AMD EPYC 7351 vs Intel Core i9-7940X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i9-7940X compare to the AMD EPYC 7351 in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-7940X wins all recorded multi-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2161 versus 1989 for the EPYC 7351, an 8.6% advantage. The same 8.6% delta appears in Cinebench R20 (9006 vs 8291) and Cinebench R23 (21444 vs 19742).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7351 beat the Intel chip in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows six wins for the Intel Core i9-7940X and zero wins for the AMD EPYC 7351. The Intel chip leads by 8.6% to 8.9% across all single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i9-7940X leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 305 versus 280, an 8.9% gap. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 1271 versus 1170 (8.6% delta), and in Cinebench R23, 3027 versus 2787 (8.6% delta).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core i9-7940X has 14 cores and 28 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Intel chip achieves higher multi-core scores in every recorded test.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i9-7940X supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The AMD chip has exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i9-7940X is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7351 is active. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $1399, while the EPYC 7351 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-7940X outperforms the AMD EPYC 7351 in every benchmark recorded. For users prioritizing raw single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench scores, the Intel chip is the clear choice. It wins by a consistent 8.6% margin across most tests and 8.9% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

The AMD EPYC 7351, however, has structural advantages that matter in specific workloads. It offers 16 cores and 32 threads, two more cores and four more threads than the Intel part. It also has eight-channel memory support with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, double the Intel chip's 85.3 GB/s. For applications that scale with memory bandwidth or need ECC memory support, the EPYC 7351 holds a meaningful edge.

The Intel chip targets desktop users with its Socket 2066 and a 165 W TDP. The EPYC 7351 is a server and workstation part on Socket SP3 with a 170 W TDP. Both are unlocked, but their market segments diverge sharply.

Who should pick the Intel Core i9-7940X? Users who need the fastest Cinebench results, want a desktop form factor, and can work with quad-channel memory. The chip's 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) and higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz give it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks.

Who should pick the AMD EPYC 7351? Users who need 16 cores, eight-channel memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC also has a larger process node advantage in transistor count: 4,800 million transistors versus no recorded figure for Intel. Its 213 mm² die size is smaller than Intel's 484 mm², suggesting better efficiency per area.

The percentile rankings are identical: both chips sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. The average benchmark scores tell a different story, though. The Intel chip averages 6147, while the EPYC averages 5710. That is a 7.7% difference in the database's aggregate metric.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. Pure benchmark chasing favors Intel. Memory-bandwidth-hungry server workloads with ECC requirements favor AMD. There is no middle ground in the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a clean sweep for the Intel Core i9-7940X. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 2161 against 1989 for the EPYC 7351, an 8.6% win. Single-core in the same test shows 305 versus 280, an 8.9% advantage. That is the largest margin of any recorded comparison.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core yields 9006 for Intel versus 8291 for AMD, again 8.6%. Single-core produces 1271 versus 1170, also 8.6%. The consistency is notable: the Intel chip maintains nearly the same relative advantage regardless of workload or benchmark generation.

Cinebench R23 multi-core gives Intel 21444 and AMD 19742, an 8.6% delta. Single-core gives 3027 versus 2787, once more 8.6%. Across six tests, the Intel chip wins by margins ranging from 8.6% to 8.9%. There is no benchmark where the EPYC 7351 closes the gap or flips the result.

The average benchmark scores in the database confirm the trend. Intel's 6147 average sits above the EPYC's 5710. When placed against its nearest rivals, the Intel chip sits between the AMD EPYC 7501 (6128, 0.3% delta) and the AMD EPYC 7272 (6186, -0.6% delta). The EPYC 7351, meanwhile, is near the AMD EPYC 7F32 (5703, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i9-7920X (5673, 0.7% delta). The Intel chip's nearest rival list includes the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (6231, -1.4%) and Ryzen 3 3100U (6247, -1.6%), showing it trails those parts slightly in aggregate.

