AMD EPYC 9254 vs Intel Core i7-9750H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD EPYC 9254 and the Intel Core i7-9750H is decisively one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests recorded in the database, the EPYC 9254 wins every single matchup, with deltas ranging from 507.1% to 509.4%. These are not marginal advantages; they represent performance gaps of roughly fivefold in every measured workload.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9254 scores 5490 against the Core i7-9750H's 904, a delta of 507.3%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 774 versus 127, a 509.4% advantage. Moving to R20, the EPYC 9254 posts 22878 in multicore while the Intel part manages 3768, a 507.2% delta. Single-core R20 shows 3229 against 531, a 508.1% gap. The R23 tests continue the trend: multicore 54473 versus 8973 (507.1% delta) and single-core 7690 versus 1266 (507.4% delta).

The consistency of these deltas is striking. Across all six tests, the percentage advantage hovers within a narrow band of roughly 507% to 509%. This uniformity suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent. The EPYC 9254 does not merely win in some scenarios and lose in others; it dominates every Cinebench metric by nearly the same proportion.

What makes this interesting is the context from the nearest rivals. The EPYC 9254's average benchmark score is 15756, placing it at the 69th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest competitors include the Intel Core i5-11400H at 15749 (0% delta), the AMD EPYC 9354P at 15826 (-0.4% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U at 15682 (0.5% delta). The Core i7-9750H, meanwhile, has an average score of 14886, also at the 69th percentile, with rivals like the AMD EPYC 74F3 at 14915 (-0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i3-10320 at 14852 (0.2% delta).

The percentile parity is notable: both processors sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, yet their head-to-head deltas are enormous. This indicates that the percentile metric is heavily influenced by the broader distribution of CPUs, where many mobile and budget desktop parts cluster near the Core i7-9750H's performance level. The EPYC 9254, by contrast, sits in a different performance stratum entirely. The data suggests that any comparison between these two parts is not a close contest but a demonstration of how far server-class silicon has moved beyond mobile processors from an earlier generation.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves little room for ambiguity. The AMD EPYC 9254 outperforms the Intel Core i7-9750H in every benchmark test that the database contains. With six wins and zero losses, the EPYC 9254's dominance is absolute across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and single-core variants.

Who should choose the EPYC 9254? Any workload that depends on sustained multi-threaded performance, particularly in server or workstation contexts, will benefit from the roughly 507% multicore advantage. The 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 128 MB of shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory support, make this processor suited for heavy parallel compute tasks. The data also shows a single-core advantage of roughly 507% to 509%, which means even lightly threaded applications see a substantial boost.

Who should choose the Core i7-9750H? The data does not support choosing it for raw performance. However, the Intel part has attributes that the EPYC 9254 lacks entirely: integrated graphics (UHD 630) and a mobile form factor. The 45 W TDP, versus the EPYC 9254's 200 W, indicates a fundamentally different power envelope. The Core i7-9750H is end-of-life, while the EPYC 9254 remains active. For a laptop or compact mobile system where the processor must operate within a low power budget and include graphics output, the Core i7-9750H is the only viable option from these two. But for anyone prioritizing compute performance, the EPYC 9254 is the clear choice based on every benchmark result in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from vastly different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 9254 is built on Zen 4 architecture under the codename Genoa, part of the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Intel Core i7-9750H, in contrast, uses Coffee Lake architecture with the codename Coffee Lake-HR, built on a 14 nm process node by Intel. This process generation gap of two nodes helps explain the performance disparity.

The EPYC 9254 features 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core i7-9750H has 6 cores and 12 threads. Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 9254 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-9750H also has 64 KB of L1 per core but only 256 KB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9254's L3 cache is more than ten times larger.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The EPYC 9254 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core i7-9750H uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC 9254 but not on the Core i7-9750H. PCIe capabilities also differ: the EPYC 9254 provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-9750H offers Gen 3 without a specified lane count.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect their different manufacturing processes. The EPYC 9254 has 26,280 million transistors across 4x 72 mm² dies. The Core i7-9750H has no transistor count recorded but has a die size of 149 mm². Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields differ between the two processors. The EPYC 9254 has 24 cores and 48 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads on the Core i7-9750H. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the EPYC 9254 and 2.60 GHz for the Core i7-9750H. Boost clocks are 4.15 GHz and 4.50 GHz respectively, meaning the Intel part has a higher maximum frequency despite its lower base.

TDP values differ dramatically: 200 W for the EPYC 9254 and 45 W for the Core i7-9750H. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC 9254, Intel BGA 1440 for the Core i7-9750H. Process nodes are 5 nm versus 14 nm. Foundries are TSMC versus Intel. Die sizes are 4x 72 mm² versus 149 mm².

Cache specifications differ in L2 and L3 sizes. L1 is identical at 64 KB per core. L2 is 1 MB per core on the EPYC 9254 versus 256 KB per core on the Core i7-9750H. L3 is 128 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR5 versus DDR4, twelve-channel versus dual-channel, 460.8 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is available on the EPYC 9254 but not on the Core i7-9750H. PCIe generation differs: Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3.

The EPYC 9254 has no integrated graphics; the Core i7-9750H includes UHD 630. Market segments differ: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Production status differs: Active versus End-of-life. Release dates are 2022-11-09 for the EPYC 9254 and 2019-04-22 for the Core i7-9750H. The EPYC 9254 has a launch MSRP of $2299; the Core i7-9750H has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-9750H has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9254 has a boost clock of 4.15 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 9254 still wins all single-core Cinebench tests by roughly 507% to 509%.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The EPYC 9254 has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. The Core i7-9750H has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC 9254's L3 cache is approximately ten times larger.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9254 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-9750H does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i7-9750H has integrated graphics, specifically the UHD 630. The AMD EPYC 9254 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The EPYC 9254 has a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i7-9750H has a dual-channel DDR4 bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. This is a roughly tenfold difference in memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 is marked as Active in production status. The Intel Core i7-9750H is marked as End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9254 wins every benchmark category in the database: Cinebench R15 multicore and single-core, Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core, and Cinebench R23 multicore and single-core. The deltas range from 507.1% to 509.4%, with no single test narrowing the gap meaningfully. This processor is the choice for multi-threaded server workloads, memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks, and any application that can exploit 24 cores, 48 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache. Its twelve-channel DDR5 support with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also position it for high-throughput compute environments.

The Intel Core i7-9750H has no benchmark wins in the database. However, it holds advantages in areas that benchmarks do not capture. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile systems where power consumption is a constraint, compared to the EPYC 9254's 200 W TDP. Its integrated UHD 630 graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC 9254 cannot offer. The BGA 1440 socket indicates a soldered mobile design, whereas the EPYC 9254 uses the SP5 socket for server motherboards. The Core i7-9750H also has a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 4.15 GHz), though this does not translate into any benchmark advantage in the recorded data. For someone building a laptop or compact mobile workstation with modest power budgets, the Core i7-9750H remains a functional choice. For anyone comparing pure compute capability, the EPYC 9254 wins in every measured dimension.