AMD EPYC 7551P vs Intel Core i9-9990XE Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9990XE and the AMD EPYC 7551P are aimed at very different corners of the computing market, yet their benchmark results reveal a surprisingly one-sided contest. The Intel part is a desktop extreme processor with a high boost clock, while the AMD EPYC is a server/workstation chip built for massive parallel throughput. The recorded data shows that the AMD EPYC 7551P wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, and often by a significant margin. However, the story is not just about raw scores; it is about what those scores mean for different workloads, and the architectural choices that separate these two processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six Cinebench comparisons between these two processors, and the AMD EPYC 7551P wins all six. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the victory. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7551P scores 3276 against the i9-9990XE's 2584, a difference of 21.1 percent. That same 21.1 percent delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the EPYC scores 13650 versus 10767, and again in Cinebench R23 multicore, with the EPYC at 32500 and the Intel at 25637.

The single-core results are equally decisive, albeit with different absolute numbers. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 7551P scores 462, while the i9-9990XE manages 364, a 21.2 percent gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the EPYC at 1926 versus 1519 for the Intel, again a 21.1 percent difference. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC scores 4588 and the Intel scores 3619, with the same 21.1 percent delta.

The consistency of these margins is notable. It suggests that the performance difference is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental characteristic of the two designs. The EPYC 7551P's advantage is not a fluke of one test; it is a structural lead that persists across every Cinebench iteration and both single-core and multi-core modes.

The i9-9990XE, despite having a boost clock of 5.10 GHz (the EPYC boosts to only 3.00 GHz), cannot overcome the EPYC's architectural edge. Even in single-core tests, where clock speed typically matters most, the EPYC 7551P leads by more than 20 percent. This is a clear indication that the Intel processor's higher clock rate does not translate into higher performance in these specific benchmarks.

The average benchmark score in the database further reinforces this. The i9-9990XE has an average score of 7415, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7551P averages 7952, placing it in the 64th percentile. While the percentile rankings are close, the average score difference is over 500 points, which is a substantial gap in absolute terms.

The nearest rivals in the database also provide context. The i9-9990XE sits within 0.7 percent of the Intel Core i5-4570, the AMD EPYC 7282, the Intel Core i9-9980XE, and the Intel Core i5-7400. The EPYC 7551P, by contrast, sits within 1.9 percent of the Intel Core i7-13700E, the Intel Core i9-10980XE, the Intel Xeon Gold 6326, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M. This tells us that the EPYC's performance class is closer to modern high-end desktop and server parts, while the i9-9990XE's recorded scores place it alongside older mainstream processors.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7551P wins in every recorded benchmark category. There are no tests in the database where the Intel Core i9-9990XE comes out ahead. This means that for any workload represented by Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the EPYC 7551P is the faster processor.

For multi-threaded rendering tasks, which Cinebench multicore tests simulate, the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads provide a massive advantage over the i9-9990XE's 14 cores and 28 threads. The 21.1 percent lead in all three multicore tests reflects this core count difference, although the margin is smaller than the raw core ratio would suggest. This implies that the Intel processor's higher clock speed helps it close some of the gap, but not enough to take the lead.

For single-threaded workloads, the result is more surprising. The i9-9990XE has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is the highest in the comparison. Yet the EPYC 7551P, with a boost clock of only 3.00 GHz, still manages a 21.2 percent lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. This indicates that the EPYC's Zen architecture is more efficient per clock in this benchmark, or that the i9-9990XE cannot sustain its maximum boost under the test conditions.

In practical terms, a system builder looking at these numbers should expect the EPYC 7551P to outperform the i9-9990XE in any Cinebench-based workload. That includes 3D rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that rely on CPU compute. The Intel part does not offer a single scenario in the recorded data where it would be the better choice.

