AMD EPYC 7401P vs Intel Core i9-7940X Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits this comparison cleanly by workload type. The AMD EPYC 7401P wins six of the eight head-to-head tests, taking every Cinebench run by a margin of roughly 9.4% in both multi-core and single-core tests. The Intel Core i9-7940X counters with a decisive victory in Geekbench, scoring 125.4% higher in multi-core and 83.6% higher in single-core. This is not a subtle distinction; the two processors are built for different jobs. The EPYC 7401P is the choice for sustained rendering workloads that resemble Cinebench, while the i9-7940X dominates in the broader system-level tasks that Geekbench measures. For a desktop user prioritizing raw application responsiveness, the Intel part has the edge. For a workstation running threaded batch renders, the AMD part wins consistently. The data does not support a single "best" chip; it supports two distinct best-use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in design philosophy. The Intel Core i9-7940X is a 14-core, 28-thread desktop part built on Intel's 14 nm Skylake-X architecture, with a die size of 484 mm². It runs at a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boosts to 4.40 GHz, all within a 165 W TDP. The AMD EPYC 7401P is a server/workstation chip from the EPYC 7001 series, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with the Zen (Naples) architecture. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads — 10 more cores and 20 more threads than the Intel — but runs at a much lower 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, with a slightly higher 170 W TDP. The transistor counts tell a similar story: the AMD chip has 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the Intel die is more than twice as large but the pack does not list its transistor count.

Cache layouts also differ significantly. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 19.25 MB L3. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 64 MB shared L3. This larger L3 is typical of server parts designed for data-heavy workloads. Memory support is another major split: the i9-7940X uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support, while the EPYC 7401P uses eight-channel DDR4 with exactly double the bandwidth at 170.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Intel part lists 44 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part lists Gen 3 without a lane count in the pack. The Intel part is a desktop chip on Socket 2066 with an unlocked multiplier, whereas the AMD part is a server chip on Socket SP3, also with an unlocked multiplier. The i9-7940X was released in August 2017 and is end-of-life; the EPYC 7401P was released in June 2017 and remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The Cinebench suite is entirely AMD territory. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the EPYC 7401P wins both multi-core and single-core, with the multi-core deltas all sitting at -9.4% for the Intel part. This means the AMD chip is consistently about 9.4% faster in rendering workloads, regardless of the version of the test. The single-core deltas are nearly identical, at -9.2% for R15 and -9.3% to -9.4% for R20 and R23. Across all Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7401P scores between 2,384 and 23,660, while the i9-7940X scores between 305 and 21,444. The AMD part's 24-core, 48-thread configuration gives it a clear advantage in threaded rendering, but the fact that it also wins single-core Cinebench — thanks to higher per-core efficiency despite a lower clock — shows that the Zen architecture handles these tests well at any thread count.

The Geekbench results flip the script entirely. The i9-7940X scores 10,516 in Geekbench multi-core versus 4,666 for the EPYC 7401P, a 125.4% advantage. In single-core, the Intel part scores 1,445 versus 787, an 83.6% lead. These are massive gaps. Geekbench tends to reward higher clock speeds and lower-latency memory access, both of which favor the i9-7940X's 4.40 GHz boost and quad-channel setup. The EPYC 7401P's eight-channel memory bus and 3.00 GHz boost clock cannot compensate for the clock deficit in this workload. So the split is clear: rendering-heavy, long-running batch jobs belong to the EPYC 7401P; mixed desktop workloads, web browsing, and application launch scenarios that Geekbench models belong to the i9-7940X.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P scores 23,660 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 21,444 for the Intel Core i9-7940X. That is a 9.4% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-7940X win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The i9-7940X wins both Geekbench tests, scoring 10,516 in multi-core (125.4% above the EPYC 7401P's 4,666) and 1,445 in single-core (83.6% above the EPYC's 787).

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the i9-7940X has 14 cores and 28 threads. The AMD part has 10 more cores and 20 more threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth over eight DDR4 channels. The i9-7940X has 85.3 GB/s over four channels. The AMD part has exactly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-7940X does not list ECC support.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The i9-7940X has a 3.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The EPYC 7401P has a 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Intel part runs 1.4 GHz higher at boost.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking single result is Geekbench multi-core. The i9-7940X scores 10,516, which is more than double the EPYC 7401P's 4,666. That 125.4% delta is the largest in the entire comparison. The Intel part's high boost clock of 4.40 GHz appears to drive this result, as Geekbench is sensitive to clock speed and cache latency. The i9-7940X also wins Geekbench single-core by 83.6%, scoring 1,445 to the EPYC's 787. In both Geekbench tests, the Intel part is decisively ahead, and the gap is so large that no amount of core count from the AMD part can compensate.

Every Cinebench test goes the other way. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7401P scores 2,384 versus 2,161 for the i9-7940X, a 9.4% lead. The R15 single-core test shows a similar pattern: 336 for AMD versus 305 for Intel, a 9.2% lead. Moving to R20, the AMD part scores 9,937 in multi-core versus 9,006, again a 9.4% delta. R20 single-core gives 1,402 versus 1,271, a 9.3% delta. The R23 results are consistent: 23,660 versus 21,444 in multi-core, and 3,340 versus 3,027 in single-core, both at 9.4% deltas. The consistency of the 9.4% margin across all multi-core Cinebench runs suggests that the EPYC 7401P's advantage is structural — likely the extra 10 cores and 20 threads, or the larger 64 MB L3 cache — rather than workload-specific.

The overall win tally is 6 to 2 in favor of the AMD part, but the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The i9-7940X has an average benchmark score of 6,147, while the EPYC 7401P averages 5,814. The Intel part is ranked at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD part is also at the 61st percentile. The nearest rivals for the i9-7940X include the AMD EPYC 7501 (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 7272 (0.6% lower), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (1.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U (1.6% lower). The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7401P include the Intel Xeon E-2388G (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon W-2175 (0.8% higher), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (1.5% higher), and the AMD EPYC 7451 (1.7% lower). Both chips sit in a tight cluster of similarly-performing CPUs, which underscores that the head-to-head deltas — not the overall averages — are what differentiate them.

The launch MSRP for the i9-7940X is $1399; the EPYC 7401P has no launch MSRP listed. The Intel part's higher average benchmark score and higher Geekbench results suggest it holds its own despite being an end-of-life desktop part. The EPYC 7401P, meanwhile, is still an active server product with double the memory bandwidth and ECC support. For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on whether the workload resembles Cinebench (choose AMD) or Geekbench (choose Intel). The data does not support a universal recommendation.