AMD EPYC 7551P vs Intel Core i9-9980XE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a starkly split picture between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 7551P dominates the Cinebench suite, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE takes decisive wins in Geekbench. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7551P wins with a consistent margin of 17.6% or 17.7%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3276 against the Intel's 2699, a 17.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the EPYC at 462 versus 380, a 17.7% lead. The pattern holds in R20 multi-core (13650 vs 11247) and R20 single-core (1926 vs 1587), both again at 17.6% deltas. In Cinebench R23, the EPYC reaches 32500 multi-core and 4588 single-core, while the Intel manages 26780 and 3780 respectively, once more with a 17.6% gap.

The Geekbench results flip the narrative entirely. In Geekbench multi-core, the Intel Core i9-9980XE scores 11270 against the EPYC's 6296, a massive 79% advantage. The single-core Geekbench test shows the Intel at 1437 versus 919, a 56.4% lead. These are not marginal differences; they represent fundamentally different workload characteristics. The Intel wins 2 of the 8 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC takes 6.

The average benchmark scores in the database place the EPYC 7551P at 7952, while the Intel i9-9980XE sits at 7398. This gives the EPYC a 7.5% higher aggregate score. The percentile rankings are close, with the EPYC at the 64th percentile of all CPUs and the Intel at the 63rd, indicating both sit in a similar tier overall despite their divergent test results.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-9980XE uses the Skylake-X architecture on a 14 nm process fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 484 mm². The AMD EPYC 7551P uses the Zen architecture (codename Naples) on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a much smaller die at 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The EPYC packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel has 18 cores and 36 threads. The EPYC's core count advantage is substantial, 77.8% more cores and threads than the Intel part.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 24.75 MB of shared L3. The AMD has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than 2.5 times larger in total, which helps with the massive thread counts. The Intel compensates with a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, and a base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel runs DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel does not. The Intel provides 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC's PCIe details are listed simply as Gen 3. The Intel uses Socket 2066, the EPYC uses Socket SP3. The Intel is marked end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active in production. The Intel launched in October 2018, while the EPYC launched in June 2017, over a year earlier.

Where Each One Wins

The Cinebench results show the EPYC 7551P as the clear winner for heavily threaded rendering workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all scale well with core counts, and the EPYC's 32 cores versus 18 cores delivers a consistent 17.6% advantage. The single-core Cinebench tests also favor the EPYC by 17.7%, which contradicts the Intel's higher clock speeds. This suggests the Zen architecture's efficiency per clock in this specific workload outweighs the raw clock advantage of the Skylake-X part. For anyone running Cinebench or similar render tasks, the EPYC is the better performer across every version of the test.

The Geekbench results tell a different story. The Intel Core i9-9980XE wins Geekbench multi-core by 79% and single-core by 56.4%. Geekbench exercises a broader mix of integer, floating point, and memory patterns that apparently favor the Intel's higher clock speeds and per-core performance in that suite. Users whose workloads resemble Geekbench's test patterns, such as general productivity, encryption, or compression, would see the Intel pull far ahead. The 4.50 GHz boost clock versus 3.00 GHz is a 50% clock advantage, which correlates with the 56.4% single-core lead in Geekbench.

The database's average benchmark score puts the EPYC ahead overall, so for balanced mixed workloads the EPYC has a slight edge. But the choice depends heavily on which benchmark family matters more. Render-heavy tasks point to the EPYC, while Geekbench-style tasks point to the Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500 in multi-core and 4588 in single-core, versus the Intel's 26780 and 3780, giving the EPYC a 17.6% lead in both.

Q: What explains the Intel's Geekbench advantage?

A: The Intel Core i9-9980XE has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, and it wins Geekbench multi-core by 79% and single-core by 56.4%.

Q: Does the EPYC support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7551P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC has 170.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, while the Intel has 85.3 GB/s over a quad-channel bus, exactly half the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P is marked as active, while the Intel Core i9-9980XE is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-9980XE | AMD EPYC 7551P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 18 | 32 |

| Threads | 36 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen |

| Codename | Skylake-X | Naples |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Intel) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 213 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 4,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24.75 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 44 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2018-10-18 | 2017-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $1979 | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the AMD EPYC 7551P wins every test by 17.6% or 17.7%, and it also holds a higher average benchmark score (7952 vs 7398) and a slightly higher percentile ranking (64 vs 63). The EPYC's 32 cores, 64 MB L3 cache, and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice for multi-threaded compute tasks, especially in server or workstation environments where ECC memory support matters. Its active production status also means it remains available for new deployments.

For Geekbench-style workloads, the Intel Core i9-9980XE wins decisively, with a 79% multi-core and 56.4% single-core advantage. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock and 44 PCIe lanes make it attractive for desktop users who prioritize raw single-thread responsiveness and general application performance. The Intel's end-of-life status and lack of ECC support limit its appeal for long-term server deployments, but for a desktop workstation focused on Geekbench-like tasks, it delivers far better results.

The aggregate database scores slightly favor the EPYC, so for a buyer with mixed workloads the AMD part is the safer pick. The EPYC's 64 threads and double memory bandwidth provide headroom for heavily parallel tasks, while its Cinebench dominance shows consistent scaling. The Intel's wins are confined to Geekbench, which is a narrower slice of the measured performance envelope. Users who know their workloads resemble Cinebench should pick the EPYC; those whose workloads resemble Geekbench should pick the Intel. The data does not support a single universal winner.