The EPYC 7551P also has additional benchmark data in the database, including Geekbench results. It scores 6296 in Geekbench multicore and 919 in Geekbench single-core. The i9-9990XE has no Geekbench results recorded, so no direct comparison is possible, but the presence of these scores for the EPYC suggests a broader testing history.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-9990XE has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7551P has a boost clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7551P wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core i9-9990XE.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7551P in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500, while the i9-9990XE scores 25637, giving the EPYC a 21.1 percent lead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7551P has an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the i9-9990XE has a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-9990XE does not.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The EPYC 7551P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the i9-9990XE has 14 cores and 28 threads.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both have an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i9-9990XE has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7551P has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 4.00 GHz for the Intel and 2000.00 MHz for the AMD, with boost clocks of 5.10 GHz and 3.00 GHz respectively. The thermal design power (TDP) is 255 watts for the Intel and 180 watts for the AMD.

The sockets are incompatible: the Intel uses Socket 2066, while the AMD uses Socket SP3. The memory configurations also differ, with the Intel supporting quad-channel DDR4 and the AMD supporting eight-channel DDR4. This results in different memory bandwidth figures, with the AMD at 170.6 GB/s and the Intel at 85.3 GB/s.

Cache hierarchies are substantially different. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The PCIe support also differs: the Intel provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD provides Gen 3 without a specified lane count in the database.

ECC memory support is present on the AMD but not on the Intel. The market segments are also distinct, with the Intel classified as Desktop and the AMD as Server/Workstation. Production status differs as well: the Intel is end-of-life, while the AMD is active. The release dates are different, with the Intel launching on 2018-10-18 and the AMD on 2017-06-28.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The Intel Core i9-9990XE is built on the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-X codename, part of the Core i9 Extreme X-Series 9th Generation. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The AMD EPYC 7551P uses the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It also uses a 14 nm process node, but the foundry is GlobalFoundries.

The transistor counts and die sizes are recorded only for the AMD part. The EPYC 7551P has 4,800 million transistors and a die size of 213 mm². The Intel processor does not have these figures in the database, so no comparison is possible.

The cache designs reflect different philosophies. The Intel uses a larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB) and a smaller shared L3 (19.25 MB), while the AMD uses a smaller per-core L2 (512 KB) but a much larger shared L3 (64 MB). The L1 cache is also different, with the AMD offering 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core on the Intel.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel uses a quad-channel memory bus, while the AMD uses eight channels, effectively doubling the available memory bandwidth. The AMD also supports ECC memory, which is critical for server and workstation reliability, while the Intel does not.

The PCIe implementation differs as well. The Intel provides 44 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD provides Gen 3 support without a specified lane count. This suggests different expansion capabilities, though the exact lane counts for the AMD are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion. The AMD EPYC 7551P outperforms the Intel Core i9-9990XE in every benchmark recorded in the database, with consistent 21.1 percent leads across all Cinebench tests. The Intel processor wins no head-to-head comparisons, making it the slower choice for any workload represented by these benchmarks.

A system builder focused on multi-threaded rendering, scientific computing, or virtualized workloads should choose the AMD EPYC 7551P. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, eight-channel memory, and ECC support make it the superior option for these tasks. The Intel Core i9-9990XE, despite its higher boost clock and desktop-oriented design, cannot match the EPYC's throughput in any measured test.

For single-threaded performance, the Intel part might seem like a logical choice due to its 5.10 GHz boost clock. However, the recorded data contradicts this assumption. The EPYC 7551P leads by more than 20 percent even in single-core Cinebench tests, meaning the Intel processor's clock advantage does not translate into actual performance gains.

The Intel Core i9-9990XE is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7551P remains active. This further tilts the recommendation toward the AMD part for new builds, as it remains a supported product. The AMD also consumes less power, with a 180 watt TDP versus 255 watts for the Intel, which is a practical consideration for system cooling and operating costs.

The launch MSRP of the Intel Core i9-9990XE was $2800, a figure that reflects its original positioning as an extreme desktop part. The AMD EPYC 7551P has no recorded launch MSRP, so no price comparison is possible. However, the performance data alone makes the case for the AMD processor.

In summary, the AMD EPYC 7551P is the recommended choice based on the benchmark data. It wins every test, offers more cores, more memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a larger L3 cache. The Intel Core i9-9990XE, while having a higher clock speed and a lower core count, simply cannot compete in the recorded benchmarks. Any user prioritizing Cinebench performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, should select the AMD EPYC 7551P.