AMD EPYC 7371 vs Intel Core i9-9980XE Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7371 and Intel Core i9-9980XE represent two distinct philosophies for high-core-count computing, one aimed at the server room and the other at the extreme desktop. While both processors share a 14 nm manufacturing process and target demanding workloads, the benchmark data reveals a consistent, albeit narrow, performance advantage for the Intel part across all tested scenarios, despite the EPYC's server-grade feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are remarkably uniform, with the Intel Core i9-9980XE winning all six Cinebench comparisons by a margin of approximately 2.3% in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-9980XE scores 2699 against the EPYC 7371's 2637, a delta of -2.3%. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20, where Intel scores 11247 versus AMD's 10988, and again in Cinebench R23, with scores of 26780 and 26164 respectively. The consistency of this 2.3% gap across three generations of the Cinebench test suggests a fundamental, fixed performance difference rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly tighter. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Intel part leads 380 to 372, a 2.1% advantage. This gap widens marginally to 2.3% in both Cinebench R20 (1587 vs 1551) and Cinebench R23 (3780 vs 3693). The i9-9980XE's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.80 GHz likely explains this consistent single-threaded lead, allowing the Intel chip to pull ahead in lightly-threaded tasks despite having two fewer cores.

It is worth remembering despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, the EPYC 7371's average benchmark score of 7568 actually exceeds the i9-9980XE's average of 7398. This seeming contradiction arises because the EPYC's average is calculated across its six Cinebench results, while the Intel part's average includes additional Geekbench scores of 11270 multi-core and 1437 single-core, which pull its overall average down. The nearest-rival data for the EPYC shows it sitting at parity with the Intel Core i5-6500 (deltaPct 0) and just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, while the i9-9980XE sits 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 7282 and 0.2% behind the Intel Core i9-9990XE. Both processors land in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar tier in the broader performance landscape.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Core i9-9980XE in raw computational throughput. Across every Cinebench workload, single-core or multi-core, the Intel part delivers a consistent 2.1% to 2.3% advantage over the AMD EPYC 7371. For users whose primary concern is maximizing Cinebench scores or similar render workloads, the i9-9980XE is the objectively faster processor.

However, the verdict is not solely about performance. The EPYC 7371 is a server-class part with eight-channel DDR4 memory support delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the i9-9980XE's quad-channel 85.3 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part. For workstation or server environments where memory bandwidth and error correction are critical, these features may outweigh the modest 2.3% performance deficit in compute-bound tasks. The EPYC's status as an active production part, versus the i9-9980XE's end-of-life status, further suggests that AMD's platform offers a more future-proof acquisition path for enterprise buyers.

The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and a larger physical die (484 mm² vs 213 mm²), though the EPYC's larger 64 MB shared L3 cache dwarfs Intel's 24.75 MB. Ultimately, the choice hinges on platform priorities: the i9-9980XE wins on raw Cinebench performance and desktop-oriented features, while the EPYC 7371 wins on memory architecture, ECC support, and production longevity.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectural blueprints. The AMD EPYC 7371 uses the Zen architecture under the "Naples" codename, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core i9-9980XE uses the Skylake architecture under the "Skylake-X" codename, fabricated in-house by Intel on a 14 nm process with a substantially larger 484 mm² die. The Intel part packs 18 cores and 36 threads versus the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, giving Intel a two-core, four-thread advantage that partially explains its multi-core wins.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The EPYC 7371 allocates 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its standout feature is a massive 64 MB shared L3 cache. The i9-9980XE uses 64 KB of L1 and a larger 1 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is only 24.75 MB. This means the EPYC has over 2.5 times the L3 cache, which can be advantageous for workloads with large working sets that benefit from on-die caching.

Memory architecture further distinguishes the two. The EPYC 7371 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and includes ECC memory support. The i9-9980XE supports quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and lacks ECC support. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the Intel part, a critical factor for memory-bound server workloads. Both processors use PCIe Gen 3, but the Intel part specifies 44 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC's lane count is not specified in the data. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 2066, and both have unlocked multipliers for overclocking.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-9980XE scores 26780 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 2.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7371's score of 26164.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7371 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7371 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE does not support ECC memory.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 provides 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth via eight-channel DDR4, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE provides 85.3 GB/s via quad-channel DDR4, making the EPYC's bandwidth exactly double.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i9-9980XE has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7371's boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 is listed as "Active" in production, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE is listed as "End-of-life".

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-9980XE wins in every benchmark category recorded in this data set. It leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, by margins ranging from 2.1% to 2.3%. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz and additional two cores and four threads give it a decisive edge in all tested render workloads. For single-threaded tasks, the 380 vs 372 score in Cinebench R15 single-core and 3780 vs 3693 in Cinebench R23 single-core demonstrate that Intel's architectural efficiency and clock speed advantage translate directly to wins in lightly-threaded applications.

The AMD EPYC 7371 wins in platform-level features that are not captured by Cinebench scores. Its eight-channel memory architecture provides 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the Intel part's 85.3 GB/s, making it superior for memory-intensive workloads such as large-scale virtualization, database operations, or in-memory analytics. The EPYC's ECC memory support is a critical advantage for mission-critical server environments where data integrity is paramount. Additionally, the EPYC's 64 MB shared L3 cache, more than double the Intel part's 24.75 MB, offers a potential advantage for workloads with large, frequently-accessed datasets that fit within the cache. The EPYC's active production status also means it remains a viable option for new server deployments, whereas the i9-9980XE is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between the two processors. The AMD EPYC 7371 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads. Base clocks are 3.10 GHz for the EPYC and 3.00 GHz for the i9-9980XE, but the Intel part boosts significantly higher at 4.50 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power is similar, with the EPYC rated at 170 W and the Intel part at 165 W.

The EPYC 7371 uses AMD Socket SP3 and the Zen (Naples) architecture, while the i9-9980XE uses Intel Socket 2066 and the Skylake-X architecture. Process nodes are identical at 14 nm, but foundries differ: GlobalFoundries for AMD and Intel for its own part. The EPYC's die is 213 mm² with 4,800 million transistors, while the Intel die is 484 mm² with no transistor count specified.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. The i9-9980XE has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 24.75 MB of shared L3. Memory support favors the EPYC with eight-channel DDR4 and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, versus quad-channel DDR4 and 85.3 GB/s for Intel. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. The Intel part specifies 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC's lane count is unspecified. Market segments differ: the EPYC targets Server/Workstation, while the i9-9980XE targets Desktop. Production status also diverges, with the EPYC active and the Intel part end-of-life. The Intel i9-9980XE has a launch MSRP of $1979, while the EPYC's launch MSRP is not listed.