AMD EPYC 7351P vs Intel Core i9-9900X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7351P and Intel Core i9-9900X occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, one a 16-core server processor built for throughput, the other a 10-core desktop part aimed at high-frequency work. The benchmark data shows a stark split: the EPYC dominates every Cinebench test by a consistent margin, while the Intel chip wins decisively in Geekbench. This makes the choice less about raw capability and more about matching the right tool to the right workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite paints a remarkably consistent picture. Across all six tests, the AMD EPYC 7351P wins with a delta of roughly 20.5% over the Intel Core i9-9900X. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2231 against the Intel’s 1851, a 20.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 314 versus 261, a 20.3% lead for AMD. Moving to R20, the EPYC posts 9296 multicore and 1312 single-core, while the i9-9900X manages 7713 and 1088 respectively, with deltas of 20.5% and 20.6%. The R23 results continue the trend: 22135 versus 18365 multicore and 3125 versus 2592 single-core, both showing a 20.5% and 20.6% gap.

The consistency of these margins across generations of the Cinebench test suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage for the EPYC in this rendering workload. It is not a case of one benchmark rewarding a specific feature; every iteration of the test tells the same story.

Geekbench, however, flips the narrative completely. The Intel Core i9-9900X scores 9109 in Geekbench multicore versus the EPYC’s 4607, a 49.4% difference in Intel’s favor. The single-core gap is nearly identical: 1429 versus 733, a 48.7% lead for Intel. These are massive swings. The EPYC’s six Cinebench wins are offset by two crushing Geekbench defeats, and the overall average benchmark scores reflect that split: the EPYC holds a 5469 average against the Intel’s 5301, a slim 3.2% difference.

What the data shows is that these processors are not competing on the same plane. The EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads deliver consistent, scalable performance in multi-threaded rendering, while the i9-9900X’s higher clock speeds and different memory architecture give it a decisive edge in Geekbench’s mixed workload.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD EPYC 7351P uses the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors across a 213 mm² die. The Intel Core i9-9900X uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-X codename, part of the Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen. It is also on a 14 nm process, but fabricated by Intel, and the database does not record its transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a large 64 MB shared L3 pool. The i9-9900X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and only 19.25 MB of shared L3. That 64 MB L3 is a significant advantage for the EPYC in workloads that benefit from large data sets residing close to the cores.

Memory support marks another major split. Both support DDR4, but the EPYC runs an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i9-9900X is limited to quad-channel with 85.3 GB/s. That is exactly double the theoretical bandwidth for the AMD part. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. PCIe capabilities are Gen 3 on both, but the i9-9900X specifies 44 lanes from the CPU.

The EPYC is a server and workstation part on AMD Socket SP3, while the i9-9900X is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 2066. Both have unlocked multipliers, but the EPYC remains in production while the Intel part is marked as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7351P is the clear choice for sustained multi-threaded rendering. Its Cinebench results, all hovering around 20.5% ahead of the i9-9900X, show that its 16 cores and 32 threads scale effectively in this workload. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 170.6 GB/s of eight-channel memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage for data-heavy compute tasks. It also supports ECC memory, which matters for long-running server or workstation jobs where data integrity is paramount.

The i9-9900X wins in Geekbench, and it wins big. A 49.4% multicore lead and a 48.7% single-core lead indicate that its higher base and boost clocks, 3.50 GHz and 4.50 GHz respectively, translate into responsiveness in latency-sensitive applications. The smaller 19.25 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory do not hold it back in this test, likely because Geekbench does not stress memory bandwidth as heavily as Cinebench does.

For a builder deciding between these two, the question is simple: does the workload favor many cores and massive memory bandwidth, or does it favor high clock speeds and lower latency? The EPYC answers the first, the i9-9900X answers the second.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious divergence: the EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, the i9-9900X has 10 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds also differ, with the EPYC running a 2.40 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, while the Intel chip runs a 3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. The EPYC’s TDP is 170 watts, slightly above the Intel’s 165 watts.

Cache layouts are different in every level. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The i9-9900X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3. The memory bus is eight-channel on the EPYC versus quad-channel on the Intel, with bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s. ECC support is present on the AMD part, absent on the Intel part.

Sockets differ: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 2066. The market segments are different, with the EPYC aimed at server and workstation use and the i9-9900X at desktop. The production status also differs, with the EPYC active and the Intel part end-of-life. The i9-9900X has a launch MSRP of $989, while the database records no launch MSRP for the EPYC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9900X has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC scores 22135, which is 20.5% higher than the i9-9900X’s 18365.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the i9-9900X wins Geekbench multicore with 9109 versus 4607, a 49.4% lead, and Geekbench single-core with 1429 versus 733, a 48.7% lead.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7351P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-9900X does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC has eight-channel DDR4 support with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i9-9900X has quad-channel support with 85.3 GB/s.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-9900X still in production?

A: No, the database marks it as end-of-life, while the EPYC 7351P is listed as active.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload. The AMD EPYC 7351P is the pick for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering or similar multi-threaded compute tasks, where it holds a consistent 20.5% advantage across all tested iterations. Its 16 cores, 64 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support make it a solid foundation for a server or workstation build where throughput and data integrity matter more than raw single-thread speed.

The Intel Core i9-9900X is the pick for Geekbench-style workloads, where its 49.4% multicore and 48.7% single-core leads show a clear responsiveness advantage. Its higher base and boost clocks make it better suited for desktop applications that favor lower latency over massive parallelism.

The average benchmark scores are close, 5469 for the EPYC versus 5301 for the Intel chip, but that aggregate hides the real story. These are not interchangeable parts. The EPYC is a server processor that happens to be fast, and the i9-9900X is a desktop processor with strong clock speeds. Choose based on the workload, not the average.