AMD EPYC 9654 vs Intel Core i9-11980HK Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9654 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, including single-core tests, by an identical 81.7% margin in each. For any workload that can utilize more than a handful of threads, the EPYC 9654 is the only rational choice. The Intel Core i9-11980HK is a mobile processor designed for a completely different purpose, and its role is limited to systems where the EPYC 9654 physically cannot exist.

The verdict splits by market segment, not by performance. The EPYC 9654 is for server and workstation deployments where massive parallel throughput, 96 cores, and 192 threads are required. The Core i9-11980HK is for a compact mobile chassis where power limits and thermal constraints dominate, and where its 45 W TDP and integrated graphics are acceptable trade-offs. If the workload is batch rendering, data compression, or database processing, the EPYC 9654 is the answer without qualification. If the workload is a laptop that must be carried, the Core i9-11980HK is the only option presented here.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design schools. The Intel Core i9-11980HK uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 190 mm². It is a mobile part, soldered to the Intel BGA 1787 socket, and its 8 cores and 16 threads are arranged for modest power consumption. The AMD EPYC 9654 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, built on TSMC's 5 nm process across 12 separate chiplets, each measuring 72 mm². The transistor count is listed at 78,840 million, a figure that dwarfs anything in the mobile segment.

Cache organization also differs sharply. The Intel part allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB L3. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive shared 384 MB L3. That L3 difference, 24 MB versus 384 MB, is a 16x gap in favor of the EPYC 9654, and it directly explains the multi-core benchmark dominance. The EPYC 9654 also supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part is dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the AMD side and absent on the Intel side.

The process node gap (10 nm versus 5 nm) and the transistor budget (no figure given for Intel, 78,840 million for AMD) mean the EPYC 9654 is a radically more complex silicon package. The Intel part integrates UHD Graphics 750, while the AMD EPYC 9654 has no integrated graphics at all. PCIe support also differs: Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Intel mobile chip versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes on the AMD server chip. The production statuses confirm the intent: the Core i9-11980HK is end-of-life, while the EPYC 9654 is active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison shows the same 81.7% delta in favor of the AMD EPYC 9654. That consistency is notable, because it means the performance gap is not workload-dependent; it is a structural property of the two designs.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i9-11980HK scores 1876, while the EPYC 9654 scores 10248. The delta is -81.7% from the Intel perspective, meaning the AMD part is roughly 5.5 times faster. In single-core R15, the Intel part scores 264, and the AMD part scores 1446, again an 81.7% gap. This is the critical finding: even in a test that should favor high clock speeds, the EPYC 9654 wins because its Zen 4 architecture at 3.70 GHz boost delivers more instructions per clock than the Tiger Lake-H at 5.00 GHz boost.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 7819 for Intel and 42703 for AMD. Single-core R20 shows 1103 versus 6028. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 18617 versus 101675, a gap of over 83,000 points. Single-core R23 shows 2628 versus 14354. In every case, the delta percentage is exactly -81.7%, which suggests the benchmark suite is capturing a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The Intel part has additional Passmark scores recorded in the database, including 266571 in data compression, 13813 in data encryption, 78682 in integer math, and 46262 in floating point math. The EPYC 9654 has no Passmark entries in this database, so direct comparison on those tests is not possible. However, the Cinebench results are sufficient to establish the hierarchy: the EPYC 9654 is faster in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Core i9-11980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 9654 has 96 cores and 192 threads. That is a 12x core count difference and a 12x thread count difference. Base clocks are close: 2.60 GHz for Intel versus 2.40 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks favor Intel, 5.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, but the benchmark data shows that clock advantage does not translate into a win.

TDP is a 45 W versus 360 W split, an 8x difference. The Intel part is soldered to BGA 1787, the AMD part to Socket SP5. Process node is 10 nm for Intel, 5 nm for AMD, with the foundry listed as Intel for the former and TSMC for the latter. The AMD die is described as 12x 72 mm², while the Intel die is 190 mm². The L3 cache is 24 MB shared versus 384 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 dual-channel at 51.2 GB/s versus DDR5 twelve-channel at 460.8 GB/s. ECC is not supported on the Intel part, supported on the AMD part. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel part. Market segment is Mobile for Intel and Server/Workstation for AMD. Release dates are 2021-05-10 for the Intel part and 2022-11-09 for the AMD part. The Intel launch MSRP is $583, and the AMD launch MSRP is $11805. The Intel multiplier is unlocked, the AMD multiplier is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) with an 81.7% margin over the Intel Core i9-11980HK, despite the Intel part having a higher 5.00 GHz boost clock versus 3.70 GHz.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The Intel Core i9-11980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD EPYC 9654 has 96 cores and 192 threads, which is 12 times more cores and 12 times more threads.

Q: Does the Intel part have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i9-11980HK includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD EPYC 9654 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-11980HK does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-11980HK has a TDP of 45 W. The AMD EPYC 9654 has a TDP of 360 W.

Q: Are both CPUs currently in production?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-11980HK is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 9654 is listed as active production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9654 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Its wins are not marginal; they are all 81.7% margins. This includes multi-core rendering, where 96 cores naturally dominate, and single-core rendering, where the Zen 4 architecture overcomes a 1.30 GHz clock deficit. The EPYC 9654 also wins in memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s), cache capacity (384 MB versus 24 MB), PCIe lane count (128 versus 20), and memory channel width (twelve-channel versus dual-channel). Any workload that scales with cores, cache, or memory bandwidth will favor the EPYC 9654. That includes server virtualization, large-scale database queries, scientific simulation, and batch video encoding.

The Intel Core i9-11980HK wins in categories not measured by the benchmark suite. It has a lower TDP (45 W versus 360 W), which makes it suitable for battery-powered mobile systems. It has integrated graphics, which the EPYC 9654 lacks entirely, so a system based on the Intel part does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. It has a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz), which in theory favors lightly-threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, though the recorded single-core benchmarks contradict that expectation. It is also the only one of the two that fits in a laptop form factor, given its mobile market segment and BGA socket. The unlocked multiplier on the Intel part allows overclocking, a feature absent on the locked AMD part. The Intel part is also earlier to market and end-of-life, but that is a product lifecycle fact, not a performance advantage.

The database shows a 0-6 win split in favor of the EPYC 9654. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Intel part wins. For a user constrained to a mobile platform, the Core i9-11980HK is the default choice because the EPYC 9654 cannot physically be installed in such a system. For every other use case, the EPYC 9654 is the superior processor by a wide and consistent margin.