CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9900 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X are both 8-core, 16-thread desktop processors, but they deliver their performance in starkly different ways. The head-to-head benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Threadripper 1900X dominates in Cinebench workloads, while the Core i9-9900 takes a commanding lead in Geekbench tests. This creates a fascinating comparison where the "winner" depends entirely on the application, with the Threadripper's lead in Cinebench multi-core (1440 vs 1361, a 5.5% advantage) being more modest than the Core i9's 40% single-core Geekbench blowout (1687 vs 1205).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent within each test suite. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X wins all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are tight and uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 1440 against the Core i9's 1361, a 5.5% delta. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 203 for AMD versus 192 for Intel, a 5.4% gap. This consistency carries through Cinebench R20 and R23, where the Threadripper maintains exactly a 5.4% lead in both multi-core and single-core runs. The R20 multi-core scores are 6000 versus 5673, and R23 multi-core shows 14286 versus 13509. The R20 single-core result is 846 versus 800, and R23 single-core is 2016 versus 1907.

The story flips dramatically in Geekbench. Here, the Intel Core i9-9900 is the clear victor, and the margins are far larger than AMD's Cinebench advantage. In Geekbench multi-core, the Core i9 scores 8175 against the Threadripper's 6588, a 24.1% lead. The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided: 1687 versus 1205, a 40% advantage for Intel. This means that while the Threadripper edges out the Core i9 by roughly 5% in sustained render-style workloads, the Core i9 is 40% faster in single-threaded Geekbench performance and 24% faster in its multi-core test. The data suggests the Core i9's architecture is far more efficient per clock in certain workloads, while the Threadripper's higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.10 GHz) and larger cache help it in Cinebench's specific patterns.

Looking at the aggregate data, the Intel Core i9-9900 posts an average benchmark score of 4163 across all tests, placing it in the 57th percentile of all CPUs. The Threadripper 1900X averages 4073, also in the 57th percentile. Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11500H (4187, 0.6% higher) and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS (4121, 1% lower). The Threadripper's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-12500TE (4083, 0.3% higher), showing both chips sit in a similar performance tier despite their divergent strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, taking all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests. The Intel Core i9-9900 wins the remaining 2 Geekbench tests.

Q: How big is the Intel Core i9-9900's single-core advantage?

A: In Geekbench single-core, the Core i9-9900 scores 1687 versus the Threadripper's 1205, a 40% lead. This is the largest performance gap in any of the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Is the Threadripper 1900X significantly faster in Cinebench?

A: No, the Threadripper's Cinebench wins are modest, ranging from 5.4% to 5.5% across all six tests. The R15 multi-core score is 1440 versus 1361, and R23 multi-core is 14286 versus 13509.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i9-9900 has an average benchmark score of 4163, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X averages 4073. Both CPUs sit in the 57th percentile of all processors.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core i9-9900's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-11500H, which is 0.6% faster on average. The Threadripper 1900X's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-12500TE, which is 0.3% faster on average.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has a base clock of 3.80 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core i9-9900's 3.10 GHz base clock.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Core i9-9900 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-R refresh, built on a 14 nm process by Intel. Its die size is 180.3 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is based on the original Zen architecture (codename "Zen" or "Whitehaven"), also on a 14 nm node, but manufactured by GlobalFoundries rather than Intel. The Threadripper uses a dual-die design with two 213 mm² dies, totaling 9,600 million transistors, a figure not provided for the Intel chip.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core i9-9900 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 16 MB L3 cache. The Threadripper 1900X offers more cache at every level: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a 32 MB L3 cache. This larger cache pool, combined with the dual-die layout, likely contributes to the Threadripper's consistent Cinebench advantage despite Intel's higher boost clock.

Memory architecture is another key divergence. The Core i9-9900 supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Threadripper 1900X features quad-channel DDR4, doubling the theoretical bandwidth to 85.3 GB/s. Neither CPU supports ECC memory. The Threadripper also offers far more PCIe connectivity: 60 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU versus the Core i9's 16 Gen 3 lanes.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Core i9-9900 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. This gives Intel a 1.00 GHz higher boost capability, while AMD holds a 0.70 GHz base clock advantage.

Thermal design power shows a dramatic split: the Core i9-9900 is rated at 65W TDP, while the Threadripper 1900X draws 180W. This 115W difference reflects the Threadripper's higher power envelope and dual-die design. The Core i9 uses the Intel Socket 1151, while the Threadripper requires the AMD Socket SP3r2.

The Core i9-9900 includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630, whereas the Threadripper 1900X has no integrated graphics at all. The Core i9's multiplier is locked, but the Threadripper's is unlocked for overclocking. The Threadripper is still in active production, while the Core i9 is marked as end-of-life. The Core i9 was released on 2019-04-22 with a launch MSRP of $423, while the Threadripper launched earlier on 2017-08-30 at a launch MSRP of $549.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is the clear choice for Cinebench-style workloads. Its wins across all six Cinebench tests, from R15 to R23, in both single and multi-core modes, point to sustained performance in render and simulation tasks. The consistent 5.4% to 5.5% advantage suggests the Threadripper's higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.10 GHz) and doubled L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB) provide steady benefits in these sustained workloads. The quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and 60 PCIe lanes also make it better suited for workstation-style builds where memory throughput and expansion are priorities.

The Intel Core i9-9900 wins decisively in Geekbench, with a 40% single-core lead and a 24.1% multi-core advantage. This indicates the Coffee Lake architecture with its 5.00 GHz boost clock is far stronger in latency-sensitive, bursty workloads. The Core i9's 65W TDP makes it significantly more power-efficient, and its integrated UHD Graphics 630 means it can operate without a discrete GPU. The LGA 1151 socket and dual-channel memory make it a more conventional desktop part, while its locked multiplier suggests it's designed for users who won't overclock. For general desktop use, lightly-threaded applications, and gaming-style workloads that favor high single-core performance, the Core i9-9900 is the stronger performer. The Threadripper 1900X, with its unlocked multiplier and active production status, remains the better option for multi-threaded productivity and content creation where its Cinebench wins translate to real-world render performance.