AMD EPYC 7501 vs Intel Core i9-7920X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2135 versus 2015 for the Intel Core i9-7920X, a 6% advantage. The gap repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (8898 versus 8396) and Cinebench R23 multicore (21186 versus 19991).

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark at all?

A: No. Across the six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7501 records six wins and the Core i9-7920X records zero. Even in single-core tests, where Intel traditionally excels, the EPYC 7501 leads by 6% in each of the three Cinebench single-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the single-core score difference?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 301 versus 284 for the Core i9-7920X. In R20 single-core, the scores are 1256 versus 1185. In R23 single-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 2991 versus 2822. Every comparison shows a 6% lead for the AMD part.

Q: How do these processors rank against all CPUs in the database?

A: Both chips sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. Despite that identical percentile, their average benchmark scores differ: the EPYC 7501 averages 6128, while the Core i9-7920X averages 5673. The EPYC 7501's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-7940X (average 6147, delta -0.3%) and the AMD EPYC 7272 (average 6186, delta -0.9%). The Core i9-7920X's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7F32 (average 5703, delta -0.5%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 (average 5610, delta +1.1%).

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 launched on 2017-06-28. The Intel Core i9-7920X launched on 2017-09-09. Both parts arrived in the same year, but the AMD server chip entered the market roughly two and a half months earlier.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-7920X still in production?

A: No. The database lists the Core i9-7920X as "End-of-life," while the EPYC 7501 remains "Active." This means the AMD processor continues to be available for new server or workstation builds, while the Intel part has been discontinued.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7501 and Intel Core i9-7920X come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The EPYC 7501 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename "Naples." It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die. The Core i9-7920X uses Intel's Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-X, also on a 14 nm process but from Intel's own fabs. Its die measures 484 mm², more than double the AMD chip's area, though the database does not list its transistor count.

The core counts differ dramatically. The EPYC 7501 provides 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Core i9-7920X offers 12 cores and 24 threads. This 20-core gap explains the multicore performance picture, though it does not fully account for the EPYC 7501's single-core wins. The AMD chip's base clock is 2000.00 MHz with a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Intel chip starts higher at 2.90 GHz base and boosts to 4.40 GHz. Despite the Intel part's higher clocks, the EPYC 7501 still leads single-core Cinebench scores, suggesting architectural efficiency differences in these specific workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The EPYC 7501 uses 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i9-7920X uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16.5 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's L3 cache is nearly four times larger, which may help in memory-sensitive server workloads. Memory support further separates them: the EPYC 7501 runs eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core i9-7920X runs quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth.

Socket compatibility differs completely. The EPYC 7501 uses AMD Socket SP3, a server platform, while the Core i9-7920X uses Intel Socket 2066, a desktop enthusiast platform. The EPYC 7501 supports ECC memory; the Intel chip does not. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, but their market segments diverge: the EPYC 7501 targets Server/Workstation, and the Core i9-7920X targets Desktop. The EPYC 7501's part number is PS7501BEVIHAF; the Core i9-7920X's part number is SR3NG.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7501 across all six Cinebench tests. The most striking result is that every single delta equals exactly 6%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7501 scores 2135 versus 2015. In R15 single-core, it scores 301 versus 284. The same 6% margin appears in Cinebench R20 multicore (8898 versus 8396) and R20 single-core (1256 versus 1185). Cinebench R23 follows the pattern: multicore 21186 versus 19991, single-core 2991 versus 2822.

These consistent margins suggest a uniform performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC 7501 does not merely win in heavily threaded tests; it wins in single-threaded tests too. That is notable because the Core i9-7920X has a significantly higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and fewer cores to manage, which typically benefits single-thread performance. Yet the measured scores show the opposite.

The multicore results deserve closer scrutiny. The EPYC 7501 has 32 cores versus 12 for the Intel part, a 167% core advantage, yet its multicore Cinebench scores are only 6% higher. This implies that the Core i9-7920X extracts far more performance per core in these tests, likely due to its higher clock speeds and per-core cache allocation. The Intel chip's L2 cache is 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core for the AMD chip, which may contribute to its competitive showing despite the massive core-count deficit.

The single-core results are more puzzling. With a 1.40 GHz boost clock deficit, the EPYC 7501 still beats the Core i9-7920X by 6% in every single-core Cinebench test. The data implies that Zen's single-thread performance at 3.00 GHz exceeds Skylake-X's single-thread performance at 4.40 GHz in these specific benchmarks. This could reflect differences in instruction scheduling, memory latency, or the younger architecture's efficiency in rendering workloads.

