AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core i7-9700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9374F across every shared benchmark, with margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9374F scores 7026 against the Intel Core i7-9700's 1128, a 522.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 991 versus 159, a 523.3% delta. These are not close contests by any measure; the EPYC processor outperforms the Intel chip by more than fivefold in both metrics.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds with striking consistency. The multicore result shows 29276 for the AMD part versus 4704 for the Intel part, a 522.4% difference. Single-core R20 repeats the exact same delta: 4133 against 664, again 522.4%. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 69707 versus 11200, another 522.4% gap, while R23 single-core lands at 9841 versus 1581, a 522.5% margin. The near-identical percentage deltas across all six Cinebench tests suggest that the performance scaling between these two processors is remarkably uniform regardless of workload intensity within that benchmark suite.

Geekbench results show a slightly different ratio. In multicore, the EPYC 9374F scores 18263 versus 6800 for the Core i7-9700, a 168.6% lead. The single-core Geekbench test narrows the gap considerably: 2306 versus 1560, a 47.8% advantage for AMD. This single-core result is the closest any benchmark comes to a competitive race, which raises an interesting question about architectural efficiency at lower thread counts. The data suggests that while the EPYC 9374F dominates in raw throughput, the Core i7-9700's single-thread performance is far less distant from the AMD flagship in the Geekbench metric than in the Cinebench suite.

The head-to-head tally records 8 wins for the AMD EPYC 9374F and 0 wins for the Intel Core i7-9700. No benchmark in the shared set favors the Intel part, and the smallest delta across all tests remains the 47.8% single-core Geekbench gap. Average benchmark scores in the broader database reinforce this hierarchy: the EPYC 9374F sits at 17693 with a 71st percentile ranking, while the Core i7-9700 averages 18180 at the 72nd percentile. Despite the EPYC's complete head-to-head dominance, the aggregate percentile standings are nearly identical, which signals that both processors occupy similar positions within the wider CPU landscape when all recorded tests are considered together.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is generational and foundational. The AMD EPYC 9374F belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa and manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. It uses 52,560 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 72 mm². The Intel Core i7-9700, by contrast, is a Coffee Lake Refresh part built on Intel's 14 nm process with a monolithic die of 180.3 mm². The transistor count for the Intel chip is not recorded in the database, but the process node difference alone implies a major density and efficiency gap.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 9374F provides 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Core i7-9700 offers 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel part has no hyper-threading in its recorded specifications, which means its thread count equals its core count. This 4x core advantage and 8x thread advantage for AMD explains much of the multicore benchmark separation. Cache hierarchies reflect the same scaling: the EPYC 9374F carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-9700 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The L3 disparity is particularly stark, with the EPYC offering over 21 times the shared cache capacity.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC support. The Core i7-9700 uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC capability. The bandwidth difference is roughly an order of magnitude, which matters for memory-intensive server workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The EPYC's lane count and generation allow for far more expansion and I/O throughput.

The Core i7-9700 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the EPYC 9374F records no integrated graphics. The Intel socket is LGA 1151, the AMD socket is SP5. The EPYC targets the server and workstation segment and remains in active production, while the Core i7-9700 is a desktop part that has reached end-of-life status. The Intel chip was released on 2019-04-22, and the EPYC on 2022-11-09, a gap of roughly three and a half years that aligns with the process and architecture advancements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore, and by how much?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F wins with a score of 69707 versus 11200 for the Intel Core i7-9700, a 522.4% advantage.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-9700 competitive in any single-core benchmark?

A: The closest result is Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 9374F leads by 47.8% (2306 versus 1560). In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, the EPYC leads by roughly 522% to 523%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core i7-9700 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth plus ECC. The Core i7-9700 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth without ECC.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i7-9700, which includes UHD Graphics 630. The EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics recorded.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F is active in production. The Intel Core i7-9700 is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The EPYC 9374F uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Core i7-9700 uses Coffee Lake on Intel's 14 nm process. Core counts stand at 32 versus 8, and thread counts at 64 versus 8. Base clocks are 3.85 GHz for AMD and 3.00 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 4.30 GHz for AMD and 4.70 GHz for Intel. The Intel part actually boosts higher, but the AMD part starts from a higher base and maintains its advantage through the benchmark results.

TDP figures differ dramatically: 320 watts for the EPYC 9374F versus 65 watts for the Core i7-9700. This reflects the server-class power envelope of the AMD part against the desktop efficiency of the Intel chip. Socket compatibility is entirely separate: SP5 for AMD, LGA 1151 for Intel. L2 cache per core is 1 MB for the EPYC versus 256 KB for the Core i7, and L3 cache is 256 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support, bus width, bandwidth, ECC capability, PCIe generation and lane count, integrated graphics presence, market segment, production status, release date, and launch MSRP all differ as well. The EPYC launched at $4850, and the Core i7-9700 at $333.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9374F wins in every shared benchmark category, with its largest margins in Cinebench multicore tests where the 522% to 523% deltas reflect the combined effects of more cores, more threads, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth. It also dominates in Geekbench multicore with a 168.6% lead. The data points to workloads that scale across cores and benefit from the 256 MB L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Server virtualization, large-scale compilation, scientific computing, and database workloads are the natural fit for this profile, given the recorded specifications and benchmark outcomes.

The Intel Core i7-9700 has no benchmark wins in the shared dataset. However, its specification profile suggests contexts where it could be preferable, even if the recorded tests do not demonstrate it. Its 65 watt TDP is dramatically lower, its 4.70 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, and it includes integrated graphics. The dual-channel DDR4 memory and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are far more modest but align with desktop usage. The recorded data shows the EPYC wins every test, yet the Intel part's lower power draw and integrated graphics point toward conventional desktop use cases where the EPYC's server-oriented feature set would be unnecessary.

The percentile data adds nuance. The EPYC 9374F ranks at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i7-9700 ranks at the 72nd. Their average benchmark scores are 17693 and 18180 respectively, within 2.8% of each other. This indicates that when placed against the full breadth of the CPU landscape, both processors sit at nearly the same level, despite the EPYC's absolute dominance in this head-to-head pairing. The Core i7-9700's wider benchmark portfolio, which includes PassMark tests not shared with the EPYC, likely contributes to its slightly higher aggregate average.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9374F wins all 8 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 47.8% to 523.3%. Any user selecting purely on measured performance in Cinebench or Geekbench should choose the EPYC 9374F without hesitation. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth create a performance envelope that the Core i7-9700 cannot approach in these workloads.

The case for the Intel Core i7-9700 rests on factors outside the shared benchmark suite. Its 65 watt TDP versus 320 watts, integrated UHD Graphics 630, and the absence of any requirement for server-grade SP5 platforms make it the more practical option for desktop builds. The EPYC 9374F is a server and workstation processor with a $4850 launch MSRP, while the Core i7-9700 launched at $333. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 4.30 GHz could theoretically benefit lightly threaded applications, though the recorded Geekbench single-core result still favors AMD by 47.8%.

Production status also matters for long-term planning. The EPYC 9374F remains active, while the Core i7-9700 is end-of-life. For new deployments, the AMD part offers ongoing availability. For existing LGA 1151 systems, the Intel part represents a known quantity within an established platform. The data supports the EPYC 9374F for anyone prioritizing absolute performance and future availability. The Core i7-9700 suits scenarios where power efficiency, integrated graphics, and desktop platform compatibility take precedence over the benchmark results recorded here. The near-identical percentile rankings of both chips suggest that in the broader context of all CPUs, neither is an outlier, but within this specific comparison, the EPYC 9374F is the clear performance winner.