The EPYC 7351's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W-2175 (5770, -1% delta), meaning the EPYC sits just below that server part in aggregate score. These positioning data points reinforce the head-to-head results: the Intel part occupies a higher aggregate performance tier despite having fewer cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every specification field. Core count differs: Intel has 14, AMD has 16. Threads differ: 28 versus 32. Base clocks differ substantially: Intel runs at 3.10 GHz, AMD at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks show an even larger gap: 4.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

TDP values are close but not identical. Intel draws 165 W, AMD draws 170 W. Both are high-power parts, but the EPYC's slightly higher TDP comes with two additional cores.

Sockets are completely different. Intel uses Socket 2066, AMD uses Socket SP3. This means no motherboard compatibility between the two.

Memory support shows a major split. Both support DDR4, but Intel uses quad-channel while AMD uses eight-channel. The bandwidth figures reflect this: Intel at 85.3 GB/s, AMD at 170.6 GB/s. ECC support also differs: Intel does not support ECC, AMD does.

PCIe configurations differ. Intel offers Gen 3 with 44 lanes (CPU only). AMD lists Gen 3 without a lane count in the database. This gives Intel a documented advantage in direct PCIe connectivity.

Die size differs sharply: Intel at 484 mm², AMD at 213 mm². The Intel die is more than double the size. Transistor count is recorded only for AMD: 4,800 million. Intel has no recorded transistor figure.

Cache layouts are entirely different. Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 19.25 MB shared L3. AMD provides 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. AMD's L3 cache is more than triple the size, while Intel has larger per-core L2.

The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $1399. The AMD chip has no launch MSRP in the database. Production status differs: Intel is end-of-life, AMD is active. Release dates are close: Intel on 2017-08-31, AMD on 2017-06-28.

Market segments diverge: Intel targets Desktop, AMD targets Server/Workstation. Both have unlocked multipliers. Part numbers are recorded for both: SR3RQ for Intel, PS7351BEVGPAF for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architecture story is a tale of two design philosophies. Intel's Core i9-7940X uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-X, part of the Core i9 X-Series 7th Generation. AMD's EPYC 7351 uses the Zen architecture under the codename Naples, belonging to the EPYC 7001 series.

Both are built on a 14 nm process node, but the foundries differ. Intel fabricates its chip in-house. AMD uses GlobalFoundries. This manufacturing difference contributes to the die size gap: Intel's 484 mm² versus AMD's 213 mm². AMD's smaller die packs 4,800 million transistors, while Intel's larger die has no recorded transistor count.

Core architecture differs fundamentally. Intel uses 14 cores with 28 threads, each core having 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2. AMD uses 16 cores with 32 threads, each core having 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2. AMD's per-core L1 is larger, but Intel's per-core L2 is double the size.

The L3 cache situation is reversed. Intel has 19.25 MB shared, AMD has 64 MB shared. AMD's L3 is more than triple Intel's. This large shared pool helps AMD in workloads that benefit from data sharing across cores.

Clock behavior diverges significantly. Intel's base clock is 3.10 GHz with a boost of 4.40 GHz, a 1.30 GHz boost range. AMD's base is 2.40 GHz with a boost of 2.90 GHz, only a 0.50 GHz boost range. Intel's higher clocks explain its single-core advantage despite similar architectures.

Memory architecture also differs. Intel uses quad-channel, AMD uses eight-channel. The EPYC's 170.6 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double Intel's 85.3 GB/s. This is a direct consequence of the eight-channel memory controller. AMD also supports ECC, which Intel does not.

The cache hierarchy reveals different optimization targets. Intel's larger L2 per core (1 MB) suits latency-sensitive desktop workloads. AMD's massive 64 MB L3 suits server workloads with many threads accessing shared data.

Both parts are unlocked, allowing overclocking. But the market segments tell the real story: Intel built a desktop part with high clocks and 44 PCIe lanes, AMD built a server part with high core count, massive cache, and memory bandwidth.

The EPYC's active production status means it remains available, while the Intel chip is end-of-life. For new system builds, this favors AMD in availability, though the benchmark data consistently favors Intel in raw performance.