AMD EPYC 7451 vs Intel Core i9-10900X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7451 wins every single head-to-head comparison in the Cinebench suite. Out of six recorded tests, the EPYC 7451 takes all six, with the Intel Core i9-10900X recording zero wins. This is not a narrow margin either; the deltas are remarkably uniform across both multi-core and single-core workloads.

The EPYC 7451's advantage in multi-core tests is substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20,450 against the i9-10900X's 18,957, a 7.9% lead. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (8,589 vs 7,961) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (2,061 vs 1,910), both with the same 7.9% delta. The consistency of this margin across three generations of the Cinebench renderer suggests the EPYC's advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

What is more surprising is the single-core picture. Conventionally, higher clock speeds should favor the Intel part in lightly threaded tasks. The i9-10900X has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost of 4.70 GHz, while the EPYC 7451 sits at 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Yet the EPYC 7451 still wins every single-core test by the same 7.9% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,887 versus 2,676. In R20, it is 1,212 versus 1,123. In R15, it is 290 versus 269.

The implication is that the EPYC 7451's Zen architecture extracts more work per clock cycle than the Cascade Lake design in these specific workloads, despite the Intel part's significant clock advantage. The data does not show the i9-10900X winning anywhere, so the use-case split is one-sided: the EPYC 7451 dominates both throughput and latency-sensitive scenarios in this benchmark set.

For users considering the i9-10900X, the recorded data offers no benchmark category where it pulls ahead. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,555, compared to the EPYC 7451's 5,915. That places the Intel part roughly 6.5% behind on average, and its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Celeron G6900 and Intel Atom x7433RE, which are not typically associated with high-end desktop performance. The EPYC 7451, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core i9-9920X and Intel Xeon W-2170B, with an average score nearly identical to the i9-9920X.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict: the AMD EPYC 7451 is the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests, posts a higher average benchmark score, and delivers a consistent 7.9% advantage across the Cinebench family. Anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench throughput should choose the EPYC 7451 without hesitation.

The i9-10900X is not without its own profile, however. It is a desktop part with a higher boost clock (4.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and a lower TDP (165 watts versus 180 watts). It also uses the Intel Socket 2066 platform, which may be more familiar to desktop builders. But in terms of measured performance in this database, there is no scenario where the Intel part comes out ahead.

The market segments reinforce the split. The EPYC 7451 is classified as Server/Workstation, while the i9-10900X is Desktop. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus and ECC support align with server expectations, whereas the i9-10900X offers quad-channel DDR4 without ECC. For a workstation build focused on Cinebench-style rendering, the EPYC 7451's architecture is the better match.

The percentile data shows both processors at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall tier in the database. Yet within that tier, the EPYC 7451 is consistently ahead in every direct comparison. The average benchmark score difference (5,915 versus 5,555) is roughly 6.5%, and the nearest rival list for the EPYC includes the i9-9920X at nearly identical scores, while the i9-10900X's nearest rivals include much lower-end parts. That contrast suggests the EPYC 7451 is grouped with stronger competition overall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head tests all produce the same winner, with deltas that are almost eerily uniform. Every test shows a 7.9% advantage for the AMD EPYC 7451, except for Cinebench R15 single-core, which shows 7.8%.

Starting with multi-core: in Cinebench R15, the EPYC 7451 scores 2,061 against 1,910. In R20, it is 8,589 versus 7,961. In R23, it is 20,450 versus 18,957. The margin holds at 7.9% across all three. This consistency indicates that the EPYC's advantage scales equally across different renderer versions, which is notable because newer Cinebench versions tend to stress memory and cache hierarchies differently.

Single-core results are the more interesting story. The i9-10900X's boost clock of 4.70 GHz is 1.50 GHz higher than the EPYC's 3.20 GHz boost. Clock-for-clock, the EPYC should be at a disadvantage. Yet the EPYC 7451 wins Cinebench R15 single-core 290 to 269, R20 single-core 1,212 to 1,123, and R23 single-core 2,887 to 2,676. The 7.8% and 7.9% margins mirror the multi-core results almost exactly.

