AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Core i9-9980HK Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7301 across every Cinebench workload in the head-to-head comparison. The EPYC 7301 wins all six benchmark tests, with the Intel Core i9-9980HK failing to secure a single victory. The margins are consistent, with the AMD processor holding a lead between 7.6% and 7.7% in every test.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7301 scores 1284 against the i9-9980HK's 1193, a 7.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 181 versus 168, a 7.7% edge for AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result shows 5351 for the EPYC 7301 and 4971 for the Intel chip, again a 7.6% gap, while single-core R20 lands at 755 versus 701, a 7.7% difference.

The most demanding workload, Cinebench R23, reinforces the pattern. The EPYC 7301 posts 12742 multicore points, while the i9-9980HK manages 11836, a 7.7% lead. In R23 single-core, the scores are 1798 and 1671, respectively, with the AMD part ahead by 7.6%. These are not isolated wins; the delta is remarkably stable across all six tests, suggesting a consistent architectural advantage rather than workload-specific variance.

It is importantly the i9-9980HK has additional benchmark data in the database that the EPYC 7301 does not share. The Intel chip records Geekbench scores of 6687 multicore and 1389 single-core. However, since no equivalent Geekbench results exist for the EPYC 7301, these figures cannot be compared directly. The head-to-head section relies solely on the Cinebench suite, where AMD dominates.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for raw compute performance: the AMD EPYC 7301 is the stronger processor in every measured Cinebench scenario. The 7.6% to 7.7% win margin in both multi-core and single-core tests indicates that the AMD chip does not merely benefit from its higher core count; it also holds an edge in lightly threaded workloads. The EPYC 7301's percentile ranking among all CPUs is 56, slightly above the i9-9980HK's 55, reinforcing the benchmark results.

However, the two chips serve fundamentally different purposes. The EPYC 7301 is a server and workstation part with a 170 W TDP, while the i9-9980HK is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP. The Intel chip is end-of-life, whereas the AMD part remains active in production. For a user building a rack-mounted server or a workstation that can tolerate a 170 W TDP, the EPYC 7301 is the data-backed choice. For a laptop or compact mobile system, the i9-9980HK is the only realistic option despite its lower scores. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7301 is 3685, against 3577 for the Intel chip, a 3% overall advantage that aligns with the Cinebench results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The AMD EPYC 7301 uses the Zen architecture under the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The i9-9980HK, in contrast, uses the Coffee Lake architecture under the Coffee Lake-HR codename, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. It houses 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The EPYC 7301 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-9980HK offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has four times the L3 capacity, which likely contributes to its consistent lead in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support is another major divergence. The EPYC 7301 uses DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and supports ECC memory. The i9-9980HK also uses DDR4 but on a dual-channel bus, with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is roughly four times higher, a critical factor for server workloads.

The EPYC 7301's die size is 213 mm² with 4,800 million transistors, while the i9-9980HK has a die size of 149 mm² with no transistor count recorded. Both use PCIe Gen 3, and both have unlocked multipliers. The Intel chip includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, while the EPYC 7301 has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP3, Intel uses BGA 1440. The EPYC 7301 launched on 2017-06-28, while the i9-9980HK followed on 2019-04-22.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core i9-9980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the EPYC 7301 win in single-core performance?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, the EPYC 7301 leads by 7.7%, 7.7%, and 7.6%, respectively.

Q: Can the i9-9980HK be used in a server motherboard?

A: No. The i9-9980HK uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is a mobile platform. The EPYC 7301 uses AMD Socket SP3 for server and workstation systems.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7301. It supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-9980HK does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7301 provides 170.6 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The i9-9980HK provides 42.7 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Is the i9-9980HK still in production?

A: The database lists the i9-9980HK as end-of-life. The EPYC 7301 is listed as active.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7301 wins in every Cinebench workload recorded, making it the superior choice for multi-threaded rendering, scientific computation, and server-side processing. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 64 MB of L3 cache provide a clear advantage in parallel tasks. The 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and ECC support further solidify its position for data-center and workstation environments where reliability and throughput matter.

The Intel Core i9-9980HK, despite losing all head-to-head tests, holds a distinct advantage in power envelope and form factor. With a 45 W TDP versus the EPYC 7301's 170 W, it is designed for mobile systems where thermal and power constraints are paramount. The 5.00 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison, offering strong burst performance for single-threaded applications, even though the EPYC 7301 still edges it in the recorded Cinebench single-core tests due to architectural efficiency.

For a user prioritizing raw compute density in a rack server, the EPYC 7301 is the data-backed winner. For a user needing a laptop or compact mobile workstation, the i9-9980HK is the only feasible choice given its socket and TDP, accepting a 7.6% to 7.7% performance deficit in Cinebench. The i9-9980HK also includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, which the EPYC 7301 lacks, making the Intel part suitable for systems without a discrete GPU.

The average benchmark scores summarize the split: the EPYC 7301 averages 3685 across all recorded tests, while the i9-9980HK averages 3577. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7301 include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X at 3673 (0.3% lower) and the Intel Core i9-10980HK at 3706 (0.6% higher). The i9-9980HK's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C at 3579 (0.1% higher) and the Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 at 3608 (0.9% higher). Both chips sit in similar percentile territory, but the EPYC 7301's head-to-head sweep leaves no ambiguity about which is faster in the measured workloads.