AMD EPYC 7401P vs Intel Core i9-7920X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i9-7920X wins 2. The EPYC’s wins are concentrated entirely in the Cinebench suite, spanning R15, R20, and R23 for both multi-core and single-core workloads.

Q: How large is the EPYC 7401P’s advantage in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The EPYC 7401P leads by 18.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2384 vs. 2015), 18.4% in R20 multi-core (9937 vs. 8396), and 18.4% in R23 multi-core (23660 vs. 19991). The delta is remarkably consistent across all three versions.

Q: Where does the Intel Core i9-7920X outperform the AMD chip?

A: The i9-7920X wins decisively in Geekbench. In multi-core, it scores 9297 versus the EPYC’s 4666, a 49.8% margin. In single-core, it scores 1394 versus 787, a 43.5% advantage.

Q: Do the two processors have the same performance percentile ranking?

A: Yes. Both the AMD EPYC 7401P and the Intel Core i9-7920X sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. However, their average benchmark scores differ: the EPYC averages 5814, while the i9 averages 5673.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads. The i9-7920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC doubles both the core and thread counts of the Intel part.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory, and which does not?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-7920X does not. This aligns with their market segments: the EPYC is a Server/Workstation part, while the i9 is a Desktop processor.

The Verdict

The data draws a clear line between two different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7401P is the choice for heavily threaded, sustained workloads that resemble server or workstation rendering tasks. It wins every Cinebench multi-core test by roughly 18.4%, and its 24 cores and 48 threads provide double the parallel resources of the Intel chip. Its 64 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus (170.6 GB/s) further reinforce its server-class positioning. The EPYC’s production status is Active, meaning it remains a viable purchase today.

The Intel Core i9-7920X, on the other hand, dominates Geekbench. Its 49.8% multi-core and 43.5% single-core wins over the EPYC in that test suggest a different performance character—likely favoring lower-latency, higher-frequency workloads. With a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz, the i9 is built for responsiveness. However, its production status is End-of-life, and its average benchmark score (5673) trails the EPYC’s (5814) by roughly 2.4%.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. If the priority is Cinebench-style rendering and massive parallel throughput, the EPYC 7401P is the clear winner. If the priority is Geekbench-style general performance and single-thread speed, the i9-7920X holds the edge—though its end-of-life status may give pause. The EPYC also offers ECC memory support, which the i9 lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a striking split: the EPYC 7401P sweeps the Cinebench suite, while the i9-7920X sweeps Geekbench. There is no overlap—each chip owns its respective benchmark family completely.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2384 against the i9’s 2015, an 18.3% lead. The single-core R15 result is identical in percentage: 336 versus 284, again 18.3%. Moving to R20, the EPYC extends its multi-core margin slightly to 18.4% (9937 vs. 8396), and single-core also hits 18.3% (1402 vs. 1185). In R23, the pattern holds: multi-core 23660 vs. 19991 (18.4%), single-core 3340 vs. 2822 (18.4%). The consistency of these deltas—all hovering between 18.3% and 18.4%—suggests a fixed architectural advantage that scales uniformly across Cinebench versions.

The Geekbench results invert the picture dramatically. In multi-core, the i9-7920X posts 9297 versus the EPYC’s 4666, a massive 49.8% delta. Single-core is similarly lopsided: 1394 versus 787, a 43.5% gap. These are not marginal wins; they are near-doublings of the EPYC’s scores. The i9’s 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with its higher clocks (2.90 GHz base, 4.40 GHz boost), clearly translate into superior Geekbench performance despite having half the core count.

The overall tally favors the EPYC 6 wins to 2, but the magnitude of the i9’s Geekbench victories (43.5% and 49.8%) far exceeds the EPYC’s Cinebench margins (18.3%–18.4%). A reader should note that the EPYC’s average benchmark score of 5814 versus the i9’s 5673 reflects a 2.5% overall advantage, driven by the fact that Cinebench results are averaged into the aggregate alongside Geekbench.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The EPYC 7401P offers 24 cores and 48 threads; the i9-7920X offers 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds move in the opposite direction: the EPYC has a 2000.00 MHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, while the i9 has a 2900.00 MHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The i9’s higher clocks are its primary counterweight to the EPYC’s core advantage.

Thermal design power differs by 30 watts: the EPYC is rated at 170 W, the i9 at 140 W. Sockets are incompatible—the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, the i9 uses Intel Socket 2066. The EPYC’s cache hierarchy includes 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, while the i9 has 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core. The shared L3 cache massively favors the EPYC: 64 MB versus 16.5 MB.

Memory support reveals a server-versus-desktop split. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth; the i9 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the i9 specifies 44 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC lists no lane count. Neither chip has integrated graphics.

The production status also differs: the EPYC is Active, the i9 is End-of-life. Release dates are close—the EPYC launched on June 28, 2017, and the i9 on September 9, 2017—but the EPYC’s continued availability contrasts with the i9’s discontinued status. The i9 has a launch MSRP of $1199; the EPYC has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The EPYC 7401P is built on AMD’s Zen architecture with the codename Naples, part of the EPYC 7001 series. The i9-7920X uses Intel’s Skylake architecture with the codename Skylake-X, from the Core i9 X-Series 7th Generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process, but by different foundries: the EPYC by GlobalFoundries, the i9 by Intel.

Die size and transistor counts tell a story of different design priorities. The EPYC’s die size is 213 mm² with 4,800 million transistors. The i9’s die is much larger at 484 mm², but Intel does not disclose its transistor count. The EPYC’s smaller die with a higher transistor count suggests a denser, more integrated design—consistent with its server orientation and larger cache (64 MB L3). The i9’s larger die, combined with lower core count and smaller L3 (16.5 MB), points toward a design optimized for higher clock speeds and lower latency.

Cache architecture differs per core. The EPYC allocates 96 KB L1 per core; the i9 allocates 64 KB. The i9 doubles the L2 per core (1 MB vs. 512 KB), but the EPYC’s shared L3 is nearly four times larger (64 MB vs. 16.5 MB). This cache distribution suggests the EPYC is tuned for large working sets and many concurrent threads, while the i9 favors per-core speed.

Memory controllers reflect the server-versus-desktop split. The EPYC’s eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth double the i9’s quad-channel 85.3 GB/s. The EPYC’s ECC support further cements its server credentials, while the i9’s lack of ECC aligns with its consumer desktop market segment. The EPYC’s socket (SP3) is a server platform; the i9’s (2066) is an enthusiast desktop platform. Both have unlocked multipliers, but the EPYC’s 170 W TDP versus the i9’s 140 W TDP reflects the power cost of doubling core count and memory channels.