AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Core i7-9700KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7301 wins every single recorded test, but the margins are surprisingly narrow given the architectural gulf between these two processors. Across six Cinebench workloads, the EPYC 7301 takes all six victories, yet the largest gap is just 5.1%, and most deltas sit at exactly 5%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7301 scores 1284 against the Core i7-9700KF's 1219, a 5.1% advantage. That is the biggest win for AMD in the entire comparison. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage terms: 181 versus 172, a 5% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7301 posts 5351 in multi-core versus 5082 for the Intel part, again a 5% gap. The single-core R20 test shows 755 against 717, another 5% edge.

Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern. In multi-core, the EPYC 7301 records 12742 while the Core i7-9700KF manages 12100, a 5% difference. The single-core R23 result is 1798 versus 1708, also 5% in favor of AMD. The data shows no workload where the Intel chip pulls ahead, not even in single-threaded tests where its higher clock speeds might normally be expected to dominate.

What is remarkable here is the magnitude of the wins relative to the hardware disparity. The EPYC 7301 has twice the cores and four times the threads, yet it only leads by 5% in multi-core Cinebench tests. That suggests the Intel chip's much higher boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz) is doing substantial heavy lifting to keep the score gap modest. The single-core results, where the EPYC still wins by 5% despite its massive clock disadvantage, are more surprising and hint at architectural efficiency differences that go beyond raw frequency.

The average benchmark scores from the broader database reinforce this picture. The Core i7-9700KF sits at an average of 3787 across all recorded tests, while the EPYC 7301 averages 3685. That puts the Intel part slightly ahead in overall average, even though it loses every head-to-head Cinebench test. This discrepancy comes from the fact that the Intel chip has additional Geekbench results in the database (7620 multi-core, 1681 single-core) that the EPYC 7301 lacks, so the averages are not directly comparable across the same test suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split here is stark. The Core i7-9700KF is built on Intel's Coffee Lake architecture, a 14 nm design manufactured in-house by Intel. It is an 8-core, 8-thread part with no hyper-threading, running at a 3.60 GHz base clock and boosting to 4.90 GHz. The die size is 180.3 mm², and it uses Intel Socket 1151.

The EPYC 7301 comes from AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and represents the EPYC 7001 series. It is also built on a 14 nm process, but the foundry is GlobalFoundries rather than Intel. This is a 16-core, 32-thread processor with simultaneous multithreading, running at a 2.20 GHz base clock and a 2.70 GHz boost. The die size is larger at 213 mm², and AMD lists 4,800 million transistors for the chip. It uses AMD Socket SP3.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Intel part features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7301 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of shared L3. That 64 MB L3 is more than five times the Intel chip's total L3, which is typical for server-oriented designs that need to keep large working sets resident on-die.

Memory support also differs fundamentally. Both support DDR4, but the Intel chip uses a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 7301 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly four times the Intel figure, and it supports ECC memory. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, that eight-channel configuration is a decisive advantage.

PCIe connectivity varies as well. The Core i7-9700KF provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The EPYC 7301 also uses Gen 3 but with a much larger lane count typical of server platforms, though the database does not specify the exact lane number for the EPYC part. Neither chip includes integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU for display output.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the EPYC 7301 wins every head-to-head Cinebench test, and those are the only direct comparisons available. The Intel chip has no recorded wins in the head-to-head suite. However, the broader database context offers a more nuanced picture.

The Core i7-9700KF's average benchmark score of 3787 is higher than the EPYC 7301's 3685, a difference of about 2.8%. That average includes Geekbench results for the Intel part, which are not present for the EPYC. The Geekbench multi-core score of 7620 and single-core score of 1681 suggest the Intel chip is competitive in general-purpose workloads, likely due to its high boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel part's clock advantage is substantial on paper, but the Cinebench single-core tests tell a different story, with the EPYC winning by 5% in both R15 and R23. That said, the Intel chip's 4.90 GHz boost clock makes it plausible for lightly threaded workloads that do not appear in the head-to-head suite, such as older games or single-threaded productivity apps. The database does not record those tests, so any such conclusion would be speculative.

For multi-threaded and server-style workloads, the EPYC 7301 is the clear choice based on the data. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, make it suited for virtualization, database work, and compute-heavy tasks that scale with core count. The 5% Cinebench multi-core wins, while modest, are consistent across all three versions of the test, and the memory bandwidth advantage is enormous at 170.6 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows where these two parts diverge most sharply:

| Specification | Intel Core i7-9700KF | AMD EPYC 7301 |

|---------------|----------------------|---------------|

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Zen (Naples) |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Intel) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | Not listed | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | 180.3 mm² | 213 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB shared | 64 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC Support | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU) | Gen 3 (lane count not listed) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2019-01-07 | 2017-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $374 | Not listed |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | Yes |

The TDP difference is notable: 95 W for the Intel part versus 170 W for the EPYC. That higher power draw is the price of 16 cores and eight-channel memory. The EPYC also has a much higher transistor count at 4,800 million, though the Intel die size is smaller at 180.3 mm² versus 213 mm².

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, including every multi-core and single-core variant from R15 through R23. The Intel Core i7-9700KF has zero wins in the direct comparison.

Q: How big is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The EPYC 7301 leads by 5% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (5351 versus 5082) and by 5.1% in R15 multi-core (1284 versus 1219). In R23 multi-core, the gap is 5% as well, with scores of 12742 versus 12100.

Q: Does the Intel chip win in single-core tests despite its higher clock speed?

A: No. The EPYC 7301 wins every single-core test by 5%, including Cinebench R23 single-core (1798 versus 1708), even though the Intel part has a 4.90 GHz boost clock versus 2.70 GHz for the EPYC.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7301 has an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly four times the Intel chip's 42.7 GB/s from its dual-channel bus. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, more than five times the Intel chip's 12 MB. It also has larger per-core L1 (96 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (512 KB versus 256 KB) caches.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: The Intel Core i7-9700KF is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7301 is still active in production. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $374; the EPYC's launch MSRP is not listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on benchmark performance: the AMD EPYC 7301 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, and it does so by a consistent 5% margin across all Cinebench tests. If the decision were based solely on those six results, the EPYC is the faster processor.

But the broader database context complicates that simple answer. The Intel Core i7-9700KF has a higher average benchmark score (3787 versus 3685) and includes Geekbench results showing strong multi-core (7620) and single-core (1681) performance. The Intel part also runs at a much higher boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz) and consumes far less power (95 W TDP versus 170 W). For a desktop user building a gaming or general-purpose machine, the Core i7-9700KF offers a lower-power, higher-clocked option that still lands within 5% of the EPYC in Cinebench despite having half the cores.

The EPYC 7301 is the better choice for server and workstation deployments. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support are features that matter in virtualized or memory-intensive environments. The 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is a massive advantage that Cinebench does not fully capture, and the active production status means ongoing availability.

For a desktop build, the Intel chip's end-of-life status and lack of ECC may be less relevant, but its lower TDP and higher clocks make it a practical choice. For rack-mounted workloads, the EPYC's core count and memory subsystem win out. The benchmark results show a near-tie in raw Cinebench performance, so the deciding factors should be platform requirements: socket compatibility, memory channels, ECC needs, and power budget. Choose the EPYC for server duty, the Core i7 for desktop use.