AMD EPYC 7351P vs Intel Core i9-9920X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a sharp split between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 7351P wins six of the eight head-to-head comparisons, but the Intel Core i9-9920X secures the two most dramatic victories.

In Cinebench, the EPYC 7351P is consistently ahead across every version of the test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2231 against Intel's 2121, a 4.9% margin. The single-core R15 result is similar: 314 versus 299, a 4.8% lead. Moving to R20, the EPYC maintains its edge with 9296 against 8839 in multicore (4.9%) and 1312 against 1247 in single-core (5%). In R23, the pattern holds: 22135 versus 21046 in multicore (4.9%) and 3125 versus 2971 in single-core (4.9%). Across all six Cinebench runs, the EPYC's advantage sits in the narrow band between 4.8% and 5%, showing a consistent, if modest, performance superiority in rendering workloads.

The Geekbench results tell a completely different story. The Intel Core i9-9920X dominates in this test suite, scoring 9422 in multicore against the EPYC's 4607. That is a 104.5% advantage, meaning Intel's score is more than double. In single-core Geekbench, Intel posts 1393 against 733, a 90% lead. These are enormous deltas, far exceeding anything the EPYC manages in Cinebench. The Intel chip is clearly optimized for the kinds of memory-latency-sensitive, integer-heavy workloads that Geekbench measures, while the EPYC's Naples architecture struggles in that specific test.

Looking at overall averages, the Intel part has an average benchmark score of 5917, while the EPYC averages 5469. That places the Intel chip about 8.2% higher in aggregate, despite losing most head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in the magnitude of the Geekbench wins: a 104.5% swing contributes far more to the average than repeated 5% swings in Cinebench. The database percentile ranking for both CPUs is identical at 61, meaning they land in the same tier relative to all other processors, but the distribution of strengths is very different.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i9-9920X wins only 2, but those 2 are the Geekbench multicore and single-core tests, where it leads by 104.5% and 90% respectively.

Q: How large is the EPYC's advantage in Cinebench tests?

A: All six Cinebench comparisons favor the EPYC by margins between 4.8% and 5%. The deltas are nearly uniform, suggesting a consistent architectural edge in render workloads rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Q: Why does Intel's average score end up higher if it loses most tests?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X has an average benchmark score of 5917 versus 5469 for the EPYC. The Geekbench wins are so large (more than doubling the EPYC's score) that they outweigh the EPYC's repeated but small Cinebench victories.

Q: Do both processors have the same percentile ranking?

A: Yes, both sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database. This indicates they are broadly comparable in overall performance, despite their very different benchmark profiles.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each chip according to the database?

A: The Intel i9-9920X's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7451, with a delta of 0%. The EPYC 7351P's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W-1290P, with a delta of 0.5%.

Q: Is the EPYC's single-core performance actually better than Intel's?

A: In Cinebench, yes. The EPYC wins single-core R15, R20, and R23 by roughly 5% each time. However, in Geekbench single-core, Intel leads by 90%, so the "better" single-core chip depends entirely on the benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-9920X uses the Skylake-X architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 484 mm². The AMD EPYC 7351P uses the Zen architecture (Naples codename), also on a 14 nm process, but with a much smaller die at 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 19.25 MB L3. AMD gives each core 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, but provides a massive 64 MB of shared L3. That 64 MB L3 is more than three times Intel's shared pool, a critical advantage for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory architecture is another major split. Intel runs DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD runs DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. In server or workstation environments where memory integrity matters, that ECC support is a decisive feature.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. Intel offers 44 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU itself. AMD's listing simply says "Gen 3" without a lane count, so the database does not confirm a specific number. Both chips have unlocked multipliers, but Intel's socket is 2066, while AMD uses SP3. The Intel part is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains in active production.

Specification Differences

The core counts set the baseline. Intel provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while AMD provides 16 cores and 32 threads. That is 33% more cores and threads on the EPYC side. Clock speeds reverse the picture: Intel runs at 3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, while AMD runs at 2.40 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. Intel's boost clock is 1.6 GHz higher, a substantial gap.

Thermal design power is close: 165 W for Intel, 170 W for AMD. The EPYC draws only 5 W more despite having 4 additional cores, highlighting the efficiency of the Zen design at lower clocks. Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator, with AMD's eight-channel setup delivering 170.6 GB/s versus Intel's 85.3 GB/s. L3 cache is 19.25 MB on Intel versus 64 MB on AMD. L1 per core is 64 KB versus 96 KB, while L2 per core is 1 MB versus 512 KB.

Release dates differ significantly. Intel launched on 2018-10-18, while AMD launched on 2017-06-28, making the EPYC over a year older. Intel's launch MSRP was $1189, but no launch MSRP is recorded for AMD. The Intel part is marked end-of-life, while AMD's is active. Market segments also differ: Intel is categorized as Desktop, AMD as Server/Workstation.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The AMD EPYC 7351P is the pick for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, as it wins all six Cinebench tests with consistent 5% margins. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 64 MB L3, and double memory bandwidth make it the more capable multi-threaded renderer, and the ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running server tasks.

The Intel Core i9-9920X is the pick for Geekbench-style workloads. Its 90% and 104.5% wins in that suite are so large that they cannot be ignored. If your applications behave like Geekbench, the Intel chip is dramatically faster, and its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz gives it an edge in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks.

The identical 61st percentile ranking suggests that for a general mix of workloads, neither chip is a clear winner. The EPYC's active production status and server/workstation positioning make it the safer long-term choice for deployment, while the Intel part's end-of-life status means it is a legacy option. The EPYC also comes with ECC memory, which Intel lacks entirely. For a pure performance-per-core argument, Intel's higher clocks are compelling, but the EPYC's core count and memory subsystem win in throughput-oriented tasks.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 7351P wins in: all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), both single-core and multi-core. The margins are tightly clustered around 5%, indicating a steady advantage rather than a benchmark-specific quirk. The 16-core configuration with 64 MB L3 and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth supports this strength. For rendering farms, batch processing, or any Cinebench-correlated workload, the EPYC is the better choice.

Intel Core i9-9920X wins in: Geekbench multicore and single-core, with margins of 104.5% and 90%. These are outlier-level wins that suggest the Intel architecture handles Geekbench's memory access patterns far better. The 4.50 GHz boost clock and 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) make it well-suited for workloads that depend on high per-core frequency and direct CPU-attached expansion. However, the database shows only 2 wins out of 8 tests, so Intel's victories are concentrated in a single benchmark family.

For practical purposes, the EPYC is the more consistent performer across the database's test suite, winning 75% of the comparisons. Intel's wins, while massive, are isolated to one suite. If a workload resembles Cinebench, choose AMD. If it resembles Geekbench, choose Intel. The average scores favor Intel overall (5917 vs 5469), but the EPYC's active production status, ECC support, and eight-channel memory make it the more versatile platform for server and workstation duties.