AMD EPYC 7351 vs Intel Core i9-7920X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7351 and Intel Core i9-7920X are two very different processors from the same era, with the former aimed at the server market and the latter at high-end desktops. Despite the EPYC’s 16-core count versus the Intel’s 12-core design, benchmark data shows the Core i9-7920X sweeping every head-to-head Cinebench test, albeit by narrow margins. The data reveals a fascinating clash where architectural advantages and platform features matter more than raw core counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the dataset is the consistency of the Intel Core i9-7920X’s victories. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the Intel part wins, but the margins are remarkably slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-7920X scores 2015 against the EPYC 7351’s 1989, a delta of -1.3% from the AMD’s perspective. This trend holds steady in the multi-core tests: the i9-7920X leads by 1.3% in Cinebench R20 (8396 vs 8291) and by 1.2% in Cinebench R23 (19991 vs 19742). These results indicate that while the EPYC 7351 has 33% more cores (16 vs 12), the Intel chip’s higher clock speeds are sufficient to overcome that deficit in this workload.

Single-core performance tells a similar story with equally tight margins. The i9-7920X edges out the EPYC 7351 by 1.4% in Cinebench R15 (284 vs 280) and by 1.3% in Cinebench R20 (1185 vs 1170). The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the Intel part ahead by 1.2% (2822 vs 2787). These results underscore that the i9-7920X’s boost clock of 4.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 2.90 GHz, provides a tangible advantage in lightly-threaded tasks, though the EPYC’s Zen architecture keeps the gap from becoming a blowout.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average benchmark scores place these two chips almost exactly on par. The EPYC 7351 has an average benchmark score of 5710, while the i9-7920X sits at 5673. The nearestRivals data confirms this proximity: the EPYC 7351 is 0.7% ahead of the i9-7920X, while the i9-7920X is 0.6% behind the EPYC 7351. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same performance tier. The Geekbench results for the i9-7920X, which are not available for the EPYC, show 9297 in multi-core and 1394 in single-core, further contextualizing its performance class.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial. The AMD EPYC 7351 uses the Zen architecture on the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It features 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Core i9-7920X uses the Skylake architecture on the Skylake-X codename, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel, with a significantly larger 484 mm² die (transistor count is not listed).

The cache configurations highlight a key strategic difference. The EPYC 7351 offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-7920X counters with 64 KB of L1 per core, a larger 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 16.5 MB of shared L3. This gives the EPYC a 4x advantage in L3 cache, which can be crucial for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC 7351 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a peak bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the i9-7920X is limited to quad-channel DDR4 at 85.3 GB/s. This gives the EPYC exactly double the theoretical memory bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part. The EPYC 7351 uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the i9-7920X uses Intel Socket 2066.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC 7351 supports PCIe Gen 3, while the i9-7920X supports PCIe Gen 3 with 44 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7351 has a higher TDP of 170 watts versus the i9-7920X’s 140 watts, reflecting its server-oriented design. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, but the market segments are clear: the EPYC is a Server/Workstation part, while the i9-7920X is a Desktop part. The production status also differs, with the EPYC listed as Active and the i9-7920X as End-of-life.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Core i9-7920X is the faster processor in Cinebench workloads, winning all six head-to-head tests. The margins are consistent, ranging from 1.2% to 1.4% in favor of Intel, which suggests a systematic advantage rather than test-specific noise. The i9-7920X’s higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 2.90 GHz appears to be the deciding factor, allowing the 12-core Intel chip to outperform the 16-core AMD chip in both single- and multi-threaded Cinebench tests.

However, the choice between these two processors depends entirely on the intended use case. The EPYC 7351 offers features that are critical for server deployments: eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and a 64 MB L3 cache. These features are absent from the i9-7920X, which has quad-channel memory at 85.3 GB/s, no ECC, and only 16.5 MB of L3 cache. For a workstation or desktop user prioritizing Cinebench scores, the i9-7920X is the clear winner. For a server environment where memory bandwidth, capacity, and data integrity are paramount, the EPYC 7351’s platform advantages outweigh its slight Cinebench deficit.

The average benchmark scores reinforce that both chips are in the same performance class, with the EPYC 7351’s 5710 average edging out the i9-7920X’s 5673. The i9-7920X carries a launch MSRP of $1199, but the EPYC 7351 has no listed launch MSRP. Ultimately, the data suggests that the i9-7920X wins on raw Cinebench performance, while the EPYC 7351 wins on platform features suited for enterprise use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i9-7920X has 12 cores and 24 threads.

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

A: The EPYC 7351 supports eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i9-7920X supports quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-7920X support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7351 supports ECC memory, but the i9-7920X does not.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multi-core scores?

A: The EPYC 7351 scores 19742, while the i9-7920X scores 19991, giving Intel a 1.2% lead.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 is listed as Active, while the Intel Core i9-7920X is listed as End-of-life.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7351 has an average benchmark score of 5710, while the i9-7920X has 5673, making the AMD part 0.7% higher.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-7920X wins in every Cinebench benchmark recorded in the head-to-head data. This includes multi-core tests in Cinebench R15 (2015 vs 1989), R20 (8396 vs 8291), and R23 (19991 vs 19742), as well as single-core tests in the same suites. The i9-7920X also has Geekbench results of 9297 multi-core and 1394 single-core, providing additional evidence of its desktop performance capabilities. For users whose workloads are accurately represented by Cinebench, the Intel part is the winner across the board, with deltas ranging from 1.2% to 1.4%.

The AMD EPYC 7351 wins on platform-level specifications that are not captured by Cinebench alone. Its eight-channel memory bus provides 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the i9-7920X’s 85.3 GB/s. This makes the EPYC 7351 the better choice for memory-intensive server workloads where bandwidth is the bottleneck. The EPYC’s 64 MB of shared L3 cache is nearly four times larger than the i9-7920X’s 16.5 MB, which can benefit applications with large, repeated data accesses. ECC memory support is another decisive factor for data integrity in server environments. The EPYC 7351 also has a larger core count (16 vs 12), which could be advantageous in workloads that scale with cores but are not limited by clock speed, even though Cinebench does not show this advantage. The EPYC’s Active production status also means it is still a current product, while the i9-7920X is End-of-life.