AMD EPYC 7451 vs Intel Core i9-9920X Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9920X and AMD EPYC 7451 sit at nearly identical average benchmark scores—5917 for the Intel part and 5915 for the AMD part—placing both at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. Despite this statistical tie in aggregate performance, the two processors are fundamentally different designs aimed at different workloads. The data shows a clean sweep in the head-to-head benchmarks for the Intel part, yet the EPYC 7451 brings twice the core count, double the memory channels, and ECC support to the table. This comparison is less about which is faster overall and more about which environment—desktop or server—benefits from the specific strengths of each chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-9920X wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its advantages range from 2.9% to 3.1%, which is a slim but consistent margin. The largest win comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where Intel leads by 3.1% with a score of 299 against AMD's 290. In multi-core tests, the margin is uniformly 2.9% across all three Cinebench versions, with Intel scoring 2121 vs 2061 in R15, 8839 vs 8589 in R20, and 21046 vs 20450 in R23.

The AMD EPYC 7451 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark, yet its strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite. It offers 24 cores and 48 threads—double the Intel part's 12 cores and 24 threads—which makes it better suited for highly parallel server workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench's multi-core test captures. Its eight-channel memory bus delivers 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the Intel's 85.3 GB/s quad-channel figure, a decisive advantage for memory-bandwidth-bound applications like large database queries or virtualized environments. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not, making it the only option here for memory-integrity-critical deployments.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different architectural philosophies. The Intel Core i9-9920X uses the Skylake-X architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 484 mm². It is a desktop part from the Core i9 X-Series 9th Generation, released on 2018-10-18, and is now end-of-life. The AMD EPYC 7451 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, using the Zen (Naples) architecture, also on a 14 nm process but manufactured by GlobalFoundries with a much smaller die at 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. It launched earlier on 2017-06-28 and remains in active production.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 19.25 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip offers 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 64 MB shared L3. That 64 MB L3 is over three times the Intel's L3 capacity, which can improve hit rates in workloads with large working sets. Clock speeds favor Intel decisively: 3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost versus AMD's 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The Intel part also has a higher TDP at 165 W compared to 180 W for the AMD, meaning the AMD chip draws more power despite lower clocks due to its doubled core count.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Intel part uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The AMD part uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: Intel provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes from the CPU, while AMD lists Gen 3 without a lane count in the data. Socket compatibility is entirely separate—Intel Socket 2066 versus AMD Socket SP3—meaning these cannot be swapped into the same platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a consistent story of narrow Intel victories. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-9920X scores 2121 against the EPYC 7451's 2061, a 2.9% lead. The single-core test shows a slightly larger margin: 299 vs 290, which is 3.1% in Intel's favor. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core gap remains at 2.9% with scores of 8839 and 8589, while single-core again shows 2.9% with 1247 vs 1212. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multi-core 21046 vs 20450 and single-core 2971 vs 2887, both at 2.9% deltas.

What is notable is the consistency of the margin. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, and regardless of the Cinebench version, the Intel part holds a roughly 3% advantage. This suggests a fundamental per-thread efficiency edge for Intel's higher clock speeds. The EPYC 7451 cannot overcome this with its core count advantage in these specific tests, likely because Cinebench's scaling does not fully utilize 48 threads in a way that compensates for the lower per-core clocks. In Geekbench, only the Intel part has published scores—9422 multi-core and 1393 single-core—while the AMD chip has no Geekbench data in the fact pack, so no comparison is possible there.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the parity: the i9-9920X averages 5917 while the EPYC 7451 averages 5915, a difference of 0.03%. This near-identical average explains why each lists the other as a nearest rival with a deltaPct of 0. The Intel Xeon W-2170B sits slightly above both at 5985 (1.1% above the i9-9920X, 1.2% above the EPYC), while the AMD EPYC 7401P trails at 5814 (1.8% below the i9, 1.7% below the EPYC).

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X wins all single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 299 vs 290 in R15 (3.1% ahead), 1247 vs 1212 in R20 (2.9% ahead), and 2971 vs 2887 in R23 (2.9% ahead).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7451 win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The data shows 6 wins for the Intel part and 0 wins for the AMD part across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: How do the core counts and memory bandwidth compare?

A: The EPYC 7451 has 24 cores and 48 threads versus 12 cores and 24 threads for the i9-9920X. The EPYC also provides eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, double the i9's quad-channel 85.3 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7451 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-9920X does not. This makes the EPYC the only choice here for memory-error-correcting workloads.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same socket?

A: No. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 2066, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket SP3. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The Intel Core i9-9920X has an average benchmark score of 5917, and the AMD EPYC 7451 has 5915. Both sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but contextual split. For any workload represented by the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core i9-9920X is the better performer, winning all six tests with margins of 2.9% to 3.1%. Its higher base and boost clocks—3.50 GHz and 4.50 GHz versus 2.30 GHz and 3.20 GHz—drive this consistent edge, and its lower TDP of 165 W versus 180 W makes it the more power-efficient option in these tests. The Intel part is also the only one here with Geekbench scores published, showing 9422 multi-core and 1393 single-core, though no AMD comparison exists in the data.

The AMD EPYC 7451 is the better choice for server and workstation deployments where its architectural advantages matter. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide double the parallel throughput capacity, and its eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double the Intel's. ECC memory support is a hard requirement for many server environments, and the EPYC is the only one of the two that offers it. The 64 MB shared L3 cache, over three times the Intel's 19.25 MB, can also benefit workloads with large, frequently accessed datasets.

The production status tells part of the story: the Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part remains active. For a new system build, the EPYC 7451 offers an actively supported platform with server-grade features. For a desktop user prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and slightly better Cinebench scores, the i9-9920X delivers those wins, though its end-of-life status is a consideration. The verdict from the data: pick the Intel for desktop workloads where Cinebench-style performance and higher clocks matter most, and pick the AMD for server environments where core count, memory bandwidth, and ECC support are non-negotiable.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 12 (Intel) vs 24 (AMD)
• Threads: 24 (Intel) vs 48 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz (Intel) vs 2.30 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 4.50 GHz (Intel) vs 3.20 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 165 W (Intel) vs 180 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 2066 (Intel) vs AMD Socket SP3 (AMD)
• Architecture: Skylake (Intel) vs Zen (AMD)
• Codename: Skylake-X (Intel) vs Naples (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel (Intel) vs GlobalFoundries (AMD)
• Die Size: 484 mm² (Intel) vs 213 mm² (AMD)
• Transistors: Not listed (Intel) vs 4,800 million (AMD)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (Intel) vs 96 KB per core (AMD)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (Intel) vs 512 KB per core (AMD)
• L3 Cache: 19.25 MB shared (Intel) vs 64 MB shared (AMD)
• Memory Bus: Quad-channel (Intel) vs Eight-channel (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s (Intel) vs 170.6 GB/s (AMD)
• ECC Memory: false (Intel) vs true (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 44 Lanes CPU only (Intel) vs Gen 3 (AMD)
• Market Segment: Desktop (Intel) vs Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Production Status: End-of-life (Intel) vs Active (AMD)
• Release Date: 2018-10-18 (Intel) vs 2017-06-28 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $1189 (Intel) vs not listed (AMD)