AMD EPYC 7262 vs Intel Core i9-9820X Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7262 wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i9-9820X. In six Cinebench tests spanning R15, R20, and R23, the EPYC 7262 takes the win with a consistent deltaPct of 1.2% to 1.3%. The AMD part's average benchmark score of 5109 edges out Intel's 5049, a 1.2% advantage. Both processors sit at the 60th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier, but the EPYC 7262 is the faster chip in every measured scenario.

The EPYC 7262 is the pick for anyone running server or workstation workloads who needs ECC memory support, eight-channel memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 4 connectivity. The Core i9-9820X targets desktop users who want an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, but the data shows it simply cannot match the EPYC in raw Cinebench scores. The Intel part is end-of-life production status, while the AMD chip remains active. The EPYC 7262 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $575 compared to $889 for the Core i9-9820X. For buyers choosing strictly on benchmark performance, the EPYC 7262 is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7262 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the "Rome" codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process node. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a die layout of 4x 74 mm². The Intel Core i9-9820X uses the older Skylake architecture under the "Skylake-X" codename, built on Intel's 14 nm process. The Intel chip has no transistor count or die size listed in the data, reflecting its less-documented design.

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 7262 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i9-9820X has 10 cores and 20 threads. Despite having two fewer cores and four fewer threads, the AMD chip still wins every benchmark. The EPYC 7262 clocks lower, with a 3.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, versus the Intel's 3.30 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The Intel part's 0.8 GHz boost advantage is not enough to overcome the architectural efficiency of Zen 2.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC 7262 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3. The Core i9-9820X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16.5 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's massive L3 cache advantage — 128 MB versus 16.5 MB — likely contributes to its benchmark consistency.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC 7262 supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core i9-9820X uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. That is a 119.5 GB/s bandwidth deficit for Intel. PCIe connectivity follows the same pattern: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel part is limited to Gen 3 with 44 lanes.

The EPYC 7262 has a TDP of 155 watts, while the Core i9-9820X draws 165 watts. The AMD chip achieves higher performance with lower power consumption. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, which the EPYC lacks, but the benchmark data shows that headroom is not reflected in stock scores. The EPYC 7262 targets the server/workstation segment on AMD Socket SP3, whereas the Core i9-9820X is a desktop part on Intel Socket 2066.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7262 wins in every Cinebench test, making it the superior choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD chip scores 17,662 versus Intel's 17,459, a 1.2% margin. In R20 multicore, the gap is 7,418 versus 7,332, again 1.2%. The R15 multicore test shows 1,780 versus 1,759, also 1.2%. These consistent margins across three generations of Cinebench indicate a stable architectural advantage.

Single-core performance also favors the EPYC 7262, though by a slightly larger margin in one test. The R20 single-core result shows 1,047 versus 1,034, a 1.3% delta — the largest win for AMD in any test. R15 single-core is 251 versus 248 (1.2%), and R23 single-core is 2,493 versus 2,464 (1.2%). Even with the Intel chip's higher 4.20 GHz boost clock, the Zen 2 core design delivers better per-thread performance.

The Core i9-9820X wins zero benchmarks in this head-to-head comparison. Its only theoretical advantages are qualitative: an unlocked multiplier for enthusiasts, and a desktop market segment with socket 2066 compatibility. The Intel part also has more cores (10 versus 8) and a smaller L3 cache (16.5 MB versus 128 MB), but those attributes do not translate into benchmark victories. The data shows the EPYC 7262 is the better processor for every measured workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i9-9820X has 10 cores and 20 threads, compared to the AMD EPYC 7262's 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite this disadvantage, the EPYC 7262 wins all six Cinebench benchmarks.

Q: Does the EPYC 7262 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7262 supports ECC memory across an eight-channel DDR4 bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core i9-9820X does not support ECC and has a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7262 scores 17,662 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core i9-9820X scores 17,459. The AMD chip leads by 1.2%.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier?

A: Yes, both are at the 60th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7262 has an average benchmark score of 5,109, and the Core i9-9820X averages 5,049, a difference of 1.2%.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7262 is marked as "Active" production status, while the Intel Core i9-9820X is marked as "End-of-life."

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core i9-9820X has a 3.30 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock, compared to the EPYC 7262's 3.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The Intel chip's higher clocks do not result in higher benchmark scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7262 across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are tight but consistent, ranging from 1.2% to 1.3%. This uniformity suggests the Zen 2 architecture's efficiency is the deciding factor, not any single test's characteristics.

The largest delta comes in Cinebench R20 single-core. The EPYC 7262 scores 1,047 against the Core i9-9820X's 1,034, a 1.3% advantage. This is notable because the Intel chip has a substantially higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. The AMD part's lower clock speed still produces a higher single-thread score, indicating superior instructions-per-clock efficiency.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 7262 posts 17,662 versus 17,459 for Intel, a 203-point gap. The AMD chip achieves this with only 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 10 cores and 20 threads. The EPYC's 128 MB of L3 cache versus Intel's 16.5 MB likely helps the AMD chip feed its cores more effectively despite the core-count deficit.

Cinebench R20 multicore follows the same pattern: 7,418 for AMD against 7,332 for Intel, a 1.2% delta. The R15 multicore test shows 1,780 versus 1,759, also 1.2% in favor of AMD. These multicore results are particularly telling because the Intel chip's two extra cores and four extra threads should theoretically give it an advantage in heavily threaded workloads. The data shows the opposite.

The single-core tests in R15 and R23 mirror the multicore results. R15 single-core is 251 for AMD versus 248 for Intel (1.2%). R23 single-core is 2,493 versus 2,464 (1.2%). Every single benchmark, regardless of generation or thread count, lands in the same narrow 1.2% to 1.3% band. This consistency is remarkable and points to a fundamental architectural edge rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The nearest rival data reinforces the EPYC 7262's position. Its closest competitor, the Intel Core i9-7900X, scores 5,120 on average, just 0.2% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE trails by 0.8%, and the Intel Xeon W-2155 trails by 0.7%. The Core i9-9820X's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-12900TE at 5,050 (0% delta), with the Intel Xeon Gold 6334 0.1% ahead and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE 0.4% ahead.

In summary, the EPYC 7262 wins all six benchmarks with a 1.2% to 1.3% margin. It achieves this with fewer cores, lower clock speeds, and lower TDP (155 watts versus 165 watts). The Intel Core i9-9820X cannot claim a single victory in this comparison, making the AMD part the definitive choice based on the available data.