The database also lists Geekbench scores for the Core i9-7920X only: multicore 9297 and single-core 1394. No corresponding Geekbench scores appear for the EPYC 7501, so a direct comparison is not possible. The available Cinebench data, however, consistently favors the AMD processor across every measured test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. Core count: 32 for the EPYC 7501 versus 12 for the Core i9-7920X. Thread count: 64 versus 24. Base clock: 2000.00 MHz versus 2.90 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. TDP: 170 W for the AMD part versus 140 W for the Intel part. The EPYC 7501 draws more power while delivering lower clocks, consistent with its server-oriented design.

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: both 14 nm, but the foundry differs: GlobalFoundries for AMD, Intel for Intel.

Transistors: 4,800 million for the EPYC 7501; not listed for the Core i9-7920X. Die size: 213 mm² versus 484 mm². The Intel die is more than twice as large, yet the AMD chip packs far more cores into a smaller area, reflecting the different packaging strategies.

Cache: L1 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core; L2 512 KB per core versus 1 MB per core; L3 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: yes versus no. PCIe: both Gen 3, but the Intel part specifies 44 lanes (CPU only); the EPYC 7501's lane count is not listed.

Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Release date: 2017-06-28 versus 2017-09-09. Launch MSRP: the Core i9-7920X lists at $1199; the EPYC 7501 has no launch MSRP in the database. Both have unlocked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7501 wins every measured benchmark in this comparison. That gives it an unambiguous victory in rendering workloads, as represented by the Cinebench suite. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 64 MB of L3 cache make it well suited for heavily parallel tasks: server virtualization, database workloads, large-scale compilation, scientific computing, and content creation that scales across many threads. The eight-channel memory subsystem with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth supports memory-intensive applications that require moving large datasets quickly. ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running server processes where data corruption is unacceptable.

The Intel Core i9-7920X, despite losing the head-to-head, still holds strengths in the broader context. Its 4.40 GHz boost clock, while not translating to a Cinebench single-core win, suggests potential advantages in lightly threaded applications that respond to raw clock speed. The 1 MB per-core L2 cache and 16.5 MB shared L3 cache provide lower-latency access to working sets. Its 140 W TDP is lower than the EPYC 7501's 170 W, which may simplify cooling in compact desktop builds. The desktop market segment and Intel Socket 2066 platform align with consumer workstations, gaming PCs, and enthusiast builds where the server-oriented EPYC 7501 would be an awkward fit. The quad-channel memory bus, while half the AMD chip's bandwidth, remains sufficient for many desktop workloads.

The production status matters for long-term planning. The EPYC 7501 remains active and available for new systems. The Core i9-7920X is end-of-life, meaning replacements and future system builds may face availability constraints. The 61st percentile ranking for both chips against all CPUs indicates they sit in the mid-to-upper tier of overall performance, but the EPYC 7501's higher average benchmark score (6128 versus 5673) places it ahead in aggregate performance.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7501 outperforms the Intel Core i9-7920X in every Cinebench test recorded in the database. The 6% margin holds uniformly across single-core and multicore workloads, which is a remarkable consistency given the Intel chip's higher clock speeds. The EPYC 7501's core advantage (32 versus 12) does not translate into a proportionally larger multicore lead, but it still wins. Its single-core lead at a lower clock speed suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency edge in these rendering tasks.

Buyers should choose the EPYC 7501 if they need a server or workstation processor with massive thread counts, ECC memory support, eight-channel bandwidth, and active production status. Its 64 threads and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for virtualization, high-throughput database servers, and parallel compute workloads. The fact that it also wins single-threaded Cinebench tests removes a potential disadvantage for lightly threaded tasks.

Buyers should consider the Core i9-7920X only if they specifically need a desktop processor on Intel Socket 2066 with a lower TDP (140 W versus 170 W), a smaller die footprint for the platform, or the $1199 launch MSRP that the database records. Its 12 cores and 24 threads remain capable for desktop workloads, and its higher clocks could benefit applications not represented in the Cinebench suite. However, the measured data shows no benchmark category where the Intel chip wins. For any workload covered by the six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7501 delivers equal or better results. The production status difference further favors the AMD part for new deployments. Given the complete absence of benchmark wins for the Intel processor, the EPYC 7501 is the stronger choice in every measured category.