CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 and Intel Core i9-10900KF are both end-of-life desktop processors with unlocked multipliers, yet they represent fundamentally different approaches to high-end desktop computing. The Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores and 24 threads on AMD's Zen architecture, while the i9-10900KF provides 10 cores and 20 threads on Intel's Comet Lake architecture. The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel part across every head-to-head test, but the full picture requires examining the architectural and platform differences that define these two CPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent, with the Intel Core i9-10900KF winning all six shared Cinebench tests. The margins are tight in every case, never exceeding a 0.7% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-10900KF scores 1901 against the Threadripper 1920's 1890, a 0.6% lead. The single-core R15 result is similarly close: 268 versus 266, a 0.7% advantage for Intel. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the Intel part leads 7924 to 7877 in multi-core and 1118 to 1111 in single-core, both with a 0.6% delta.

The most recent Cinebench R23 results reinforce the trend. The i9-10900KF posts 18867 in multi-core versus 18756 for the Threadripper 1920, and 2663 versus 2647 in single-core. Both deltas sit at 0.6%. This consistency across three generations of Cinebench suggests the Intel part holds a small but repeatable performance edge in both threaded and lightly-threaded workloads. Notably, the Threadripper 1920's extra two cores and four threads do not translate into a multi-core victory, as the i9-10900KF's higher clocks compensate for its lower core count.

The average benchmark scores reflect this same narrow gap. The i9-10900KF averages 5316, which places it 2.1% ahead of the Threadripper 1920's average of 5425. That said, the Threadripper 1920 actually posts a higher average score, but the comparison direction is inverted because the nearestRivals data lists the i9-10900KF as a rival to the Threadripper 1920. The deltaPct of 2.1% indicates the Threadripper 1920's average is higher, meaning the Threadripper edges ahead in the broader average, despite losing every direct Cinebench comparison. Both processors sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i9-10900KF wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 0.6% to 0.7%. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 does not win any of the shared benchmarks.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has an average benchmark score of 5425, which is 2.1% higher than the Intel Core i9-10900KF's average of 5316. However, the Intel part's nearestRivals list shows a 0% delta against the AMD EPYC 7281.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i9-10900KF has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i9-10900KF has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports quad-channel memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Intel Core i9-10900KF supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node for both processors?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 and the Intel Core i9-10900KF are built on a 14 nm process node, though they use different foundries.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Whitehaven, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It integrates 9,600 million transistors across a die size of 2x 213 mm². The cache hierarchy uses per-core allocations: 96 KB of L1, 512 KB of L2, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. The CPU connects to the platform via AMD Socket SP3r2 and provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU.

The Intel Core i9-10900KF uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process at Intel. The die size and transistor count are not listed in the data. Its cache layout is 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a 20 MB shared L3 cache. The socket is Intel Socket 1200, and the CPU provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Intel part also lacks integrated graphics, as does the AMD part.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Threadripper 1920 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the i9-10900KF supports dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both have unlocked multipliers, but the Threadripper 1920's part number is YD1920A9UC9AE, while the Intel part is SRH92.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specification fields. The Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads, versus 10 cores and 20 threads on the i9-10900KF. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for AMD and 3.70 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 3.80 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. The TDP ratings are 140 W for the Threadripper 1920 and 125 W for the i9-10900KF.

The socket platforms are entirely different: AMD Socket SP3r2 versus Intel Socket 1200. Memory channels differ, with quad-channel on the AMD side and dual-channel on the Intel side, leading to bandwidth figures of 85.3 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s. PCIe lane availability also diverges, with the Threadripper 1920 offering 60 Gen 3 lanes and the i9-10900KF offering 16 Gen 3 lanes. The cache structures differ in capacity and organization, with the AMD part having larger per-core L1 and L2 caches and a larger total L3 cache of 32 MB versus 20 MB.

The release dates are not listed for the Threadripper 1920, but the i9-10900KF was released on 2020-04-29. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $509, while the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP. Both processors are end-of-life and have unlocked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-10900KF wins every direct Cinebench comparison, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. This suggests it is the stronger choice for workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering performance, where its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz gives it an edge despite having fewer cores. The consistent 0.6% to 0.7% deltas indicate a small but reliable performance advantage.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 wins on platform-level capabilities. Its quad-channel memory support with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double the i9-10900KF's 46.9 GB/s, which benefits memory-intensive applications. The 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes dwarf the Intel part's 16 lanes, making the Threadripper 1920 more suitable for multi-GPU configurations or high-bandwidth storage arrays. The larger 32 MB L3 cache versus 20 MB also provides more on-die data capacity.

The Threadripper 1920's higher average benchmark score of 5425 versus 5316 for the i9-10900KF suggests that in a broader range of tests beyond Cinebench, the AMD part may have an overall edge. The nearestRivals data shows the Threadripper 1920 is 2.1% ahead of the i9-10900KF in average score, while the i9-10900KF's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X with a 0.2% delta, indicating a very tight cluster of performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench rendering scores, the Intel Core i9-10900KF is the better pick, as it wins all six head-to-head tests with margins of 0.6% to 0.7%. Its higher clock speeds, reaching 5.30 GHz boost, compensate for its lower core count of 10 versus 12, and its lower TDP of 125 W versus 140 W makes it more power-efficient on paper.

For users who need extensive I/O and memory bandwidth, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the stronger option. The quad-channel memory interface with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide a platform that can handle more expansion cards and faster memory subsystems. The larger 32 MB L3 cache and higher average benchmark score of 5425 also support the case for the AMD part in a broader set of applications.

The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload is compute-bound with moderate I/O needs, where the i9-10900KF's consistent Cinebench wins matter, or I/O-bound with heavy memory traffic, where the Threadripper 1920's platform advantages shine. Both processors sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs, and both are end-of-life products, so the decision should be based on the specific platform requirements of the build.