9%. The R20 multi-core test shows Intel at 5381 against AMD's 5331, another 0.9% margin. Finally, in the latest Cinebench R23 tests, Intel maintains its edge: 12812 vs 12694 in multi-core and 1808 vs 1792 in single-core, both with 0.9% deltas. Across all six benchmarks, the Intel processor never trails, but the EPYC 7251 also never falls behind by more than 1.1%, indicating that these are closely matched silicon designs despite their different purposes.

The average benchmark scores from the nearest rivals further contextualize this narrow margin. The Intel Core i9-10980HK's average of 3706 places it just 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon E-2434 (3709) and 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-11260H (3721), while it sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7301 (3685). The AMD EPYC 7251's average of 3671 puts it 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X (3673) and 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 7301 (3685), while it is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i3-13100E (3668). This data confirms that both processors are clustered in the same performance tier, with the Intel part's consistent wins translating into a higher average score, but the differences are so small that real-world application performance would likely be indistinguishable.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark wins, the Intel Core i9-10980HK wins in every category tested. It takes the single-core crown across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), which indicates a slight advantage in lightly-threaded workloads like legacy applications, certain scripting tasks, and everyday responsiveness. Its multi-core wins, though narrow, also suggest it holds a marginal edge in fully-threaded rendering tasks. The EPYC 7251, however, wins zero head-to-head comparisons, meaning the data shows no benchmark category where it outperforms the Intel chip. The AMD processor's strengths must be inferred from its architectural features rather than its benchmark scores. The EPYC 7251 offers ECC memory support, a feature absent on the Intel part, and supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. These specifications point to a processor designed for memory-intensive server workloads where data integrity and bandwidth are critical, even if the raw Cinebench scores do not reflect a performance advantage in that specific test suite.

The Intel Core i9-10980HK's wins are consistent but not dominant. The largest delta is 1.1% in R15 single-core, and every other test shows a 0.9% margin. This means that for any user running Cinebench as a proxy for general CPU performance, the Intel part is the better choice, but the advantage is slim. Conversely, the EPYC 7251's lack of wins does not make it a poor processor; rather, the data suggests that in the tested workloads, it is essentially neck-and-neck with the Intel chip. The use-case split therefore comes down to platform features rather than raw benchmark performance: Intel wins on measured speed, while AMD wins on server-oriented capabilities like ECC and memory bandwidth, which are not captured in these particular benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is significant, even though they share the same 14 nm process node. The Intel Core i9-10980HK is built on the Comet Lake architecture with the codename Comet Lake-H, manufactured by Intel. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7251, in contrast, uses AMD's Zen architecture with the codename Naples, fabricated by GlobalFoundries. It matches the core and thread count (8 cores, 16 threads) but runs at a lower base clock of 2.10 GHz and a much lower boost clock of 2.90 GHz. Its cache is larger: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC also has a substantially larger transistor count (4,800 million) and die size (213 mm²), reflecting its more complex server-oriented design.

The clocks and cache explain the benchmark results. The Intel chip's 5.30 GHz boost clock is dramatically higher than the EPYC's 2.90 GHz, which likely drives its single-core wins. However, the EPYC's larger L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB) and higher per-core L1 and L2 caches help it stay close in multi-core tests despite the clock disadvantage. Power and platform differences are stark: the Intel part has a 45 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the EPYC 7251 has a 120 W TDP and uses the AMD Socket SP3. The EPYC supports ECC memory and an eight-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR4 without ECC and has no listed memory bus or bandwidth. The Intel chip integrates UHD Graphics, whereas the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the Intel part specifies 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC lists no lane count. Finally, the Intel part is unlocked (multiplierUnlocked: true) and was released in April 2020 with an end-of-life status, while the EPYC, also unlocked, was released in June 2017 and remains active.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Core i9-10980HK is the clear winner, taking all six head-to-head tests. If the decision is based purely on Cinebench performance, the Intel part should be chosen; it offers a slight but measurable edge in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The EPYC 7251, however, is not a losing product—it is a different category of processor. The data shows that despite its lower clocks, it nearly matches the Intel chip, trailing by less than 1.1% in every test. For users who require ECC memory support, an eight-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, and a server-grade platform with an active production status, the EPYC 7251 is the only viable option, as the Intel part lacks these features. The Intel chip's integrated graphics and lower 45 W TDP make it suited for mobile or compact systems where power and space are constrained, while the EPYC's 120 W TDP and SP3 socket demand a full server environment. The data does not support a single "best" processor; it supports a split decision: Intel for raw Cinebench speed and mobile applicability, AMD for server memory features and longevity. The Intel part wins on performance, the AMD part wins on platform suitability for enterprise workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK scores 1808, while the AMD EPYC 7251 scores 1792, giving Intel a 0.9% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Intel chip in multi-core Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK scores 5381 versus the EPYC 7251's 5331, a 0.9% lead for Intel.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK has an average score of 3706, while the AMD EPYC 7251 averages 3671.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7251 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7251 supports ECC memory, whereas the Intel Core i9-10980HK does not (eccMemory: false).

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7251 boosts to 2.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7251 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 16 MB shared L3 cache on the Intel Core i9-10980HK.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Intel Core i9-10980HK has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7251 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The Intel part has a TDP of 45 W, compared to the EPYC's 120 W. Their sockets differ: Intel uses BGA 1440, AMD uses Socket SP3. The cache configurations are different, with Intel offering 64 KB L1, 256 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3, while AMD offers 96 KB L1, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. The EPYC 7251 has an eight-channel memory bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, which are not listed for the Intel part. ECC memory support is present on the EPYC but absent on the Intel. The Intel chip includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the EPYC has none. Their release dates are April 2020 for Intel and June 2017 for AMD, with Intel marked as end-of-life and AMD as active. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $643, while the EPYC's launch MSRP is not provided.