AMD EPYC 7451 vs Intel Core i9-7920X Comparison

# AMD EPYC 7451 vs Intel Core i9-7920X

The AMD EPYC 7451 and Intel Core i9-7920X represent two fundamentally different approaches to high-core-count computing, yet benchmark data shows the EPYC 7451 winning every single head-to-head comparison despite the i9's higher clock speeds. The EPYC 7451 edges out the i9-7920X across all Cinebench tests with consistent 2.1–2.3% margins, while the i9-7920X counters with a higher boost clock, lower TDP, and a smaller physical footprint. The data reveals a server-oriented processor that quietly outperforms a desktop flagship in nearly every measurable rendering workload, though the i9-7920X retains advantages in power efficiency and platform accessibility.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7451 is the clear performance winner based on head-to-head data, taking all six Cinebench comparisons. Its multicore advantage ranges from 2.3% in Cinebench R15 (2061 vs 2015) to 2.3% in R23 (20450 vs 19991), while single-core scores show a similar 2.1–2.3% edge (290 vs 284 in R15, 2887 vs 2822 in R23). The i9-7920X, however, offers a 4.40 GHz boost clock compared to 3.20 GHz on the EPYC, yet still loses every benchmark—proof of the EPYC's 24-core/48-thread configuration versus the i9's 12-core/24-thread setup.

For users prioritizing raw rendering throughput, the EPYC 7451 is the data-backed choice. Its 61st percentile ranking among all CPUs matches the i9-7920X exactly, yet its average benchmark score of 5915 exceeds the i9's 5673 by roughly 4.3%. The i9-7920X does offer a lower 140W TDP versus 180W, making it more power-efficient per watt, but this advantage doesn't translate into performance wins. The EPYC 7451's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-9920X with a deltaPct of 0, while the i9-7920X sits closest to the AMD EPYC 7F32 with a -0.5% delta. The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 7451 wins on performance, and the i9-7920X wins on power and platform convenience.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The EPYC 7451 uses AMD's Zen architecture on the Naples codename, built on a 14nm process at GlobalFoundries with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The i9-7920X employs Intel's Skylake architecture under the Skylake-X codename, also on 14nm but at Intel's own foundry, with a substantially larger 484 mm² die and no transistor count listed. This die-size difference—more than double—reflects Intel's more complex monolithic design versus AMD's chiplet-based approach.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The EPYC 7451 allocates 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB shared L3 cache. The i9-7920X uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and only 16.5 MB shared L3. The EPYC's 64 MB L3 is nearly four times larger, which helps compensate for its lower clock speeds in latency-sensitive workloads. Both processors support DDR4 memory, but the EPYC 7451 features eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth versus the i9's quad-channel 85.3 GB/s—exactly double the theoretical memory bandwidth.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the EPYC 7451, while the i9-7920X lacks it entirely. Both use PCIe Gen 3, though the i9-7920X specifies 44 lanes (CPU only) while the EPYC's lane count is not listed. The market segments differ fundamentally: the EPYC 7451 is a Server/Workstation part on AMD Socket SP3, while the i9-7920X is a Desktop processor on Intel Socket 2066. The EPYC 7451 remains in active production, whereas the i9-7920X is marked end-of-life. Neither processor includes integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a consistent story across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7451 scores 2061 against the i9-7920X's 2015, a 2.3% win. The single-core R15 test shows 290 versus 284, a 2.1% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 8589 versus 8396 (2.3%), and single-core is 1212 versus 1185 (also 2.3%). The R23 tests continue the pattern: multicore 20450 versus 19991 (2.3%) and single-core 2887 versus 2822 (2.3%).

The consistency of these 2.1–2.3% margins across all tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. Notably, the EPYC 7451 wins single-core tests despite having a 2.30 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost, while the i9-7920X runs at 2.90 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. This indicates the EPYC's larger cache and memory bandwidth compensate for its clock deficit. The i9-7920X does have additional Geekbench results not available for the EPYC 7451—9297 multicore and 1394 single-core—but these don't affect the head-to-head comparison.

The closest rival data provides context. The EPYC 7451's average benchmark score of 5915 places it within 0% of the Intel Core i9-9920X (5917), while trailing the Intel Xeon W-2170B by 1.2% and leading the AMD EPYC 7401P by 1.7% and Intel Xeon E-2388G by 1.9%. The i9-7920X's 5673 average sits 0.5% below the AMD EPYC 7F32, 0.6% below the AMD EPYC 7351, 1% below the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, and 1.1% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 24 versus 12 (EPYC 7451 vs i9-7920X). Threads: 48 versus 24. Base clock: 2.30 GHz versus 2.90 GHz. Boost clock: 3.20 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. TDP: 180W versus 140W. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 2066. Architecture: Zen versus Skylake. Codename: Naples versus Skylake-X. Generation: EPYC (Zen (Naples)) versus Core i9 (X-Series 7th Gen). Process node is identical at 14nm, but foundries differ (GlobalFoundries versus Intel).

Die size is a major differentiator: 213 mm² versus 484 mm². L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 1 MB per core. L3 cache: 64 MB shared versus 16.5 MB shared. Memory bus: eight-channel versus quad-channel. Memory bandwidth: 170.6 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s. ECC support: true versus false. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Release dates differ by roughly two and a half months, with the EPYC 7451 launching June 28, 2017 and the i9-7920X on September 9, 2017. The i9-7920X has a launch MSRP of $1199; the EPYC 7451 has no listed launch MSRP. Both have unlocked multipliers. Part numbers are PS7451BDVHCAF and SR3NG respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multicore performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7451 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests: R15 (2061 vs 2015), R20 (8589 vs 8396), and R23 (20450 vs 19991), each by 2.3%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-7920X win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the EPYC 7451 winning all 6 comparisons, with winsA equal to 6 and winsB equal to 0.

Q: How do single-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7451 wins single-core tests by 2.1% in R15 (290 vs 284) and 2.3% in both R20 (1212 vs 1185) and R23 (2887 vs 2822), despite having a lower boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7451 offers 170.6 GB/s through eight-channel memory, exactly double the i9-7920X's 85.3 GB/s from quad-channel memory.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7451 supports ECC memory; the Intel Core i9-7920X does not list ECC support.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7451 has an average benchmark score of 5915, while the i9-7920X scores 5673—a difference of approximately 4.3% in favor of the EPYC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7451 wins in every benchmark category tested. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide a 2:1 advantage over the i9-7920X in both dimensions, and the 64 MB L3 cache is nearly four times larger. Memory bandwidth is exactly double, making the EPYC 7451 the superior choice for memory-intensive server workloads. ECC memory support and an active production status further cement its position for enterprise deployments where data integrity and long-term availability matter. The eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth suggest workloads that stream large datasets will benefit disproportionately.

The Intel Core i9-7920X wins in power efficiency and platform characteristics. Its 140W TDP is 40W lower than the EPYC 7451's 180W, making it easier to cool and cheaper to run. The 4.40 GHz boost clock is 1.20 GHz higher, which theoretically benefits lightly threaded workloads even though benchmark data doesn't reflect this advantage. The quad-channel memory setup and 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) offer a more modest but potentially simpler platform for desktop users. As an end-of-life desktop part, it targets a different ecosystem than the active server-focused EPYC 7451. The i9-7920X's 484 mm² die is more than double the EPYC's 213 mm², suggesting a more complex integrated design that may have different thermal characteristics. For users who need a desktop processor with lower power draw and higher clock speeds, the i9-7920X remains a viable option, though the benchmark data consistently favors the EPYC 7451 for raw compute.