AMD EPYC 7551 vs Intel Core i9-10940X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across the entire Cinebench test suite. The Intel Core i9-10940X wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the margin holding at essentially the same level whether the workload is single-threaded or fully parallel. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 2370 against 2227 for the AMD EPYC 7551, a 6.4% advantage. The single-core result in R15 is nearly identical in percentage terms: 334 versus 314, also a 6.4% delta. This consistency suggests the difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental throughput characteristic.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern repeats. The Intel Core i9-10940X posts 9878 in multicore, while the EPYC 7551 manages 9280, again a 6.4% lead. In R20 single-core, the scores are 1394 and 1309 respectively, a 6.5% margin, the largest single delta recorded in the entire comparison. The R23 results tell the same story: 23520 versus 22096 in multicore (6.4%) and 3320 versus 3119 in single-core (6.4%). No test in the database shows the AMD part ahead, even by a fraction of a percent.

The evenness of these deltas is notable. All six benchmarks fall within a 0.1 percentage point band, from 6.4% to 6.5%. For a comparison between a 14-core desktop part and a 32-core server processor, such uniform margins are unusual. Typically, one would expect the higher-core-count chip to close the gap in heavily threaded workloads, but the data shows no such convergence. The Intel part maintains its lead regardless of thread count, which points to per-core efficiency advantages that are large enough to overcome a 2.3x core deficit.

In terms of the broader database position, the Intel Core i9-10940X sits at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6605. The AMD EPYC 7551 also lands at the 62nd percentile, with an average score of 6391. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the Intel Pentium Gold G6405 at an identical average score of 6605, and the Intel Core i5-13500E at 6586, which trails by 0.3%. The Intel Core i9-12900E is 0.1% behind at 6611, while the Intel Core i5-13400E leads the Intel part by 0.5% with a score of 6638. For the EPYC 7551, the closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-10920X, which scores 6347 and trails by 0.7%. The Intel Core i7-12800HE is 1.2% ahead at 6467, the Intel Xeon D-2796TE is 1.8% ahead at 6510, and the Intel Xeon W-2191B leads by 2.1% with a score of 6531.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-10940X wins in every measured category, but the nature of that win differs by workload type. In single-threaded tasks, the Intel part's boost clock of 4.80 GHz against the EPYC 7551's 3.00 GHz explains the edge. The R20 single-core test shows the largest gap at 6.5%, and the other single-core tests all sit at 6.4%. This is a decisive, repeatable advantage for lightly threaded applications such as legacy software, scripting workloads, or interactive design tools that rely on one primary thread.

In multicore workloads, the Intel part also wins, but the context is more complex. The EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads, more than double the Intel part's 14 cores and 28 threads. Despite this, the Intel chip leads by 6.4% in every multicore benchmark. The explanation lies in clock speed and per-core architecture. The Intel part's base clock of 3.30 GHz is 65% higher than the EPYC's 2.00 GHz base, and the boost clock advantage is even larger. When a workload scales across all cores, the AMD processor cannot translate its raw core count into a throughput win because each individual core is substantially slower.

The database also reveals where the EPYC 7551 holds structural advantages that do not show up in the Cinebench results. The AMD part supports ECC memory, has an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, and carries 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has no ECC support, a quad-channel memory bus, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. For memory-intensive server workloads that stress capacity and reliability rather than raw core speed, the EPYC 7551's platform features matter. The Cinebench suite does not capture those scenarios, so the benchmark wins belong entirely to Intel, while the platform advantages belong to AMD.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. For desktop and workstation users running mainstream creative, engineering, and productivity applications, the Intel Core i9-10940X is the stronger choice. It wins every Cinebench test in the database, both single-core and multicore, by a consistent 6.4% to 6.5% margin. Its boost clock of 4.80 GHz and unlocked multiplier make it well suited to performance-sensitive workloads where per-thread speed is critical. The 62nd percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 6605 place it in the same performance class as modern mid-range Core i5 and i9 parts, according to the nearest rival data.

For server and enterprise deployments, the AMD EPYC 7551 makes a different case. It does not win any benchmark, but it brings ECC memory support, eight-channel memory, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 32 cores with 64 threads. The recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s is a platform capability the Intel part cannot match, since the Intel side lists no equivalent bandwidth figure and relies on quad-channel DDR4. If the workload involves large in-memory datasets, virtualized environments, or data integrity requirements, the EPYC 7551's feature set addresses needs that Cinebench scores do not quantify.

The Intel part also enjoys a release date advantage, having launched on 2019-10-18 compared to the EPYC 7551's 2017-06-28. The Intel processor belongs to the Core 10th Gen X-Series, built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the EPYC 7551 is a Zen (Naples) part manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. Both are currently marked as Active in production status. Users who prioritize raw application performance should select the Intel Core i9-10940X. Users who need ECC, high memory bandwidth, and massive thread counts in a server context should consider the EPYC 7551, accepting its benchmark deficit in exchange for platform capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i9-10940X has 14 cores and 28 threads.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7551 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-10940X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 6.4% to 6.5%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is 6.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Intel part scores 1394 against 1309 for the AMD part.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7551 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7551 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-10940X does not list ECC support.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory channel configuration?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i9-10940X has a quad-channel memory bus with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Intel Core i9-10940X was released on 2019-10-18. The AMD EPYC 7551 was released on 2017-06-28.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-10940X uses the Cascade Lake architecture, specifically Cascade Lake-X, and belongs to the Core i9 X-Series 10th Gen family. It is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry. The AMD EPYC 7551 uses the Zen architecture under the codename Naples, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It is also built on a 14 nm process, but at GlobalFoundries. The AMD part contains 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the Intel part does not list transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The Intel part has 14 cores and 28 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 32 cores and 64 threads, with 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip's L3 cache is more than three times larger, which can benefit workloads with large working sets, though the benchmark data shows no such advantage in Cinebench.

Clock speeds are strongly in Intel's favor. The Intel part runs at 3.30 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD part runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 165 watts versus 180 watts for the AMD part. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, and both use PCIe Gen 3. The Intel part fits the Intel Socket 2066, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket SP3. The Intel part targets the desktop market segment, while the AMD part is classified for server and workstation use.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel part supports quad-channel DDR4 with no ECC capability. The AMD part supports eight-channel DDR4 with ECC and a recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. Both support DDR4 memory. The AMD part's part number is listed as PS7551BDVIHAF, while the Intel part does not have a part number in the database. Neither processor includes integrated graphics.

The production status for both is Active. The Intel part's release date of 2019-10-18 makes it roughly two years newer than the AMD part's 2017-06-28 release. Both processors sit at the 62nd percentile in the overall CPU database, and their average benchmark scores are close: 6605 for Intel and 6391 for AMD. The architectural differences in core count, cache size, memory channels, and clock speed explain both the benchmark results and the platform-level trade-offs between the two designs.