AMD EPYC 7501 vs Intel Core i9-7960X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear but narrow picture: across every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, the Intel Core i9-7960X wins. There are six head-to-head benchmark entries, and the Intel part takes all six. The AMD EPYC 7501 wins none of the direct comparisons. That is a decisive sweep, but the margins are consistent and relatively modest, with the Intel processor leading by 9.5% or 9.6% in every test.

The EPYC 7501 does not win any of the Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 tests, whether single-core or multi-core. However, the data shows the EPYC's strengths are not in raw Cinebench throughput. Its architecture, with 32 cores and 64 threads, is built for server and workstation workloads that scale across many threads, while the benchmark suite used here favors the Intel part's higher clock speeds. The Intel Core i9-7960X has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. That clock advantage shows up directly in every single-core result and carries over to multi-core tests as well.

The use-case split is therefore about workload type rather than benchmark category. The Intel part wins in this specific benchmark set because Cinebench responds to clock speed and per-core performance. The EPYC 7501, with twice the cores and four times the memory bandwidth, would likely excel in heavily parallel server tasks, but the database does not include such tests for this comparison. The wins are all Intel's, but the margin of victory is consistent, not overwhelming.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core i9-7960X has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC has exactly twice the core count and twice the thread count.

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

A: The EPYC 7501 has an average benchmark score of 6128. The Intel Core i9-7960X has an average benchmark score of 6533. The Intel part is 6.6% higher on average.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-7960X wins in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3305 versus the EPYC's 2991, a 9.5% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 1388 versus 1256, also a 9.5% lead.

Q: How do they compare in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-7960X also wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 23413 versus the EPYC's 21186, a 9.5% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2359 versus 2135, a 9.5% lead.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 has eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i9-7960X has quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC offers exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-7960X does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 7501 is built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries and has 4,800 million transistors on a die size of 213 mm². The Intel Core i9-7960X uses the Skylake architecture with the codename Skylake-X, part of the Core i9 X-Series 7th Generation. It is also built on a 14 nm node, but from Intel, with a die size of 484 mm².

The cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC 7501 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 22 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is nearly three times larger in total, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. The Intel part has larger per-core L2, which helps with repeated data access within a single core.

The memory architecture is another fundamental split. The EPYC 7501 uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the EPYC a 2x bandwidth advantage, which matters for memory-bound server workloads. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

The platforms also differ in socket and PCIe configuration. The EPYC 7501 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 2066. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the Intel part explicitly lists 44 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's PCIe lane count is not specified in the database, but the socket type indicates a server platform designed for high I/O throughput.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i9-7960X has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 2000.00 MHz for the EPYC and 2.80 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 3.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively. The Intel part has a 0.8 GHz higher base clock and a 1.4 GHz higher boost clock.

Thermal design power is close: the EPYC is rated at 170 W and the Intel part at 165 W. The EPYC is only 5 W higher despite having twice the cores, which reflects the lower clock speeds. The sockets are different, as are the foundries. The EPYC uses GlobalFoundries, the Intel part uses Intel. The die sizes are also different: 213 mm² for the EPYC versus 484 mm² for the Intel part.

Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth. The EPYC has eight-channel memory at 170.6 GB/s, the Intel part has quad-channel at 85.3 GB/s. ECC support is present on the EPYC but absent on the Intel part. The market segments differ: the EPYC is for server and workstation, the Intel part is for desktop. The EPYC is still in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. The part numbers are PS7501BEVIHAF for the EPYC and SR3RR for the Intel part. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $1699, which is stated once here as recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains six Cinebench tests, and the Intel Core i9-7960X wins all six. The margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 2359 against the EPYC's 2135, a 9.5% lead. In R15 single-core, it scores 333 versus 301, a 9.6% lead. The pattern repeats in R20: multi-core is 9833 versus 8898, a 9.5% lead, and single-core is 1388 versus 1256, also 9.5%.

In R23, the same story holds. Multi-core is 23413 versus 21186, a 9.5% lead. Single-core is 3305 versus 2991, a 9.5% lead. The consistency of the delta across every test is striking. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Intel part leads by nearly the same percentage. This suggests the performance gap is driven by clock speed differences rather than core count. The Intel part's 4.40 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz boost clock would explain a consistent per-thread advantage.

The EPYC's 32 cores do not overcome the Intel part's clock advantage in Cinebench, which scales reasonably well but not perfectly with core count. Doubling the cores from 16 to 32 would normally help, but the EPYC's lower clocks and the benchmark's response to per-core speed offset that advantage. The result is a uniform loss for the EPYC across all six tests.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The EPYC's average score is 6128, placing it in the 61st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel part's average is 6533, in the 62nd percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W-2191B at 6531 (0% delta), the Intel Xeon D-2796TE at 6510 (0.4% higher), the Intel Atom x7405C at 6568 (0.5% lower), and the Intel Core i5-13500E at 6586 (0.8% lower). The EPYC's nearest rivals are close as well: the Intel Core i9-7940X at 6147 (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6186 (0.9% higher), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at 6231 (1.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U at 6247 (1.9% higher). Both processors sit in a tightly packed performance band, separated from their nearest rivals by less than 2%.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for this benchmark set: the Intel Core i9-7960X is the faster processor in Cinebench, winning all six head-to-head tests with a consistent 9.5% to 9.6% margin. The EPYC 7501 does not win a single test in this comparison. If the decision is based purely on the recorded Cinebench scores, the Intel part is the clear choice.

However, the database also records factors that favor the EPYC 7501 in other contexts. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, double the Intel part's counts. It has eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the Intel part's 85.3 GB/s. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. It is still in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. These features point to server and workstation workloads where core count and memory bandwidth matter more than per-core clock speed.

The Intel Core i9-7960X, with its 4.40 GHz boost clock and 16 cores, is a desktop processor aimed at high-frequency workloads. The EPYC 7501, with its lower clocks and massive core count, is a server processor for parallel throughput. The benchmark results reflect the Intel part's strengths, but the specification differences suggest the EPYC would be the better fit for memory-intensive, highly threaded server tasks. The recorded data cannot confirm that, as no such tests appear in this comparison, but the architectural evidence points in that direction.

For buyers focused on Cinebench-style rendering and per-core performance, the Intel part wins outright. For buyers prioritizing ECC support, memory bandwidth, and core count for server workloads, the EPYC 7501 offers clear advantages that the benchmarks here do not capture. The verdict depends on which specifications matter more for the intended use. The data shows the Intel part ahead in every measured test, but the EPYC's design goals are different, and its strengths lie outside this benchmark suite.