AMD EPYC 7501 vs Intel Core i9-9920X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7501 and Intel Core i9-9920X occupy the same performance percentile (61st) and deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores, yet they are fundamentally different processors. The EPYC 7501 is a 32-core server chip built for massive parallel throughput, while the Core i9-9920X is a 12-core desktop part aimed at high-frequency responsiveness. Across six Cinebench comparisons, the AMD part wins every single test, but by remarkably slim margins—all by exactly 0.7%. This raises an immediate question: how can a processor with 20 additional cores and 40 additional threads only edge out its rival by less than 1%? The answer lies in clock speed and architecture, where Intel’s much higher base and boost clocks nearly compensate for its core-count disadvantage. The data suggests a fascinating trade-off, pitting raw core count against per-core frequency, with the server part squeezing out a sweep in rendering benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. This gives the AMD part a 20-core and 40-thread advantage.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7501 wins every single-core Cinebench test by 0.7%. Its scores are 301 (R15), 1256 (R20), and 2991 (R23), versus Intel’s 299, 1247, and 2971 respectively. This is surprising given Intel’s higher clock speeds.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 has an average benchmark score of 6128, while the Intel Core i9-9920X scores 5917. The AMD part sits 3.4% higher in this aggregate metric.

Q: Which CPU offers ECC memory support?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-9920X does not. This is a key differentiator for server and workstation reliability.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7501 has an eight-channel memory bus delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core i9-9920X uses a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s. The AMD part offers exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are their production statuses?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 is listed as "Active" production, whereas the Intel Core i9-9920X is marked as "End-of-life." This impacts long-term availability and platform support.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced verdict. For workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth—such as server virtualization, scientific computing, or heavily threaded rendering—the AMD EPYC 7501 is the logical choice. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, offers 64 threads versus 24, and provides double the memory bandwidth (170.6 GB/s vs 85.3 GB/s). Its ECC memory support and "Active" production status further solidify its position for mission-critical environments.

Conversely, the Intel Core i9-9920X is positioned for desktop users who need high per-core clock speeds (base 3.50 GHz, boost 4.50 GHz) in a more traditional form factor. Its launch MSRP is $1189. While it loses all Cinebench tests, the margins are razor-thin (0.7%), meaning real-world differences in lightly threaded tasks are likely imperceptible. The Core i9’s quad-channel memory is sufficient for most desktop workloads, and its "End-of-life" status may not matter for users building a dedicated workstation today. The verdict hinges on use case: pick the EPYC for scale and reliability, pick the Core i9 for desktop frequency and a smaller footprint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent: the AMD EPYC 7501 wins all six Cinebench tests, each by exactly 0.7%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2135 against Intel’s 2121, a lead of 14 points. The single-core R15 test shows 301 versus 299, a 2-point margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core gap widens slightly to 59 points (8898 vs 8839), while single-core shows 1256 vs 1247. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core scores are 21186 vs 21046, and single-core is 2991 vs 2971. The pattern is striking: the EPYC’s 32 cores and 64 threads should theoretically dominate in multi-threaded workloads, yet the Core i9’s higher clocks (3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost versus 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost) allow it to keep pace. The consistent 0.7% delta suggests a deliberate performance alignment, possibly due to thermal or power constraints on the EPYC side. Notably, the Core i9-9920X has additional Geekbench scores (9422 multi-core, 1393 single-core) that are not present in the EPYC’s benchmark list, but these do not affect the head-to-head Cinebench sweep.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are starkly different: 2.00 GHz for AMD versus 3.50 GHz for Intel, and boost clocks are 3.00 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. TDP is close, with the EPYC at 170W and the Core i9 at 165W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while Intel uses Socket 2066. Memory channels differ significantly: eight-channel for AMD versus quad-channel for Intel, yielding memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD part. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, but Intel specifies 44 lanes (CPU only), while AMD does not list a lane count. The EPYC has a die size of 213 mm², whereas Intel’s die is much larger at 484 mm². Transistor count is 4,800 million for AMD; Intel’s is not listed. Cache configurations differ: AMD has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 64 MB shared L3; Intel has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 19.25 MB shared L3. The EPYC is a Server/Workstation part, while the Core i9 is Desktop. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $1189; the AMD part has no listed MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 7501 is based on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, from the EPYC 7001 series, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It uses a dual-die design with a 213 mm² die size and 4,800 million transistors. In contrast, the Intel Core i9-9920X uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-X, from the Core i9 X-Series 9th generation, built on Intel’s own 14 nm process with a much larger 484 mm² die. The EPYC’s cache hierarchy features 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus a large 64 MB shared L3 cache, which is more than three times Intel’s 19.25 MB shared L3. The Intel part offers 1 MB L2 per core, which is double AMD’s per-core L2. AMD’s eight-channel memory controller is a server-grade feature, while Intel’s quad-channel is typical for high-end desktop. The EPYC is fabricated at GlobalFoundries, while Intel uses its own fabs. These architectural choices explain the performance parity: AMD’s higher core count and massive cache are offset by Intel’s superior clock speeds and larger die, which likely allows for more aggressive frequency scaling.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7501 wins in every Cinebench benchmark, making it the clear victor in multi-threaded rendering workloads. Its 64 threads and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are ideal for server virtualization, database processing, and scientific simulations that scale linearly with core count. The ECC memory support is a decisive win for error-sensitive enterprise workloads. The EPYC’s "Active" production status ensures continued availability for system integrators. Its 64 MB L3 cache is a boon for workloads with large working sets that fit in cache.

The Intel Core i9-9920X wins in scenarios where per-core frequency is king, despite losing the benchmarks. Its 3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost clocks are substantially higher than AMD’s 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz, which means in lightly threaded applications—like gaming or legacy software—the Intel part likely delivers snappier response times. The 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) provide ample connectivity for multiple GPUs or NVMe drives. Its desktop Socket 2066 platform is more accessible for consumer motherboards, and the quad-channel memory is sufficient for most desktop tasks. The Intel part’s end-of-life status may be a concern, but for a user building a high-frequency desktop workstation today, the Core i9-9920X offers a compelling balance of speed and platform familiarity, even if the benchmark data shows AMD edging it out in rendering.