AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 vs Intel Core i9-11900KB Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i9-11900KB wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920. Across six Cinebench tests, the Intel part takes all of them, with margins ranging from 3% to 3.1%. If you are choosing strictly on measured performance, the i9-11900KB is the faster processor in both single-core and multi-core workloads.

However, the choice is not simply about raw speed. The Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores and 24 threads versus the Intel's 8 cores and 16 threads, yet the Intel still wins in multi-core tests. That is a significant result. The i9-11900KB achieves higher multi-core scores despite having fewer physical cores, which points to superior per-core efficiency and higher clock speeds in sustained workloads.

For a builder prioritizing maximum benchmark scores across the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core i9-11900KB is the pick. It holds a 3% advantage in multi-core tests and around 3% to 3.1% in single-core tests. The data does not show any scenario where the Threadripper 1920 comes out ahead. If your workload mirrors these rendering tests, the Intel part is the faster option.

That said, the Threadripper 1920 is not without merit. It uses a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, well above the Intel's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s. It also provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, compared to 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes on the Intel. For systems that need massive I/O expansion or high memory throughput, the AMD platform offers capabilities the Intel part cannot match, even if the raw CPU benchmark scores are lower. The verdict depends on whether your priority is rendering speed in Cinebench or platform-level bandwidth and expansion.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-11900KB is built on Intel's 10 nm process and uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H. It is classified in the database as a mobile segment part, though it carries an unlocked multiplier. The die size is 190 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses the original Zen architecture, codenamed Whitehaven, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. Its die is composed of two chips at 213 mm² each, totaling 9,600 million transistors.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache. The Intel design uses a larger per-core L2, while AMD offers more total L3. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 3.30 GHz with a boost of 5.30 GHz. The Threadripper 1920 has a base of 3.20 GHz and a boost of 3.80 GHz, a 1.5 GHz gap in maximum boost that helps explain the Intel's single-core dominance.

Memory architecture is another key split. Both support DDR4, but the Intel uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD uses a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics 750; the Threadripper 1920 has no integrated graphics. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Intel provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, the AMD provides Gen 3 with 60 lanes. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $539; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Both are end-of-life products and both have unlocked multipliers. The Intel uses socket Intel BGA 1787, while the AMD uses AMD Socket SP3r2. The Threadripper is a desktop part; the Intel is listed as mobile. The Intel's 10 nm process versus the AMD's 14 nm process is a notable manufacturing difference that contributes to the clock speed gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB wins all three multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 19,316 versus 18,756 for the Threadripper 1920, a 3% advantage. It also wins R20 multi-core 8,112 to 7,877 and R15 multi-core 1,946 to 1,890, both by 3%.

Q: Does the Threadripper 1920's 12-core count give it an advantage?

A: No, not in the recorded benchmarks. Despite having 12 cores and 24 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads, the Threadripper 1920 loses every multi-core test to the i9-11900KB. The Intel part wins by 3% in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Intel part wins all three single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,727 versus 2,647, a 3% margin. In R20, it wins 1,145 to 1,111, a 3.1% margin. In R15, it wins 274 to 266, also 3%.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 85.3 GB/s over a quad-channel bus. The Intel Core i9-11900KB has 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What about PCIe expansion?

A: The Threadripper 1920 offers 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, far more than the i9-11900KB's 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Intel part uses the newer Gen 4 standard, but the AMD provides triple the lane count.

Q: Do both processors support overclocking?

A: Yes, both have unlocked multipliers, so the database indicates both can be overclocked.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-11900KB | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 140 W |

| Process node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Die size | 190 mm² | 2x 213 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 9,600 million |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 32 MB |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 60 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 750 | None |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1787 | AMD Socket SP3r2 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $539 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent across the entire Cinebench suite. The Intel Core i9-11900KB wins all six recorded comparisons, and the margins are remarkably uniform. In multi-core tests, the Intel part wins by exactly 3% in each case. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 1,946 versus 1,890. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 8,112 versus 7,877. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 19,316 versus 18,756. The consistency suggests a stable performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. R15 single-core is 274 versus 266, a 3% win. R23 single-core is 2,727 versus 2,647, also 3%. The largest margin is in R20 single-core, where the Intel wins 1,145 to 1,111, a 3.1% difference. The Intel's boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 3.80 GHz explains this consistent single-core edge.

The average benchmark scores in the database tell a similar story. The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 5,587, while the Threadripper 1920 sits at 5,425. The Intel ranks at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD ranks at the 60th. Both are essentially adjacent in the overall distribution, with the Intel slightly ahead.

The nearest rivals for each chip provide context. The i9-11900KB's closest competitor is the Intel Atom x7433RE with an average score of 5,601, just 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i7-12700T scores 5,606, 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 scores 5,610, 0.4% higher. On the lower side, the Intel Celeron G6900 scores 5,561, 0.5% below. The Threadripper 1920's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W-1290P at 5,443, 0.3% above, followed by the AMD EPYC 7351P at 5,469, 0.8% above. Below it, the Intel Core i9-13900TE scores 5,342, 1.5% lower, and the Intel Core i9-10900KF scores 5,316, 2.1% lower.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-11900KB wins every benchmark category recorded in this comparison. It is the faster processor for Cinebench rendering workloads, both single-core and multi-core. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge in single-threaded tasks, and despite having fewer cores, it beats the 12-core Threadripper in multi-threaded rendering. The 3% multi-core advantage across all three Cinebench versions is a strong indicator for CPU-bound productivity tasks like rendering. The 3.1% single-core win in R20 reinforces its suitability for lightly threaded applications. The Intel part also includes UHD Graphics 750, which means a system can output video without a discrete GPU, a useful fallback for troubleshooting or basic display needs.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 does not win any of the recorded CPU benchmarks, but it wins in platform-level specifications that matter for certain builds. Its quad-channel memory bus delivers 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, a substantial advantage over the Intel's 51.2 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, such as large data sets or certain scientific computing tasks, this could offset the CPU score deficit in real-world use. The 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are another major advantage. A Threadripper system can support far more expansion cards, storage devices, or GPU accelerators than the Intel part's 20 Gen 4 lanes. The AMD chip also has more L3 cache at 32 MB, which can help in cache-heavy workloads.

The practical split is clear. If your workload is dominated by CPU rendering performance, the i9-11900KB is the better choice based on the recorded data. If your system needs extensive I/O, high memory bandwidth, or many PCIe devices, the Threadripper 1920 offers platform features that the Intel part cannot match. The Intel wins the benchmarks; the AMD wins the platform expansion battle.