AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Core i7-9750H Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7552 is the decisive winner across every benchmark in the comparison database. It outperforms the Intel Core i7-9750H in all six head-to-head tests, with the EPYC leading by roughly 81.6% in each instance. The data is unambiguous: the EPYC 7552 is in a different performance class entirely.

For users seeking maximum multi-core throughput, the EPYC 7552 is the only choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,801 dwarfs the i7-9750H's 8,973, a margin that reflects the massive core-count advantage. The EPYC also wins single-core tests, scoring 6,889 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the i7's 1,266. That single-core victory is notable because it shows the EPYC is not merely a wide multi-core part; its per-thread performance is also superior in these measurements.

The Intel Core i7-9750H, conversely, serves a completely different market segment. It is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, designed for laptops where power and thermal envelopes are constrained. The EPYC 7552 is a server part with a 200 W TDP. The database shows the Intel part has an average benchmark score of 14,886, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC's average score is 14,115, placing it in the 68th percentile. These percentile figures are remarkably close, suggesting that despite the EPYC's dominance in the head-to-head Cinebench tests, the broader benchmark suite (which includes single-threaded and integer workloads) shows them in a similar overall standing relative to the wider CPU market.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD EPYC 7552 is for server and workstation workloads requiring massive parallel computation. The Intel Core i7-9750H is for mobile computing where low power draw is essential. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and no scenario in the recorded data where the Intel part wins. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7552 is $4025, while the i7-9750H has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Intel Core i7-9750H has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC has eight times the core count and eight times the thread count.

Q: How does the cache hierarchy compare between the two?

A: The EPYC 7552 has a much larger cache. Each EPYC core has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with a shared 192 MB L3. The i7-9750H has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 12 MB L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is 16 times larger.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-9750H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The EPYC 7552 supports eight-channel memory, while the i7-9750H supports dual-channel memory. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is listed at 204.8 GB/s, compared to the i7's 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-9750H includes Intel UHD 630 integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server processor.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-9750H is end-of-life. The AMD EPYC 7552 is active and currently in production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Core i7-9750H uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-HR codename, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. It is part of the Core i7 generation for Coffee Lake-HR. The die size is 149 mm². The EPYC 7552 uses AMD's Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process node at TSMC. It is part of the EPYC 7002 series, and its die size is 74 mm². The EPYC's transistor count is listed at 3,800 million, while the Intel part has no transistor count in the database.

The manufacturing process difference is significant: 14 nm versus 7 nm. The EPYC's smaller process node allows for a much higher core density. The EPYC's die size is roughly half that of the Intel part, yet it houses eight times the cores. This is a direct consequence of the more advanced manufacturing node and the Zen 2 chiplet design.

The Intel part is built for mobile, using the Intel BGA 1440 socket. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3, a server socket. The market segments are explicit: the i7-9750H is classified as Mobile, while the EPYC 7552 is Server/Workstation. The EPYC's PCIe support is Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-9750H supports PCIe Gen 3. The EPYC also has a much wider memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel.

The cache hierarchies reflect the different design goals. The EPYC's 192 MB shared L3 cache is enormous, designed to hold large working sets for server workloads. The i7's 12 MB shared L3 is typical for a mobile processor. Both processors have per-core L1 and L2 caches, but the EPYC's are larger: 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, versus 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core on the Intel part.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergence in nearly every field. The core counts are 6 for the i7-9750H versus 48 for the EPYC 7552. Threads are 12 versus 96. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the Intel part and 2.20 GHz for the AMD part. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz for the Intel part and 3.30 GHz for the AMD part. The TDP is a stark contrast: 45 W for the i7, 200 W for the EPYC.

The memory bandwidth differs by a factor of nearly five: 42.7 GB/s for the i7 versus 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC. The EPYC supports ECC memory, the i7 does not. PCIe support is Gen 3 for the i7 and Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC. The i7 has integrated UHD 630 graphics; the EPYC has none.

