AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i9-7980XE Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302P and Intel Core i9-7980XE occupy different corners of the CPU market, yet their benchmark averages place them within a hair of each other. The EPYC 7302P posts an average benchmark score of 7100 against the i9-7980XE’s 7018, a 1.2% edge that sits well within run-to-run variance. However, the head-to-head data reveals a more complex story: the EPYC wins six of eight tests, but the Intel part dominates the Geekbench suite by a wide margin. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels and what the underlying specifications suggest about their intended roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302P across every version and workload type. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2800 against the i9-7980XE’s 2527, a 10.8% advantage. That same 10.8% delta repeats in R20 multi-core (11670 vs 10530) and R23 multi-core (27786 vs 25072). Single-core results follow the identical pattern: R15 shows 395 vs 356 (11% lead), R20 shows 1647 vs 1486 (10.8% lead), and R23 shows 3922 vs 3539 (10.8% lead). The consistency of that 10.8% figure across three generations of Cinebench suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The story flips dramatically in Geekbench. The Intel Core i9-7980XE takes the multi-core test with a score of 11198 against the EPYC’s 7462, a 33.4% margin. Single-core Geekbench also favors Intel: 1435 vs 1114, a 22.4% lead. These are not marginal differences — the i9-7980XE is more than a third faster in Geekbench multi-core. This split between Cinebench and Geekbench is notable because the two suites stress different aspects of the CPU. Cinebench leans on sustained floating-point and cache throughput, while Geekbench incorporates a broader mix of integer, memory, and branch-prediction workloads.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the EPYC 7302P wins six of the eight head-to-head tests, but the two Geekbench losses are lopsided enough to nearly erase that advantage in the average score. The EPYC’s 1.2% overall delta over the i9-7980XE (7100 vs 7018) is a statistical tie in practical terms. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 sits just 1.6% behind the EPYC and 0.4% behind the i9-7980XE, while the Intel Core i9-9960X trails by 2.3% and 1.2% respectively. Both processors occupy the same performance tier, but their strengths are clearly separated by benchmark type.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P wins six of the eight head-to-head tests. It takes every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core test, while the Intel Core i9-7980XE wins both Geekbench tests.

Q: How large is the Intel processor’s Geekbench advantage?

A: The i9-7980XE scores 11198 in Geekbench multi-core versus the EPYC’s 7462, a 33.4% lead. In Geekbench single-core, the Intel part scores 1435 against 1114, a 22.4% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7302P has an average benchmark score of 7100, while the i9-7980XE averages 7018. That is a 1.2% difference in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Do both processors have the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7302P and the Intel Core i9-7980XE sit at the 63rd percentile compared to all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i9-7980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC leads in Cinebench multi-core tests.

Q: Is the Intel processor still in production?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-7980XE is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7302P is marked as active production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies. The Intel Core i9-7980XE uses the Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-X, on Intel’s 14 nm process with a single 484 mm² die. The node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm translates directly into density and power characteristics, though the benchmark results show the Intel part still holds its own in specific workloads.

Cache structures differ sharply. The EPYC 7302P provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 across its four dies. The i9-7980XE offers 64 KB of L1 per core, a larger 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 24.75 MB of shared L3. That is a 103.25 MB difference in total L3 capacity in favor of AMD. The larger L3 pool likely contributes to the EPYC’s Cinebench performance, where large datasets benefit from more on-chip caching.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC 7302P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i9-7980XE is limited to quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.4x advantage in peak memory bandwidth for the EPYC. The Intel part does not support ECC memory, while the EPYC does. PCIe connectivity also favors AMD: the EPYC provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, versus 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes on the Intel part. This combination of memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes positions the EPYC for data-heavy server workloads, while the Intel part targets desktop workflows with less I/O demand.

The i9-7980XE features an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the EPYC 7302P is locked. Intel also has a higher boost clock at 4.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the EPYC, which explains its stronger single-threaded Geekbench results. The EPYC counters with a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.60 GHz, but the Intel part’s boost headroom is substantial.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i9-7980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads. Clock speeds also diverge — the EPYC runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, while the Intel part runs at 2.60 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. Thermal design power is 155 W for the EPYC and 165 W for the Intel part.

Memory channels differ (eight for AMD, four for Intel), as does memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s). ECC support is present on the EPYC but absent on the i9-7980XE. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 128 lanes on the EPYC, Gen 3 with 44 lanes on the Intel part. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 2066.

The process node is 7 nm for AMD and 14 nm for Intel. Transistor count is listed at 15,200 million for the EPYC; no transistor count is given for the i9-7980XE. Die size is 4x 74 mm² for the EPYC versus 484 mm² for the Intel part. L2 cache per core is 512 KB on the EPYC versus 1 MB on the i9-7980XE. L3 cache totals 128 MB on the EPYC versus 24.75 MB shared on the Intel part.

Market segments differ: the EPYC 7302P is a Server/Workstation processor, while the i9-7980XE is a Desktop part. Production status is Active for AMD and End-of-life for Intel. The EPYC launched on 2019-08-06, while the i9-7980XE launched on 2017-08-31. Launch MSRP is $825 for the EPYC and $1999 for the Intel part. The multiplier is unlocked on Intel, locked on AMD. Part numbers are 100-000000049 for AMD and SR3RS for Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The AMD EPYC 7302P is the better choice for sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads, as evidenced by its 10.8% lead in every Cinebench multi-core test. It also offers eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, 128 MB of L3 cache, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes — all features that favor server and workstation applications where memory throughput and I/O expansion matter. Its 155 W TDP is lower than the Intel part’s 165 W, and it remains in active production with ECC memory support.

The Intel Core i9-7980XE wins where the benchmarks reward raw clock speed and per-thread efficiency. Its 33.4% Geekbench multi-core lead and 22.4% single-core lead demonstrate that its 4.40 GHz boost clock delivers real performance in integer-heavy and mixed workloads. The unlocked multiplier offers overclocking headroom that the locked EPYC cannot match. For a desktop user running Geekbench-style applications, the i9-7980XE is the stronger performer despite its end-of-life status.

Given the 1.2% average score difference, neither processor is objectively faster overall. The EPYC suits multi-threaded, cache-heavy, memory-hungry workloads typical of servers and workstations. The i9-7980XE suits desktop workloads that benefit from high boost clocks and single-thread performance. The EPYC’s 128 MB of L3 and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the Intel part’s 24.75 MB and 85.3 GB/s, but those advantages do not translate to every benchmark. Users should choose based on the specific test suite that mirrors their actual work, since the aggregate scores are nearly identical.