AMD EPYC 7252 vs Intel Core i9-11900T Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7252 and Intel Core i9-11900T are both 8-core, 16-thread processors, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The EPYC 7252 is a server/workstation part built on the Zen 2 architecture, while the i9-11900T is a low-power desktop chip from Intel's Rocket Lake generation. Benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, performance edge for the AMD part across all tested workloads, with the EPYC 7252 winning 6 out of 6 head-to-head comparisons. The following analysis breaks down the numbers, architecture, and use cases to determine which processor fits which role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from the head-to-head benchmark suite is remarkably consistent. The AMD EPYC 7252 wins every single test, but the margins are uniformly slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7252 scores 1662 against the i9-11900T's 1572, a 5.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 234 versus 221, a 5.9% lead for AMD.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7252 posts 6929 in multi-core versus 6550 for the Intel part, a 5.8% delta. In single-core R20, the scores are 978 and 924, again a 5.8% difference. The newest Cinebench R23 test reinforces this trend: the EPYC 7252 reaches 16499 multi-core and 2329 single-core, while the i9-11900T manages 15596 and 2201 respectively. Both deltas sit at 5.8%.

The most striking observation is the uniformity of the margin. Across all six benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 7252 leads by either 5.7% or 5.9%, with 5.8% being the most common figure. This suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific strength. The i9-11900T has a much higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.20 GHz, yet it still loses in single-core tests. That means the Zen 2 architecture is executing instructions more efficiently per clock cycle.

In the broader context of the benchmark database, the EPYC 7252 holds an average benchmark score of 4772 and sits at the 59th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W-1290E with an average score of 4775, a negligible -0.1% difference. The i9-11900T averages 4685 and sits at the 58th percentile, with its closest competitor being the Intel Core i9-10900F at 4664, a 0.5% delta. The overall average benchmark score difference between the two processors is 87 points, or roughly 1.9% in favor of the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7252 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This node advantage is significant, as it allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency. The chip consists of 7,600 million transistors spread across a die size of 2x 74 mm².

Intel's Core i9-11900T uses the Rocket Lake architecture, a 14 nm design fabricated at Intel. Its die size is 276 mm², substantially larger than the EPYC's combined 148 mm². The process node difference explains much of the efficiency gap, as the EPYC achieves comparable performance while drawing 120 W TDP versus the Intel part's 35 W TDP. However, the TDP figures are not directly comparable given the different market segments.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC 7252 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 64 MB of L3. The i9-11900T has 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 16 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 pool is typical for server processors, which benefit from larger working sets. The Intel part's smaller L3 is a known limitation of the Rocket Lake design.

Memory support marks another major divergence. The EPYC 7252 uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the i9-11900T is limited to dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which is essential for server reliability, whereas the i9-11900T does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the i9-11900T offers 20 Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC 7252 targets the AMD Socket SP3 platform, while the i9-11900T uses Intel Socket 1200. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7252 scores 2329 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 5.8% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900T's 2201.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two CPUs?

A: The EPYC 7252 has a TDP of 120 W, while the i9-11900T has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory support is available only on the AMD EPYC 7252. The Intel Core i9-11900T does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7252 has an average benchmark score of 4772, placing it in the 59th percentile, while the i9-11900T averages 4685, in the 58th percentile.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7252 provides 128 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), far exceeding the 20 Gen 4 lanes of the Intel Core i9-11900T.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7252 had a launch MSRP of $475, while the Intel Core i9-11900T had a launch MSRP of $439.

Specification Differences

• Manufacturer and Series: AMD EPYC 7002 series versus Intel Core 11th Gen.
• Process Node: 7 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Intel).
• Transistor Count: 7,600 million versus not listed.
• Die Size: 2x 74 mm² versus 276 mm².
• Base Clock: 3.10 GHz versus 1500.00 MHz.
• Boost Clock: 3.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.
• TDP: 120 W versus 35 W.
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1200.
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core.
• L3 Cache: 32 MB per die (64 MB total) versus 16 MB shared.
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel versus dual-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: Supported versus not supported.
• PCIe Lanes: 128 Gen 4 versus 20 Gen 4.
• Integrated Graphics: None versus UHD Graphics 750.
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop.
• Production Status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release Date: 2019-08-06 versus 2021-03-15.
• Launch MSRP: $475 versus $439.
• Part Number: 100-000000080 versus SRKNQ.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7252 wins every benchmark test in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are close enough that the choice should be driven by platform requirements rather than raw performance. The EPYC 7252 is the clear choice for server and workstation environments where eight-channel memory bandwidth, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and ECC memory support are critical. Its 85.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 MB of L3 cache make it suitable for memory-intensive virtualized workloads or database applications. The 59th percentile ranking and average score of 4772 place it in solid mid-range server territory.

The Intel Core i9-11900T wins on power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 35 W TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC's 120 W, making it suitable for compact desktop systems or always-on machines where heat and power consumption are primary concerns. The integrated UHD Graphics 750 means no discrete GPU is required for basic display output, and the dual-channel memory bus is sufficient for typical desktop tasks. Its 4.90 GHz boost clock, while not enough to overcome the EPYC's architectural efficiency in benchmarks, suggests strong transient responsiveness for lightly threaded applications. The 58th percentile and average score of 4685 show it trails the EPYC by roughly 1.9% on average but remains competitive in its own segment.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7252 outperforms the Intel Core i9-11900T in every measured benchmark, with a consistent 5.8% advantage across both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. The EPYC 7252 also offers vastly superior platform features, including eight-channel memory, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, ECC support, and double the L3 cache. For any workload that can utilize these platform capabilities, the EPYC 7252 is the definitive choice.

However, the i9-11900T serves a different purpose. Its 35 W TDP is less than a third of the EPYC's 120 W, and it includes integrated graphics. These features make it a fit for low-power desktop builds or embedded-style applications where the EPYC's server platform is overkill. The i9-11900T is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7252 remains active, which may factor into long-term availability.

The decision ultimately hinges on the use case. Server administrators and workstation builders should select the EPYC 7252 for its performance edge and enterprise-grade features. Desktop users seeking a quiet, low-power processor with integrated graphics should consider the i9-11900T, accepting a minor performance penalty. The benchmark data shows the EPYC 7252 as the faster processor, but the i9-11900T wins on efficiency and platform simplicity. Choose based on the required socket, memory channel count, and power envelope rather than the narrow performance delta.