AMD EPYC 9354P vs Intel Core i7-9750H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9354P across every shared benchmark, with eight wins and zero for the Intel Core i7-9750H. The margins are not subtle; they are category-defining.

The largest gaps appear in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9354P scores 6,434 against 904 for the Intel part, a 611.7% advantage. The single-core result in the same test is even more lopsided on a percentage basis: 908 versus 127, a 615% delta. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where multi-core shows 26,812 versus 3,768 (611.6% ahead) and single-core shows 3,785 versus 531 (612.8% ahead). Cinebench R23 continues the trend: 63,840 versus 8,973 in multi-core (611.5% ahead) and 9,012 versus 1,266 in single-core (611.8% ahead).

Geekbench results are closer but still favor the AMD part decisively. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC 9354P records 14,214 against 5,323, a 167% lead. Single-core Geekbench is the tightest contest in the entire comparison: 1,605 versus 1,349, a 19% margin. That 19% figure is notable because it suggests that even in a workload that does not scale with core count, the Zen 4 architecture and higher base clock carry the day, though the Intel chip's 4.50 GHz boost clock keeps it within striking distance.

What the data does not show is any benchmark where the Core i7-9750H wins. The wins tally is 8-0. The Intel processor's additional PassMark tests (data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single thread) are not present in the head-to-head table, so no comparative claim can be made from those measurements. Within the shared tests, there is no ambiguity.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark, and it flows directly from the benchmark numbers rather than from speculation.

The AMD EPYC 9354P wins everywhere the shared tests measure. In rendering workloads, which Cinebench R15/R20/R23 simulate, the 32-core, 64-thread configuration produces scores that are roughly seven times higher than the Intel part's output. That is a workload class where core count and memory bandwidth dominate, and the EPYC 9354P's twelve-channel DDR5 support and 256 MB shared L3 cache align with those demands. The Geekbench multi-core result, 14,214 versus 5,323, reinforces the same conclusion for general productivity or compilation-style tasks that can use many threads.

The Intel Core i7-9750H does not have a winning benchmark in the shared set, so the honest statement is that it is not the faster part in any measured category. However, the data does indicate where it is least disadvantaged. The Geekbench single-core delta of 19% is the smallest gap. For workloads that are lightly threaded and sensitive to raw single-core speed, the Intel chip's 4.50 GHz boost clock narrows the deficit considerably compared to multi-threaded tests. The 45 W TDP and mobile form factor (Intel BGA 1440 socket, Coffee Lake-HR architecture) also point to a design target of laptops and portable workstations, where the EPYC 9354P's 280 W TDP and SP5 socket are simply not applicable. The Intel part's integrated UHD 630 graphics is another differentiator: the EPYC 9354P has no integrated graphics, so any display output on that platform requires a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous for raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9354P is the faster processor in every shared benchmark, and by margins that range from 19% to 615%. If the task is multi-threaded rendering, heavy server workloads, or any compute that scales with 32 cores and 64 threads, the EPYC 9354P is the only rational choice from these two.

The Intel Core i7-9750H is not competitive in the same performance class, but the data also shows why it exists. It has a 45 W TDP versus 280 W, a mobile socket, integrated graphics, and an end-of-life production status. The EPYC 9354P is active and aimed at server and workstation segments. The choice is not really about which is faster; it is about which platform fits the physical and power constraints of the machine. For a laptop or a compact mobile workstation, the Core i7-9750H is the only one of the two that fits. For a server chassis or a desktop workstation with SP5 support, the EPYC 9354P delivers 611.7% more multi-core performance in Cinebench R15 and a 167% lead in Geekbench multi-core.

The average benchmark scores put the EPYC 9354P at 15,826 and the Core i7-9750H at 14,886, a gap of about 6.3%. That average includes the Intel part's PassMark tests, which are not shared, so it understates the head-to-head difference. The percentile versus all CPUs is identical at 69 for both, which reflects the overall benchmark distribution rather than the direct comparison. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 9354P are the AMD EPYC 75F3 (0.2% lower average score), AMD Ryzen 5 40 (0.4% lower), AMD EPYC 9254 (0.4% higher), and Intel Core i5-11400H (0.5% higher). The Core i7-9750H sits near the AMD EPYC 74F3 (0.2% lower), Intel Core i3-10320 (0.2% higher), Intel Core i3-1315U (0.9% lower), and AMD EPYC 7702P (1.6% lower). Neither chip is an outlier relative to its nearest neighbors; the difference is the class of work each is built for.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P scores 63,840 versus 8,973 for the Intel Core i7-9750H, a 611.5% lead.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core i7-9750H beats the AMD EPYC 9354P?

A: No. In the eight shared benchmarks (Cinebench R15/R20/R23 multi and single core, Geekbench multi and single core), the EPYC 9354P wins all eight. The Intel part has additional PassMark tests in the database, but those are not compared head-to-head.

Q: How close is the single-core performance between the two?

A: The closest result is Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 9354P scores 1,605 versus 1,349, a 19% margin. In Cinebench tests, the single-core gap is much larger, ranging from 612.8% in R20 to 615% in R15.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The EPYC 9354P supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i7-9750H supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-9750H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD 630 integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 9354P has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9354P is listed as Active. The Intel Core i7-9750H is listed as End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational and process-driven. The AMD EPYC 9354P uses Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa codename, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i7-9750H uses Coffee Lake architecture (Coffee Lake-HR codename), built on a 14 nm process at Intel. That process difference explains a large portion of the performance and efficiency gap: the EPYC packs 52,560 million transistors across a die size of 8x 72 mm², while the Intel chip has a 149 mm² die with no transistor count recorded.

The core and cache layout differs fundamentally. The EPYC 9354P has 32 cores and 64 threads, with 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Core i7-9750H has 6 cores and 12 threads, with 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is over 20 times larger, which directly benefits workloads that reuse large data sets.

Memory architecture is another split. The EPYC 9354P runs DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus at 460.8 GB/s with ECC support. The Intel part runs DDR4 on a dual-channel bus at 42.7 GB/s without ECC. PCIe also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip is Gen 3.

The EPYC 9354P is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP5, released on 2022-11-09, with a launch MSRP of $2730. The Core i7-9750H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1440, released on 2019-04-22, with no launch MSRP recorded. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The production status confirms the direction: the EPYC is active, the Intel part is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two processors are substantial and explain the benchmark outcomes.

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel.
• Cores: 32 versus 6.
• Threads: 64 versus 12.
• Base clock: 3.25 GHz versus 2.60 GHz.
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz.
• TDP: 280 W versus 45 W.
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel BGA 1440.
• Architecture: Zen 4 versus Coffee Lake.
• Codename: Genoa versus Coffee Lake-HR.
• Process node: 5 nm versus 14 nm.
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel.
• Die size: 8x 72 mm² versus 149 mm².
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core on both.
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 12 MB shared.
• Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR4.
• Memory bus: Twelve-channel versus dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported.
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 lanes versus Gen 3.
• Integrated graphics: None versus UHD 630.
• Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile.
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release date: 2022-11-09 versus 2019-04-22.
• Part number: 100-100000805 versus SRF6USRFCP.

The boost clock is the one specification where the Intel part is higher, and that shows up in the relatively closer Geekbench single-core result. Everything else, from core count to cache to memory bandwidth, favors the AMD processor. The 45 W TDP of the Intel chip is a design constraint that makes it suitable for laptops, while the 280 W EPYC requires a server platform. The recorded data does not include a PassMark comparison between the two, so no claim about those scores can be made here.