AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i9-9940X Comparison

AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i9-9940X: these two CPUs come from opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The EPYC 7302P is a 16-core server processor built on AMD's Zen 2 architecture, while the Core i9-9940X is a 14-core desktop enthusiast chip from Intel's Skylake-X family. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the AMD part dominates every Cinebench test, while the Intel part wins both Geekbench tests. This makes the choice heavily dependent on the specific workload, rather than a simple overall winner.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P is the clear champion in rendering and multi-threaded content creation. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2800 against the Intel's 2400, a 16.7% advantage. That same 16.7% margin repeats across Cinebench R20 multicore (11670 vs 10000) and Cinebench R23 multicore (27786 vs 23810). The pattern holds for single-core Cinebench as well: the EPYC leads by 16.9% in R15 single-core (395 vs 338) and by 16.7% in both R20 single-core (1647 vs 1411) and R23 single-core (3922 vs 3361). If your workflow is built around Cinebench-style rendering, the EPYC 7302P is the consistent winner.

The Intel Core i9-9940X takes the Geekbench tests decisively. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 10466 versus the EPYC's 7462, a 28.7% lead in Intel's favor. Geekbench singlecore also favors Intel: 1468 versus 1114, a 24.1% difference. This suggests the i9-9940X has an edge in workloads that resemble Geekbench's mix of integer, floating-point, and memory tasks, likely due to its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.30 GHz.

The win count is lopsided: the EPYC 7302P wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests, while the i9-9940X wins 2. However, the Geekbench margins for Intel are nearly double the Cinebench margins for AMD (28.7% and 24.1% vs 16.7%). This means the i9-9940X is not merely competitive in its winning tests; it is dominant there, while the EPYC's wins are more moderate, though consistent.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration, with a total of 15,200 million transistors. The Intel Core i9-9940X uses the older Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-X, on Intel's 14 nm process, with a single 484 mm² die and 14 cores and 28 threads.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The EPYC 7302P has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus 32 MB of L3 per die, for a total of 128 MB of L3. The i9-9940X also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but doubles L2 to 1 MB per core, and offers 19.25 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 19.25 MB) is a major architectural advantage for data-heavy server workloads.

Memory support is another key split. The EPYC 7302P uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and supports ECC memory. The i9-9940X also uses DDR4 but with only a quad-channel bus, providing 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and does not support ECC. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 2.4 times higher, which directly supports its server positioning.

PCIe capabilities also favor the EPYC. It offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i9-9940X offers Gen 3 with 44 lanes. The EPYC's newer PCIe standard and more than double the lane count make it the better choice for expansion-heavy systems. The i9-9940X counters with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a feature the EPYC lacks, and a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.30 GHz). The Intel part is a desktop market segment product, while the AMD part is aimed at server and workstation use.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P scores 27786, which is 16.7% higher than the Intel Core i9-9940X's 23810. The EPYC wins all six Cinebench tests.

Q: Why does the Intel Core i9-9940X win Geekbench despite having fewer cores?

A: The i9-9940X has a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.30 GHz. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 10466 versus 7462, a 28.7% lead, and in Geekbench singlecore it scores 1468 versus 1114, a 24.1% lead.

Q: Does the EPYC 7302P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7302P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-9940X does not support ECC.

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

A: The EPYC 7302P has an eight-channel memory bus providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The i9-9940X has a quad-channel bus providing 85.3 GB/s. The EPYC's bandwidth is roughly 2.4 times higher.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 7302P offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The i9-9940X offers Gen 3 with 44 lanes. The EPYC provides significantly more lanes and a newer standard.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-9940X overclockable?

A: Yes, the i9-9940X has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7302P does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 16 (EPYC) vs 14 (Intel)
• Threads: 32 (EPYC) vs 28 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 3.00 GHz (EPYC) vs 3.30 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 3.30 GHz (EPYC) vs 4.50 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 155 W (EPYC) vs 165 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 (EPYC) vs Intel Socket 2066 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 2 (EPYC) vs Skylake (Intel)
• Process Node: 7 nm (EPYC) vs 14 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (EPYC) vs Intel (Intel)
• Die Size: 4x 74 mm² (EPYC) vs 484 mm² (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (EPYC) vs 1 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 128 MB total (EPYC) vs 19.25 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel (EPYC) vs Quad-channel (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s (EPYC) vs 85.3 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC Memory: Supported (EPYC) vs Not supported (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 lanes (EPYC) vs Gen 3, 44 lanes (Intel)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (EPYC) vs Desktop (Intel)
• Production Status: Active (EPYC) vs End-of-life (Intel)
• Release Date: 2019-08-06 (EPYC) vs 2018-10-18 (Intel)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (EPYC) vs Yes (Intel)
• Transistors: 15,200 million (EPYC) vs not specified (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the AMD EPYC 7302P. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2800 against the Intel's 2400, a 16.7% win. The single-core R15 test shows a similar margin: 395 vs 338, a 16.9% advantage for AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC wins multicore with 11670 vs 10000 (16.7%) and single-core with 1647 vs 1411 (16.7%). Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern exactly: multicore 27786 vs 23810 (16.7%) and single-core 3922 vs 3361 (16.7%). Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC maintains a remarkably consistent 16.7% to 16.9% lead. This indicates a stable architectural advantage in rendering workloads, not a fluke of a single test.

The Geekbench results flip the narrative. The Intel Core i9-9940X wins Geekbench multicore by a wide margin: 10466 vs 7462, a 28.7% difference. In Geekbench singlecore, Intel leads 1468 vs 1114, a 24.1% advantage. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison. The i9-9940X's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz appears to be the decisive factor here, as Geekbench tends to reward higher clock speeds and lower latency memory access. The EPYC's lower 3.30 GHz boost clock, despite its superior memory bandwidth, cannot compensate in these specific tests.

The overall score pattern is clear: the EPYC 7302P wins 6 tests with margins of about 17%, while the i9-9940X wins 2 tests with margins of about 24% to 29%. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 7100, while the Intel part averages 6657. The EPYC sits at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs, and the i9-9940X at the 62nd percentile. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-7980XE (average score 7018, 1.2% behind) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 (average score 6992, 1.6% behind). The i9-9940X's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X (average score 6647, 0.1% behind).

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 7302P if your priority is sustained multi-threaded rendering, server-style workloads, or any application that mirrors Cinebench's compute pattern. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 17%, offers 128 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory at 204.8 GB/s, PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, and ECC support. It is an active production part designed for server and workstation environments, and its 16 cores and 32 threads provide a solid foundation for parallel tasks. The EPYC also has a lower TDP of 155 W compared to the Intel's 165 W, and the data shows it has a higher average benchmark score (7100 vs 6657).

Choose the Intel Core i9-9940X if your workloads resemble Geekbench's mix and benefit from high boost clocks. It wins Geekbench multicore by 28.7% and singlecore by 24.1%, thanks to its 4.50 GHz boost clock. It also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and is positioned as a desktop part. However, it is end-of-life, has a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, and only 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Its lower average benchmark score of 6657 and its position at the 62nd percentile versus the EPYC's 63rd percentile suggest that for general compute, the EPYC is the stronger overall performer.

The data does not support a single universal winner. The EPYC 7302P is the better choice for rendering and server-class tasks, while the i9-9940X is better for clock-sensitive desktop applications as measured by Geekbench. The i9-9940X carries a launch MSRP of $1387, and the EPYC 7302P has a launch MSRP of $825, but the benchmark deltas show that price does not dictate performance in this matchup; the lower-priced EPYC dominates in the majority of tests. Your decision should be driven entirely by the nature of your primary applications.