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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, though every margin is narrow. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Threadripper scores 279 against the Intel Core i9-11900KB's 274, a 1.8% difference. That same pattern repeats across every workload: the Threadripper leads by 1.7% in R15 multi-core (1979 vs. 1946), by 1.6% in R20 multi-core (8248 vs. 8112), by 1.6% in R20 single-core (1164 vs. 1145), by 1.6% in R23 multi-core (19640 vs. 19316), and by 1.6% in R23 single-core (2772 vs. 2727).

The consistency of these deltas is notable. The AMD part does not suddenly pull ahead in one test and fall behind in another; it maintains a steady, if modest, advantage across all rendering workloads. For the Intel part, the closest result is the R15 multi-core test, where the 1.7% deficit is nearly identical to the single-core gap. This suggests the Threadripper's advantage is not tied to core count scaling specifically, but rather to a slightly higher per-thread performance baseline in these benchmarks.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The Intel i9-11900KB averages 5587 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. The Threadripper 1920X averages 5306, landing at the 60th percentile. The higher average for the Intel chip is explained by the fact that the head-to-head list only includes Cinebench tests, while the Threadripper also has Geekbench results (7178 multi-core, 1185 single-core) that pull its overall average down relative to the Cinebench-only comparison. So while the head-to-head record favors AMD in every direct match, the broader database average slightly favors Intel.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Intel part sits between the Intel Atom x7433RE (average score 5601, delta -0.2%) and the Intel Celeron G6900 (average score 5561, delta +0.5%). The AMD part, meanwhile, is bracketed by the Intel Core i9-9900X (5301, delta +0.1%) and the Intel Core i9-13900TE (5342, delta -0.7%). These reference points show that both CPUs occupy a similar performance tier in the overall database, despite the Threadripper's consistent head-to-head wins.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i9-11900KB records zero wins in that direct comparison set.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper scores 19640, while the Intel chip scores 19316. That is a 1.6% difference, with the AMD part ahead.

Q: Does the Intel CPU have any advantage in the database's overall scoring?

A: Yes. The Intel Core i9-11900KB has an average benchmark score of 5587 and sits at the 61st percentile, while the Threadripper averages 5306 at the 60th percentile. This is because the database includes Geekbench scores for the AMD part, which are not part of the head-to-head set.

Q: What are the single-core results in Cinebench R15?

A: The Threadripper scores 279, the Intel scores 274. The AMD part leads by 1.8%.

Q: Are both CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-11900KB and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X are listed with an unlocked multiplier.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper has a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel chip has a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. Both support DDR4.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a straightforward use-case split. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins every direct benchmark comparison, so for anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench rendering scores, the choice is clear. The margins are small, between 1.6% and 1.8%, but they are consistent across single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Threadripper also offers more physical resources: 12 cores and 24 threads versus the Intel's 8 cores and 16 threads. That core advantage does not translate into a larger benchmark lead, but it does suggest headroom for workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench captures.

The Intel Core i9-11900KB, despite losing all head-to-head matches, holds a higher average benchmark score in the full database (5587 vs. 5306) and a higher percentile ranking (61st vs. 60th). This is partly a statistical artifact of the different benchmark sets, but it does mean that in the broader pool of recorded results, the Intel part performs slightly better relative to all other CPUs. For users who rely on the database's aggregate score as a general indicator, the Intel chip looks marginally stronger.

In practical terms, the Threadripper is the better fit for multi-threaded rendering tasks where every percentage point counts, given its 12-core/24-thread configuration and its win in all Cinebench multi-core tests. The Intel part, with its 8-core/16-thread setup and 5.30 GHz boost clock, may appeal more to users who value the higher boost frequency and the integrated graphics option, though benchmark data does not show that translating into a single-core win.

The use-case split is therefore not about one CPU being clearly superior; it is about the Threadripper's consistent, if narrow, benchmark victories versus the Intel part's better aggregate database standing. For a rendering-focused workload with Cinebench as the metric, the AMD part is the pick. For a general-purpose system where the database average score is the guide, the Intel chip edges ahead.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Core i9-11900KB has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close: the Intel runs at 3.30 GHz, the AMD at 3.50 GHz. The boost clocks diverge sharply, with the Intel reaching 5.30 GHz against the AMD's 4.00 GHz.

Power draw is a major separator. The Intel chip is rated at 65 W TDP, while the Threadripper is rated at 180 W. The memory bus also differs: Intel uses dual-channel, AMD uses quad-channel, which explains the bandwidth gap (51.2 GB/s vs. 85.3 GB/s). PCIe support is different as well: the Intel part offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the AMD part offers Gen 3 with 60 lanes.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1787 for the i9-11900KB, AMD Socket SP3r2 for the Threadripper. The market segments also differ, with the Intel listed as Mobile and the AMD as Desktop. The Intel chip includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 750), while the AMD part has none. Production status is another difference: the Intel is end-of-life, the AMD is active.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The Intel Core i9-11900KB is built on Tiger Lake, specifically Tiger Lake-H, using a 10 nm process from Intel. Its die size is 190 mm². Cache is organized as 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Zen (Whitehaven), on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a dual-die design with 2x 213 mm² dies, totaling 9,600 million transistors. Cache is 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3.

The Intel chip uses a monolithic 10 nm design with a smaller die, while the AMD chip uses a larger dual-die 14 nm design with far more transistors. The Intel part's L2 cache is larger per core (1.25 MB vs. 512 KB), but the AMD part has more L3 (32 MB vs. 24 MB). The AMD part also has a higher core count, which aligns with its Threadripper positioning as a high-core-count desktop part.

Both support DDR4, but the AMD part uses quad-channel memory, which is a significant architectural choice for bandwidth-heavy workloads. The Intel part's integrated graphics is a feature the AMD part lacks entirely, reflecting its different target market.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so for users who treat Cinebench results as the primary decision metric, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its 12-core/24-thread configuration and quad-channel memory give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded rendering, even though the actual score deltas are only around 1.6% to 1.8%. The Threadripper also has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs. 3.30 GHz), though a much lower boost clock (4.00 GHz vs. 5.30 GHz).

The Intel Core i9-11900KB, however, holds a higher average benchmark score in the full database (5587 vs. 5306) and a better percentile ranking (61st vs. 60th). This makes it the better pick for users who rely on aggregate scores rather than a single benchmark family. The Intel chip also draws far less power (65 W vs. 180 W), includes integrated graphics, and uses a smaller 10 nm process, which are meaningful advantages for mobile or compact systems.

The verdict depends on the metric. If the decision is based strictly on the head-to-head Cinebench data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the winner. If the decision is based on the database's overall average score and percentile, the Intel Core i9-11900KB is marginally ahead. The Threadripper is the better rendering workhorse; the Intel chip is the better all-around database performer with lower power draw and a more modern process node.