AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Core i9-10980HK Comparison

The Intel Core i9-10980HK and the AMD EPYC 7301 deliver nearly identical Cinebench scores despite targeting completely different market segments. The data shows the Core i9-10980HK wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are remarkably slim, ranging from 0.5% to 0.6%. Both processors sit at the 56th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 3706 for the Intel part and 3685 for the AMD part. The real story is not raw performance parity, but rather how each chip achieves that parity through fundamentally different design priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-10980HK wins every single benchmark comparison in the data set. That is a clean sweep of six victories across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The largest margin is 0.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Intel scores 182 against the AMD’s 181, and the same 0.6% margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, with 1808 versus 1798. The smallest margin is 0.5%, seen in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core.

The AMD EPYC 7301 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, its scores are so close that the practical difference is negligible. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 12742 against the Intel’s 12812, a gap of only 70 points. The EPYC 7301’s advantage lies elsewhere: it offers double the cores (16 versus 8) and double the threads (32 versus 16), making it a fundamentally different class of processor that happens to land in the same performance bracket for these specific workloads.

The use-case split is clear from the architecture. The Intel Core i9-10980HK is a mobile processor with a 45W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and high boost clocks matter. The AMD EPYC 7301 is a server/workstation processor with a 170W TDP, built for data centers where core count, memory bandwidth, and ECC support are critical. The benchmark parity suggests that for Cinebench workloads, the Intel’s higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz compensates for its lower core count against the AMD’s 2.70 GHz boost clock.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-10980HK uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-H, built on a 14 nm process by Intel. The AMD EPYC 7301 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, also built on a 14 nm process but by GlobalFoundries. Both are 14 nm parts, but the similarities end there.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with a much larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD also has a transistor count of 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm², while the Intel part does not have those figures listed in the data.

The AMD EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel memory with a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core i9-10980HK does not have a memory bus or bandwidth figure listed. Both support DDR4 memory, but the AMD supports ECC memory while the Intel does not. The AMD uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 1440. The Intel has integrated UHD Graphics, while the AMD has no integrated graphics. The Intel supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD supports PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count specified.

The production statuses also differ. The Intel Core i9-10980HK is end-of-life, released on 2020-04-01, while the AMD EPYC 7301 is active, released on 2017-06-28. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $643, while the AMD has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, exactly double the Intel Core i9-10980HK’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the single-core benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK wins all three single-core tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 182 versus 181, a 0.6% lead. In Cinebench R20, it scores 759 versus 755, a 0.5% lead. In Cinebench R23, it scores 1808 versus 1798, a 0.6% lead.

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

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK has an average benchmark score of 3706, while the AMD EPYC 7301 has an average benchmark score of 3685. The Intel is ahead by 21 points, which is a 0.6% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7301 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-10980HK does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has eight-channel memory and a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i9-10980HK does not have a memory bandwidth figure listed in the data.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i9-10980HK has UHD Graphics integrated. The AMD EPYC 7301 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Intel Core i9-10980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The Intel has a TDP of 45W, while the AMD has a TDP of 170W.

The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1440 for the Core i9-10980HK, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7301. The cache sizes differ across all levels: the Intel has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 16 MB shared L3, while the AMD has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 64 MB shared L3. The Intel uses a single-channel memory bus (not specified), while the AMD uses eight-channel memory. The AMD has a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, which the Intel does not list.

The AMD supports ECC memory, the Intel does not. The Intel has integrated UHD Graphics, the AMD has none. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $643, the AMD has no launch MSRP listed. The Intel is end-of-life, the AMD is active. The Intel was released in 2020, the AMD in 2017. The Intel is manufactured by Intel on a 14 nm process, the AMD by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The AMD has a transistor count of 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm², neither of which is listed for the Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern of Intel wins with margins that are almost too small to matter. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 1291 against the AMD’s 1284, a 0.5% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Intel scores 182 against 181, a 0.6% lead. These are the smallest margins in the entire comparison.

In Cinebench R20, the pattern repeats. The Intel wins multi-core with 5381 against 5351, a 0.6% lead. The Intel wins single-core with 759 against 755, a 0.5% lead. The margins are consistent, hovering around half a percent.

The Cinebench R23 results follow the same trend. The Intel wins multi-core with 12812 against 12742, a 0.5% lead. The Intel wins single-core with 1808 against 1798, a 0.6% lead. Across all six benchmarks, the Intel’s largest advantage is 0.6% and its smallest is 0.5%. The AMD EPYC 7301 never wins, but it also never falls behind by more than 70 points in any multi-core test.

The significance of these results lies in the context. The Intel Core i9-10980HK achieves these wins with half the cores and half the threads of the AMD EPYC 7301. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the AMD’s 2.70 GHz, is the likely driver of the single-core advantage. The AMD’s 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth do not translate into a Cinebench advantage, as the benchmark appears to favor the Intel’s higher clock speeds.

The nearest rivals data confirms that both processors are closely matched to similar parts. The Intel’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E-2434 with an average score of 3709, just 0.1% higher. The AMD’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X with an average score of 3673, just 0.3% higher. They are also rivals to each other, with the Intel at 3706 and the AMD at 3685, a 0.6% difference.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i9-10980HK is the better choice for Cinebench performance, winning all six benchmarks against the AMD EPYC 7301. The margins are small, but they are consistent across all tests. The Intel achieves this with a 45W TDP, making it suitable for mobile applications where power consumption is a constraint. Its integrated UHD Graphics add functionality that the AMD lacks entirely.

The AMD EPYC 7301 is the better choice for server and workstation deployments where core count, ECC memory support, and memory bandwidth are priorities. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide double the parallel processing capacity of the Intel part, even if Cinebench does not show a benefit. The eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth support memory-intensive workloads. The 64 MB of L3 cache is four times larger than the Intel’s 16 MB.

The benchmark results show that the Intel Core i9-10980HK is the performance leader in this specific comparison, but the AMD EPYC 7301 is not a slower processor in absolute terms. It is a different processor for a different purpose, and its benchmark scores are within 0.6% of the Intel part. The Intel is end-of-life, while the AMD remains active, suggesting longer availability for new deployments. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $643, which the data notes only once, while the AMD has no listed price.

For a mobile workstation user who needs Cinebench performance and integrated graphics, the Intel Core i9-10980HK is the clear pick based on the benchmark data. For a server administrator who needs ECC memory, eight-channel bandwidth, and double the core count, the AMD EPYC 7301 is the appropriate choice despite losing the benchmark comparison. The data supports both conclusions, depending on the use case. The Intel wins on raw Cinebench scores; the AMD wins on platform features and server-oriented specifications.