AMD EPYC 7351P vs Intel Core i9-11900KB Comparison

The Intel Core i9-11900KB and AMD EPYC 7351P represent two radically different approaches to computing, with the former designed for high-end mobile platforms and the latter built for server density. The benchmark data shows a consistent and decisive victory for the AMD EPYC 7351P across every single Cinebench test, despite the Intel chip’s much higher boost clock. The EPYC leads by roughly 12.7% to 12.8% in all six head-to-head comparisons, a margin that remains remarkably stable regardless of whether the workload stresses one core or all of them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7351P wins all six benchmark comparisons in the data, making this a sweep rather than a close contest. The biggest absolute margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 22,135 against the Intel’s 19,316, a 12.7% advantage. This is the most demanding test in the set, and it shows the EPYC’s 16-core, 32-thread configuration outperforming the Intel’s 8-core, 16-thread design despite the Intel’s 5.30 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 2.90 GHz.

The single-core results tell a similar story, which is surprising given the clock speed disparity. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 314 versus the Intel’s 274, a 12.7% lead. The pattern repeats in R20 single-core (1,312 vs 1,145) and R23 single-core (3,125 vs 2,727), with the same 12.7% delta in each case. This consistency suggests the EPYC’s architectural efficiency in these specific workloads overcomes its lower frequency, or that the Intel chip is thermally constrained in its mobile form factor.

Multi-core results follow the identical trend. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the EPYC at 2,231 against 1,946 for the Intel, a 12.8% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core reinforces this with scores of 9,296 versus 8,112, again a 12.7% difference. The uniform delta percentage across all tests indicates that the performance gap is systemic rather than workload-specific — the EPYC is simply faster per unit of work in every Cinebench iteration.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall picture, though the gap narrows. The Intel Core i9-11900KB has an average benchmark score of 5,587, while the AMD EPYC 7351P sits at 5,469. This puts the Intel chip 0.2% ahead of its nearest rival, the Intel Atom x7433RE, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Celeron G6900. The EPYC, by contrast, trails its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon W-1290P, by 0.5% and is 1.7% behind the Intel Celeron G6900. Both processors land in the 61st percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are statistically peers in the broader landscape even though the head-to-head Cinebench data heavily favors AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P has 16 cores and 32 threads, double the Intel Core i9-11900KB’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i9-11900KB includes UHD Graphics 750, while the AMD EPYC 7351P has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P offers 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, compared to 51.2 GB/s on the Intel’s dual-channel setup.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7351P supports ECC memory; the Intel Core i9-11900KB does not.

Q: How do their production statuses differ?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7351P is marked as active production.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB has a launch MSRP of $539.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Core i9-11900KB uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-H codename, built on Intel’s 10 nm process node. The die size is 190 mm². The AMD EPYC 7351P, meanwhile, uses the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is larger at 213 mm², and it packs 4,800 million transistors — a figure not provided for the Intel part.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a substantially larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. That 64 MB L3 is a significant advantage for the EPYC in workloads that benefit from large, fast on-die storage.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Intel chip uses a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC uses an eight-channel DDR4 bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth — more than three times the throughput. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server environments that the Intel chip lacks.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Intel Core i9-11900KB supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD EPYC 7351P uses the older PCIe Gen 3 standard. The Intel chip’s newer PCIe generation offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the EPYC’s server platform likely provides more total lanes for expansion.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field in the data. Core count is 8 versus 16, and thread count is 16 versus 32. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for the Intel and 2.40 GHz for the AMD, while boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 2.90 GHz respectively. Thermal design power is dramatically different: 65 watts for the Intel versus 170 watts for the AMD EPYC.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate — the Intel uses BGA 1787, while the AMD uses Socket SP3. The Intel chip is a mobile-market part, whereas the AMD is a server/workstation part. Process nodes are 10 nm for Intel versus 14 nm for AMD, and the foundries differ: Intel fabricates its own chip, while GlobalFoundries makes the EPYC.

Cache specifications show the EPYC with 64 MB of shared L3 versus the Intel’s 24 MB. L1 and L2 caches also differ in per-core sizing, with the EPYC having more L1 (96 KB vs 80 KB per core) but less L2 (512 KB vs 1.25 MB per core). Memory channels are 8 for the EPYC versus 2 for the Intel, and memory bandwidth is 170.6 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. ECC support is present only on the AMD. The Intel has integrated UHD Graphics 750; the AMD has none. Production status is end-of-life for Intel and active for AMD. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $539; no MSRP is listed for the AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7351P wins every Cinebench benchmark in the head-to-head data, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and 170.6 GB/s of eight-channel memory bandwidth, position it for server and workstation tasks like virtual machine hosting, database processing, and content rendering. The 12.7% to 12.8% lead across all Cinebench tests indicates that the EPYC’s advantages in core count and memory subsystem are not offset by the Intel’s higher clock speeds in these workloads.

The Intel Core i9-11900KB, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has attributes that suit different scenarios. Its 65-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC’s 170 watts, making it far more power-efficient in absolute terms. The inclusion of UHD Graphics 750 means it can operate without a discrete GPU, which is impossible with the EPYC. Its PCIe Gen 4 support with 20 lanes offers newer connectivity options, and its mobile market segment with BGA 1787 packaging suggests it is designed for compact, integrated systems rather than rack-mounted servers.

The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz could theoretically benefit lightly threaded applications that are not represented in the Cinebench results, but the data shows the EPYC even wins single-core Cinebench tests by the same 12.7% margin. The Intel’s 61st percentile ranking and average score of 5,587 place it slightly above the EPYC’s 5,469, but this aggregate metric includes a broader test suite than the head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on platform requirements: the EPYC is the performance leader in the measured benchmarks, while the Intel offers integrated graphics, lower power draw, and a newer PCIe generation at the cost of performance in every direct comparison.