AMD EPYC 7F32 vs Intel Core i9-11900KB Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7F32 and Intel Core i9-11900KB are both 8-core, 16-thread processors, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The data clearly shows that the EPYC 7F32 wins every single benchmark in this comparison, although by a remarkably narrow margin. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD part holds a consistent lead of roughly 2% over the Intel part, making this a contest defined by small but uniform performance advantages rather than any dramatic swings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal: the AMD EPYC 7F32 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin of victory comes in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the EPYC scores 280 against the i9-11900KB's 274, a 2.2% advantage. Every other test shows a delta of either 2.0% or 2.1%, which indicates a very stable and consistent performance gap.

In multi-core workloads, the pattern holds. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the EPYC at 1987 versus Intel's 1946, a 2.1% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 8281 for AMD against 8112 for Intel, again a 2.1% difference. The R23 multi-core results follow suit, with the EPYC scoring 19718 and the i9-11900KB scoring 19316, a 2.1% margin.

Single-core performance tells the same tale. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC 7F32 scores 1168 while the Intel part scores 1145, a 2% advantage. The R23 single-core test shows the EPYC at 2783 versus 2727 for Intel, a 2.1% lead. The consistency of these results is notable; the AMD processor does not have a single weakness in this benchmark suite.

It is notably both processors sit at the 61st percentile when compared to all CPUs in the database. The EPYC 7F32 has an average benchmark score of 5703, while the i9-11900KB trails with an average of 5587. This puts the AMD part roughly 2% ahead on average, which aligns perfectly with the individual test results. The EPYC's nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7351, scores 5710 on average, which is only 0.1% different from the 7F32, showing how tightly packed this performance tier is. The Intel part's nearest rival, the Intel Atom x7433RE, scores 5601, a 0.2% difference, which places the i9-11900KB in a similarly competitive band.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7F32 is built on the Zen 2 architecture using the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform and is classified as a Server/Workstation part. The Intel Core i9-11900KB, in contrast, uses the Tiger Lake architecture with the Tiger Lake-H codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. It uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket and is classified as a Mobile part.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The EPYC 7F32 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's massive 128 MB L3 cache dwarfs the Intel's 24 MB, which is a substantial architectural advantage for the server part.

Memory support also diverges sharply. The EPYC 7F32 supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The i9-11900KB supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This represents a fourfold difference in memory bandwidth in favor of the AMD part. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

PCIe capabilities are another major differentiator. The EPYC 7F32 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU alone, while the i9-11900KB offers Gen 4 with just 20 lanes. The EPYC's 128 lanes represent a massive expansion capability for server workloads, whereas the Intel part is more constrained. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the i9-11900KB includes UHD Graphics 750.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7F32 is the faster processor in every benchmark measured. It wins all six Cinebench tests by a consistent margin of around 2%, and its average benchmark score of 5703 is higher than the Intel part's 5587. If raw compute performance is the only criterion, the EPYC 7F32 is the better choice.

However, context matters. The EPYC 7F32 is a server/workstation processor with a TDP of 180 watts, while the i9-11900KB is a mobile processor with a TDP of just 65 watts. The EPYC's 180-watt TDP is nearly three times higher than the Intel part's 65-watt envelope. This means the AMD part achieves its performance lead while consuming significantly more power. The Intel part, despite being end-of-life, offers a much more power-efficient package.

The EPYC 7F32 also comes with a launch MSRP of $2100, while the i9-11900KB has a launch MSRP of $539. The AMD part is a server-class component with eight-channel memory, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and ECC support, features that justify its positioning. The Intel part is a mobile component with dual-channel memory, 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and integrated graphics, making it suitable for compact systems.

For a server or workstation build where memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion are critical, the EPYC 7F32 is the obvious choice. For a mobile or compact system where power consumption matters more than absolute performance, the i9-11900KB holds appeal. The benchmark data shows the EPYC is faster, but the i9-11900KB offers a different balance of features that may suit other use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has an average benchmark score of 5703, while the Intel Core i9-11900KB has an average score of 5587.

Q: What is the largest performance margin in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest margin is 2.2%, achieved by the AMD EPYC 7F32 in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scored 280 against Intel's 274.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-11900KB support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core i9-11900KB does not support ECC memory, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 does.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor provide?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Core i9-11900KB provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 offers 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth with an eight-channel bus, while the Intel Core i9-11900KB offers 51.2 GB/s with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7F32's boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins every single benchmark in this comparison, so its victory is absolute in terms of raw performance. It scores higher in all six Cinebench tests, from R15 single-core to R23 multi-core. Its 128 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory support, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it the superior choice for memory-intensive and expansion-heavy workloads. The EPYC's 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is four times that of the Intel part, which is a decisive advantage for server applications that rely heavily on memory throughput.

The Intel Core i9-11900KB does not win any benchmarks, but it has other strengths that are not captured by Cinebench scores. Its TDP of 65 watts is significantly lower than the EPYC's 180 watts, making it a much more power-efficient option for thermally constrained environments. It includes UHD Graphics 750, providing integrated graphics that the EPYC lacks entirely. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock is substantially higher than the EPYC's 3.90 GHz, which could benefit lightly threaded workloads that are sensitive to clock speed. The i9-11900KB also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, whereas the EPYC 7F32 has a locked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i9-11900KB has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The EPYC has a TDP of 180 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 65 watts.

The EPYC 7F32 uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, while the i9-11900KB uses Intel BGA 1787. The EPYC is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The EPYC has a die size of 4x 74 mm² and contains 15,200 million transistors, while the Intel part has a die size of 190 mm².

Cache configurations differ markedly. The EPYC 7F32 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a total of 128 MB of L3 cache. The i9-11900KB has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support favors the EPYC with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Intel part's dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not. PCIe lanes are 128 for the EPYC versus 20 for the Intel part. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 750. The EPYC is an active production part, while the i9-11900KB is end-of-life.