AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i9-9990XE Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9990XE and AMD EPYC 7302P are both 63rd-percentile performers, but they achieve that status through entirely different philosophies. The i9-9990XE is an end-of-life desktop flagship with a 5.10 GHz boost clock and 14 cores, while the EPYC 7302P is an active server/workstation part with 16 cores, a 3.30 GHz boost, and massive platform bandwidth. In every head-to-head benchmark, the EPYC 7302P wins, but by a narrow and consistent margin of roughly 7.7%. The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 7302P is the better raw performer in every measured test, but the i9-9990XE offers an unlocked multiplier and a higher boost clock for scenarios where those features matter more than raw throughput.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7302P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from -7.7% to -7.8% relative to the Intel part. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 27786 against the i9-9990XE's 25637, a 7.7% advantage. Single-core results follow the same pattern: the EPYC's 3922 in R23 single-core beats the Intel's 3619 by 7.7%. If you are choosing strictly on benchmark scores, pick the EPYC 7302P. It is also the active production part, while the i9-9990XE is end-of-life. The EPYC 7302P carries launch MSRP of $825, whereas the i9-9990XE carries launch MSRP of $2800.

However, the Intel part is not without a niche. Its 5.10 GHz boost clock is significantly higher than the EPYC's 3.30 GHz, and it has an unlocked multiplier, meaning the i9-9990XE can be overclocked. The EPYC 7302P has a locked multiplier. If your workload benefits from per-core frequency manipulation and you are willing to accept the lower multi-core scores, the Intel part remains a viable desktop choice. For anyone building a server or workstation where stability and multi-threaded throughput are paramount, the EPYC 7302P is the clear winner from the data.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The Intel Core i9-9990XE is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Skylake-X architecture. It packs 14 cores and 28 threads. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, based on Zen 2 (Rome) architecture, with 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC also has a more complex physical layout: 4x 74 mm² dies totaling 15,200 million transistors, whereas the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core. The Intel part has 1 MB of L2 per core, while the EPYC has 512 KB per core. L3 cache is where the EPYC dominates: it has 32 MB per die for a total of 128 MB, versus the Intel's 19.25 MB shared. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. The EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel's quad-channel 85.3 GB/s. PCIe capabilities are also lopsided: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel offers Gen 3 with 44 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP3; the Intel is a desktop part on Intel Socket 2066.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every benchmark in the head-to-head set favors the AMD EPYC 7302P. The margins are remarkably consistent across all tests, hovering around 7.7%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2800 versus the Intel's 2584, a -7.7% delta for the Intel. Single-core R15 shows the EPYC at 395 and the Intel at 364, a -7.8% delta. Moving to R20, the EPYC scores 11670 multi-core and 1647 single-core, while the Intel scores 10767 and 1519 respectively, again with -7.7% and -7.8% deltas.

The R23 results mirror the pattern exactly. The EPYC's 27786 multi-core score beats the Intel's 25637 by 7.7%. Single-core R23 has the EPYC at 3922 and the Intel at 3619, a 7.7% difference. There are no outlier tests where the Intel part closes the gap or wins. The EPYC also has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark list—7462 multi-core and 1114 single-core—though the Intel part has no Geekbench scores in the data for direct comparison. The win count is decisive: 6 wins for the EPYC, 0 for the Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-9990XE has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is significantly higher than the AMD EPYC 7302P's 3.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the EPYC 7302P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7302P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-9990XE does not support ECC memory.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each CPU provide?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P provides 204.8 GB/s via its eight-channel memory bus. The Intel Core i9-9990XE provides 85.3 GB/s via its quad-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-9990XE and the AMD EPYC 7302P are in the 63rd percentile versus all CPUs, despite the EPYC winning all head-to-head tests.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has 128 MB total L3 cache (32 MB per die), while the Intel Core i9-9990XE has 19.25 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-9990XE still in production?

A: No, the Intel Core i9-9990XE is end-of-life. The AMD EPYC 7302P is an active production part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head data. This makes it the straightforward choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style multi-threaded rendering or single-threaded performance, as measured. Its 16 cores and 32 threads outpace the Intel's 14 cores and 28 threads in all tests. The EPYC also wins decisively on platform features: ECC memory support, eight-channel memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. For server or workstation applications that need memory reliability, high bandwidth, or many PCIe lanes, the EPYC is the only reasonable choice from this data. Its 128 MB L3 cache is also a major asset for cache-sensitive workloads.

The Intel Core i9-9990XE's wins are not in the benchmark data but in its feature set. It has a 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.30 GHz, which suggests potential advantages in lightly-threaded or frequency-sensitive tasks that are not captured by the Cinebench suite. The unlocked multiplier is another differentiator—the EPYC is locked. For a desktop enthusiast who wants to overclock and already has an Intel Socket 2066 platform, the i9-9990XE offers that flexibility. Its quad-channel memory and 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are respectable for a desktop part, though far below the EPYC's server-class bandwidth and lane count. The Intel part is also a desktop segment product, meaning it is designed for consumer motherboards, whereas the EPYC requires a server/workstation platform on AMD Socket SP3.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every major specification. The Intel Core i9-9990XE has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 4.00 GHz for the Intel and 3.00 GHz for the AMD. Boost clocks are 5.10 GHz for the Intel and 3.30 GHz for the AMD. Thermal design power is 255 W for the Intel and 155 W for the AMD. The Intel uses Intel Socket 2066; the AMD uses AMD Socket SP3. Process nodes are 14 nm (Intel foundry) versus 7 nm (TSMC). The EPYC has 15,200 million transistors across 4x 74 mm² dies; the Intel has no listed transistor or die size data.

Cache differs significantly: both have 64 KB L1 per core, but L2 is 1 MB per core on the Intel versus 512 KB per core on the AMD. L3 is 19.25 MB shared on the Intel versus 32 MB per die (128 MB total) on the AMD. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Intel uses quad-channel with 85.3 GB/s, while the AMD uses eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is false for the Intel and true for the AMD. PCIe is Gen 3 with 44 lanes for the Intel versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the AMD. The Intel is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier; the AMD is a server/workstation part with a locked multiplier. Production status is end-of-life for the Intel and active for the AMD. Launch MSRP is $2800 for the Intel and $825 for the AMD.