The i7-9750H was released on 2019-04-22, while the EPYC 7552 was released on 2019-08-06. The Intel part is end-of-life, the AMD part is active. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $4025; the i7 has no launch MSRP listed. The multiplier is locked on both processors. The part numbers are SRF6USRFCP for the Intel and 100-000000076 for the AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six. The most dramatic difference is in multi-core performance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 48,801 versus the i7's 8,973, a delta of -81.6% (meaning the Intel part is 81.6% lower). This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 20,496 for the EPYC versus 3,768 for the i7, again an 81.6% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4,919 for the EPYC and 904 for the i7.

Single-core tests also favor the EPYC, which is unusual for a high-core-count server part. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,889 versus the i7's 1,266. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,893 versus 531. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 694 versus 127. The delta for every single-core test is also -81.6%.

The consistency of the -81.6% delta across all six tests is striking. It suggests a near-constant performance ratio between the two parts in Cinebench workloads. The EPYC's single-core advantage indicates that its Zen 2 cores are individually faster than the Coffee Lake cores in these specific tests, despite the Intel part having a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz.

The broader benchmark data also shows interesting patterns. The i7-9750H has a PassMark single-thread score of 2,404, while its multi-thread score is 10,671. The i7's PassMark integer math score is 37,822, floating point math is 23,343, and data compression is 150,443. The EPYC 7552 does not have PassMark scores in the database, only Cinebench scores. This means the average benchmark scores are computed differently: the i7's average of 14,886 includes many PassMark tests, while the EPYC's average of 14,115 includes only the six Cinebench tests.

This data asymmetry affects the percentile rankings. The i7 is in the 69th percentile, the EPYC in the 68th. These are close, but the i7's percentile is based on a broader test suite. The nearest rivals for the i7 include the AMD EPYC 74F3 (avg score 14,915, delta -0.2%), Intel Core i3-10320 (14,852, +0.2%), Intel Core i3-1315U (15,022, -0.9%), and AMD EPYC 7702P (15,130, -1.6%). The EPYC 7552's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14,163, -0.3%), Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185, -0.5%), Intel Core i5-10400 (14,037, +0.6%), and Intel Core 7 160UL (14,232, -0.8%).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7552 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It is the superior processor for any workload that scales with core count, including rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, and database processing. Its 48 cores and 96 threads provide massive parallelism. The 192 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth give it the memory subsystem to feed those cores. The ECC memory support makes it suitable for mission-critical server environments where data integrity is paramount. Its PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes allows for extensive I/O expansion.

The Intel Core i7-9750H wins no benchmarks in this comparison. Its advantages are not in performance but in platform characteristics. It has a TDP of 45 W, less than a quarter of the EPYC's 200 W. This makes it suitable for laptops and mobile workstations where power consumption and heat dissipation are constrained. It has integrated UHD 630 graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic display tasks. It uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is a mobile form factor. Its dual-channel memory and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for mobile workloads but far below the EPYC's capabilities.

The database shows the i7-9750H's production status is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7552 is active. This means the Intel part is no longer being manufactured, while the AMD part remains available. For new system designs, the EPYC 7552 is the only one of the two that can be sourced as an active product.

The single-core results deserve attention. The EPYC 7552's single-core scores are dramatically higher than the i7's, with a consistent -81.6% delta. This means that even in lightly threaded applications, the EPYC is the faster part according to these Cinebench measurements. The i7's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz does not translate into a single-core win. This is a clear case where architectural efficiency and IPC (instructions per clock) differences, along with the newer 7 nm process, outweigh the clock speed advantage of the Intel part.

The verdict from the data is simple: the AMD EPYC 7552 is the outright performance winner. The Intel Core i7-9750H remains relevant only for its mobile form factor and low power draw. In any head-to-head benchmark recorded, the EPYC wins by a wide margin. The only reason to choose the i7 would be for a laptop platform where the EPYC's 200 W TDP and Socket SP3 are physically impossible to accommodate. For server, workstation, or high-performance desktop use, the EPYC 7552 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.