This suggests the EPYC's per-core efficiency under Cinebench is not merely competitive but superior, despite the clock gap. The Zen architecture's 96 KB L1 cache per core and 512 KB L2 per core, combined with a shared 64 MB L3 cache, may explain some of this. The i9-10900X has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a much smaller 19.25 MB shared L3.

The EPYC also has 24 cores and 48 threads versus the i9's 10 cores and 20 threads. In multi-threaded tests, the core advantage is obvious. But the single-core wins indicate that the EPYC's architectural efficiency is doing real work, not just raw core count.

There is one additional benchmark recorded for the i9-10900X that is not in the head-to-head set: Geekbench. The Intel part scores 10,104 multi-core and 1,438 single-core. The EPYC 7451 has no recorded Geekbench score in this database, so no direct comparison is possible. This is a gap in the data, but it does not change the outcome of the Cinebench comparisons.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7451 wins all six recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i9-10900X wins zero.

Q: How big is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The EPYC 7451 leads by 7.9% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, scoring 2,061, 8,589, and 20,450 respectively, versus 1,910, 7,961, and 18,957 for the i9-10900X.

Q: Does the i9-10900X win in single-core due to its higher clock speed?

A: No. Despite a 4.70 GHz boost clock versus 3.20 GHz, the i9-10900X loses every single-core test by 7.8% or 7.9%. The EPYC 7451 scores 2,887 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2,676.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7451 has an average benchmark score of 5,915, while the i9-10900X averages 5,555.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7451 supports ECC memory, while the i9-10900X does not.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The EPYC 7451 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The i9-10900X uses a quad-channel bus, and its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7451 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is part of the EPYC 7001 series, AMD's first-generation server platform. The Intel Core i9-10900X uses Cascade Lake, specifically Cascade Lake-X, also on a 14 nm process but at Intel. It belongs to the Core 10th Gen X-Series.

Core counts differ dramatically. The EPYC 7451 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the i9-10900X has 10 cores and 20 threads. That is a 14-core and 28-thread advantage for the EPYC. The EPYC also carries a much larger L3 cache: 64 MB shared, versus 19.25 MB shared for the Intel part. Per-core L1 is larger on the EPYC (96 KB versus 64 KB), while per-core L2 is larger on the Intel (1 MB versus 512 KB).

The EPYC 7451's transistor count is recorded at 4,800 million on a 213 mm² die. The i9-10900X has no recorded transistor count or die size. Both use PCIe Gen 3, and neither has integrated graphics.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The EPYC 7451 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and ECC support. The i9-10900X supports quad-channel DDR4 without ECC, and its bandwidth is not recorded. For memory-heavy server workloads, the EPYC's eight-channel design is a clear advantage.

The socket platforms also differ: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 2066 for the i9. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, but the EPYC is aimed at Server/Workstation while the i9 is a Desktop part.

Release timing is also distinct. The EPYC 7451 launched in June 2017, while the i9-10900X launched in October 2019. Despite the two-year gap, the older EPYC still leads in every recorded benchmark, which says something about the different target markets and design priorities.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7451 | Intel Core i9-10900X |

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

| Cores | 24 | 10 |

| Threads | 48 | 20 |

| Base clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 165 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 2066 |

| Architecture | Zen | Cascade Lake |

| Codename | Naples | Cascade Lake-X |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen (Naples)) | Core i9 (X-Series 10th Gen) |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 4,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 213 mm² | Not recorded |

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

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

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

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 170.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release date | 2017-06-28 | 2019-10-18 |

| Part number | PS7451BDVHCAF | Not recorded |

| Average benchmark score | 5,915 | 5,555 |

| Wins in head-to-head | 6 | 0 |

The TDP difference is modest (180 W versus 165 W), but the EPYC delivers its performance with more cores and a larger cache at only 15 W higher. The i9-10900X has a substantial clock advantage, yet it cannot convert that into benchmark wins. The EPYC's higher memory bandwidth and ECC support further separate the two in terms of intended use cases.