AMD EPYC 7401P vs Intel Core i9-9920X Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two processors, with each dominating in different test suites. In the Cinebench family of tests, the AMD EPYC 7401P wins every single round, while the Intel Core i9-9920X takes both Geekbench tests decisively. The most striking result is in Geekbench multicore, where the Intel part scores 9422 against the EPYC's 4666 — a 101.9% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a complete blowout. The Geekbench singlecore test tells a similar story, with Intel winning 1393 to 787, a 77% delta.

However, the Cinebench results flip the narrative entirely. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2384 against Intel's 2121, an 11% lead. The same 11% margin appears in Cinebench R15 singlecore (336 vs 299), Cinebench R20 multicore (9937 vs 8839), Cinebench R23 multicore (23660 vs 21046), and Cinebench R23 singlecore (3340 vs 2971). Cinebench R20 singlecore shows a slightly larger gap at 11.1%, with the EPYC at 1402 and Intel at 1247.

What makes this interesting is that the EPYC wins by an identical 11% margin across nearly every Cinebench test, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. That consistency suggests a fundamental per-core efficiency advantage rather than a raw core-count advantage. The Intel part, meanwhile, wins Geekbench by margins that dwarf anything the EPYC achieves in Cinebench. The data shows six wins for the EPYC and two for Intel, but the magnitude of Intel's two wins is substantially larger than any single EPYC victory.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the average benchmark scores place these chips very close together. The Intel i9-9920X averages 5917 across all tests, while the EPYC 7401P averages 5814. That is a 1.8% difference in Intel's favor, according to the nearestRivals data. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same tier of overall performance despite their divergent strengths.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The Intel Core i9-9920X uses a Skylake-X architecture built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The die size is 484 mm², and it draws 165 W TDP. Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7401P belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on Zen architecture (codename Naples) at GlobalFoundries, also on a 14 nm process. It doubles the core count to 24 cores and 48 threads, but clocks are dramatically lower: 2000.00 MHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The TDP is slightly higher at 170 W. The die size is much smaller at 213 mm², though the processor carries 4,800 million transistors. Cache is configured differently: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB shared L3.

Memory handling is another major divergence. The Intel chip uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth — exactly double — and supports ECC memory. That bandwidth difference is enormous for memory-sensitive workloads, even if the Cinebench results don't fully reflect it.

PCIe capabilities also differ. Intel provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC's PCIe configuration is listed simply as "Gen 3" without a lane count in the data. The Intel part is unlocked, as is the EPYC, so both allow multiplier adjustment. The Intel chip targets the desktop market, while the EPYC is a server/workstation part. Intel's socket is Socket 2066; AMD uses Socket SP3.

# The Verdict

The data presents a choice between two very different performance profiles. If your workload resembles Cinebench — heavily threaded rendering and compute tasks — the AMD EPYC 7401P is the clear winner, delivering an 11% advantage across the board. If your workload resembles Geekbench — a mix of integer, floating-point, and memory tests that often reflect general desktop responsiveness — the Intel Core i9-9920X wins by 77% to 101.9%.

The EPYC's consistency in Cinebench is notable. It wins singlecore and multicore by the same 11% margin, which suggests that its lower clock speeds are more than compensated by architectural efficiency in those specific workloads. The Intel chip's Geekbench dominance, meanwhile, is so large that it pulls the average benchmark score slightly in Intel's favor despite losing six of eight head-to-head tests.

For a desktop user running typical productivity applications, the Intel part's Geekbench results are hard to ignore. A 77% singlecore lead in Geekbench translates to snappier general-purpose performance. For a server or workstation environment running rendering jobs, the EPYC's Cinebench wins, coupled with double the cores, double the memory channels, double the memory bandwidth, and ECC support, make it the more sensible choice.

Both chips sit at the 61st percentile overall, and their average scores differ by only 1.8%. The data does not declare an overall winner — it declares two specialists. Choose based on your workload, not on aggregate scores.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P wins six of the eight head-to-head benchmarks, including all six Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i9-9920X wins the two Geekbench tests.

Q: How large is the Intel chip's Geekbench multicore lead?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X scores 9422 in Geekbench multicore versus 4666 for the AMD EPYC 7401P, a 101.9% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC win any singlecore tests?

A: Yes. The EPYC wins all three Cinebench singlecore tests — R15, R20, and R23 — by roughly 11% in each case.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads — exactly double.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-9920X does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X has an average benchmark score of 5917, while the AMD EPYC 7401P averages 5814. That is a 1.8% difference in Intel's favor.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7401P wins in every Cinebench workload, from R15 through R23, in both singlecore and multicore configurations. The margins are consistent at 11% (or 11.1% in R20 singlecore). This makes the EPYC the stronger choice for rendering engines and compute workloads that behave like Cinebench. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide the raw parallelism, while its per-core performance in these tests proves it is not just a core-count brute. The eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support further cements its position for server and workstation deployments where memory reliability and throughput matter.

The Intel Core i9-9920X wins decisively in Geekbench, both singlecore and multicore. The 77% singlecore advantage and 101.9% multicore advantage are the largest margins in the entire comparison. For desktop users running general-purpose applications — web browsers, office suites, code compilers, media players — the Geekbench results indicate a much more responsive experience. The 4.50 GHz boost clock and Skylake-X architecture clearly favor this type of workload. The 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also give it an edge for expansion-heavy desktop builds, even though the EPYC's PCIe configuration is not fully specified in the data.

The production status matters here too. The Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part is still active. If you are building a system you intend to keep for years, the EPYC's active production status is a practical consideration. The Intel chip's launch MSRP was $1189, but no equivalent pricing data exists for the EPYC in the fact pack, so any cost comparison is not possible from this data alone.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-9920X | AMD EPYC 7401P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen |

| Codename | Skylake-X | Naples |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 213 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 4,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 19.25 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 44 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | Yes |

The core and cache differences are stark: the EPYC doubles the core count and more than triples the L3 cache, while Intel counters with dramatically higher clock speeds and a larger die. The memory subsystem is where the EPYC pulls ahead most clearly — double the channels and double the bandwidth. The Intel chip's 44 dedicated PCIe lanes are a desktop advantage, but the EPYC's server-oriented feature set — ECC, eight-channel memory, active production — makes it the more future-proof platform in the data.