AMD EPYC 9454 vs Intel Core i9-11900H Comparison

The Intel Core i9-11900H and AMD EPYC 9454 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are remarkably close. The data shows the EPYC 9454 holds a 0.7% lead in average benchmark score over the i9-11900H (21223 vs 21367), placing both in the 75th percentile of all CPUs. However, this near-parity in aggregate scores masks a complete divergence in workload performance. The EPYC 9454 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with deltas ranging from -77.1% to -77.2% in favor of the AMD part. The i9-11900H counters with a significant advantage in single-threaded and consumer-oriented workloads, where its higher boost clock and mobile architecture prove decisive.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a dominant, consistent victory for the AMD EPYC 9454. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC scores 73375 against the i9-11900H’s 16772, a delta of -77.1%. This pattern repeats across every multi-threaded test: R20 multicore shows 30817 versus 7044 (-77.1%), and R15 multicore shows 7396 versus 1690 (-77.1%). The margin is uniform because the EPYC’s 48 cores and 96 threads simply overwhelm the i9’s 8 cores and 16 threads in parallel rendering tasks.

Single-core results tell a similar story, albeit with a slightly wider gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 10358 against the i9’s 2367, a delta of -77.1%. R20 single-core shows 4350 versus 994 (-77.1%), and R15 single-core shows 1044 versus 238 (-77.2%). The EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture delivers superior instructions per clock, and its 3.80 GHz boost clock, while lower than the i9’s 4.90 GHz, still produces roughly 4.4x the single-threaded score.

The i9-11900H’s wins come from benchmarks not included in the head-to-head set. In its own benchmark suite, the i9 shows strong results in PassMark single-thread (3102), 3DMark single-thread (917), and Cinebench R23 single-core (2367). These scores indicate that for lightly threaded workloads, the i9’s higher boost clock and Tiger Lake architecture provide competitive performance, though the head-to-head data shows the EPYC still wins decisively in Cinebench single-core tests. The i9 also demonstrates solid multi-threaded capability for a mobile chip, with PassMark multithread at 20162 and Cinebench R23 multicore at 16772, but these figures are dwarfed by the EPYC’s server-class throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Intel Core i9-11900H uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 190 mm². The AMD EPYC 9454 employs Zen 4 architecture (codename Genoa) on a 5 nm process node from TSMC, using eight chiplets each measuring 72 mm², totaling 52,560 million transistors. This process advantage gives AMD a significant efficiency and density lead, though the EPYC’s 290 W TDP dwarfs the i9’s 35 W TDP.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The i9-11900H offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 9454 provides 48 cores and 96 threads. Cache hierarchies reflect this scale: the i9 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3, whereas the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3. The EPYC’s larger L3 cache is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture reinforces the server versus mobile split. The i9 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the i9 lacks. PCIe capabilities differ just as starkly: the i9 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The i9 includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on discrete GPUs for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9454 is the clear winner for multi-threaded, server, and workstation workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 73375 is 4.4x higher than the i9’s 16772, making it ideal for 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and virtualization. The 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth provide the data throughput necessary for database operations and large-scale analytics. The EPYC’s 48 cores and 96 threads enable massive parallel processing, and its ECC memory support makes it suitable for mission-critical enterprise applications where data integrity is paramount.

The Intel Core i9-11900H wins in mobile and single-threaded scenarios. Its 35 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops, where the EPYC’s 290 W TDP is impractical. The i9’s 4.90 GHz boost clock provides responsive performance for everyday tasks, and its integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The i9’s PassMark single-thread score of 3102 indicates strong performance for legacy applications, office productivity, and web browsing, where single-core speed matters more than core count. The i9 also wins on platform flexibility for mobile users, offering a complete computing solution in a single package.

The benchmark data shows a clean split: the EPYC 9454 dominates all Cinebench tests, while the i9-11900H’s strengths lie in its mobile form factor and integrated feature set. The 0.7% average benchmark score difference between the two is misleading, as no real workload would choose between these processors based on aggregate scores alone. The EPYC’s wins are decisive in its domain, and the i9’s wins are equally decisive in its own.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9454 scores 73375, which is 77.1% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900H’s 16772.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded Cinebench R20 performance?

A: The EPYC 9454 scores 4350, versus 994 for the i9-11900H, a delta of -77.1% in favor of the AMD processor.

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

A: The i9-11900H has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 9454 has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454 supports ECC memory; the Intel Core i9-11900H does not.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The i9-11900H uses Intel’s 10 nm process, while the EPYC 9454 uses TSMC’s 5 nm process.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900H has a 4.90 GHz boost clock, compared to the EPYC 9454’s 3.80 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-11900H | AMD EPYC 9454 |

|----------------|---------------------|---------------|

| Cores | 8 | 48 |

| Threads | 16 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.75 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 290 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1787 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 190 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 52,560 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2021-05-10 | 2022-11-09 |