CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i9-13900TE and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X are separated by less than 1% in average benchmark score, yet their performance profiles diverge sharply across every Cinebench test. The data shows the Threadripper 1920X wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with a consistent 6% lead in both single-core and multi-core workloads, despite the i9-13900TE having double the core count and a much higher boost clock. This outcome flips the conventional expectation that newer, higher-core-count silicon should dominate older high-end desktop parts, making the Threadripper’s margin a notable anomaly in the benchmark database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X sweeps every Cinebench iteration in the head-to-head data, but the margins are surprisingly tight given the architectural gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 1979 against the i9-13900TE’s 1861, a 6% advantage. The single-core R15 result mirrors this: 279 versus 262, also a 6.1% delta. These are not overwhelming wins, but they are uniform across all six tests, indicating a consistent performance ceiling rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Threadripper 1920X posts 8248 in multi-core, while the i9-13900TE manages 7758, a 5.9% difference. In R20 single-core, the scores are 1164 and 1094 respectively, again a 6% gap. The most recent Cinebench R23 test shows the same story: 19640 for the Threadripper versus 18472 for the i9-13900TE in multi-core (5.9% delta), and 2772 versus 2607 in single-core (6% delta). Notably, the i9-13900TE’s single-core boost clock is listed at 5.00 GHz, while the Threadripper’s is 4.00 GHz, yet the older AMD part still leads by 6% in every single-core test.

The average benchmark scores place these two CPUs within 0.7% of each other: the i9-13900TE averages 5342, while the Threadripper 1920X averages 5306. Both sit at the 60th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival for the i9-13900TE is the Intel Core i9-10900KF at 5316 (0.5% ahead), while the Threadripper’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-9900X at 5301 (0.1% ahead). This clustering suggests that neither processor is a statistical outlier in the broader database, but the head-to-head sweep gives the Threadripper a clear, if narrow, victory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the i9-13900TE winning zero.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The i9-13900TE has an average benchmark score of 5342, while the Threadripper 1920X scores 5306, a delta of 0.7% in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare?

A: The Threadripper 1920X leads in every single-core test: 279 versus 262 in R15, 1164 versus 1094 in R20, and 2772 versus 2607 in R23, each with a 6% or 6.1% delta.

Q: Does the i9-13900TE have more cores and threads?

A: Yes, the i9-13900TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Threadripper 1920X?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a launch MSRP of $799.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i9-13900TE has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the Threadripper 1920X’s 4.00 GHz, yet the Threadripper still wins all single-core tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The i9-13900TE is built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture, using a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². It features 24 cores and 32 threads, with an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 36 MB. The Threadripper 1920X, by contrast, uses AMD’s original Zen architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 2x 213 mm². It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with an L1 cache of 96 KB per core, an L2 cache of 512 KB per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache. The Threadripper’s transistor count is listed at 9,600 million, while the i9-13900TE’s transistor count is not provided.

Memory architecture also diverges. The i9-13900TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, while the Threadripper 1920X supports only DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The i9-13900TE includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, whereas the Threadripper 1920X has no integrated graphics. PCIe support differs as well: the i9-13900TE offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Threadripper 1920X offers Gen 3 with 60 CPU-only lanes. The i9-13900TE supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 1920X does not.

The i9-13900TE is a locked multiplier part (multiplierUnlocked: false), while the Threadripper 1920X has an unlocked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: true). The Threadripper’s TDP is 180 W, compared to the i9-13900TE’s 35 W, which is a major efficiency difference. The Threadripper uses the AMD Socket SP3r2, while the i9-13900TE uses Intel Socket 1700.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every primary specification. The i9-13900TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1000.00 MHz for the i9-13900TE and 3.50 GHz for the Threadripper; boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 4.00 GHz, respectively. TDP is 35 W versus 180 W. The i9-13900TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2. Process nodes are 10 nm (Intel) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). The i9-13900TE’s die size is 257 mm², while the Threadripper’s is 2x 213 mm².

Cache configurations differ: L1 is 80 KB per core for Intel versus 96 KB per core for AMD; L2 is 2 MB per core versus 512 KB per core; L3 is 36 MB shared versus 32 MB. Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel for the i9-13900TE, versus DDR4 quad-channel for the Threadripper, with the latter’s bandwidth at 85.3 GB/s. ECC support is true for Intel, false for AMD. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for Intel, versus Gen 3 with 60 lanes for AMD. Integrated graphics are present on the i9-13900TE (UHD Graphics 770) and absent on the Threadripper. The i9-13900TE has a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper’s is unlocked. The Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $799, while the i9-13900TE has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear, if counterintuitive, verdict: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench workload, despite being older, having half the cores, and carrying a higher TDP. The 6% lead in single-core tests is particularly telling, as it occurs despite the i9-13900TE’s 5.00 GHz boost clock versus the Threadripper’s 4.00 GHz. In multi-core tests, the Threadripper’s 12 cores outperform Intel’s 24 cores by nearly 6%, which suggests the Zen architecture’s per-core efficiency outpaces Raptor Lake in these specific benchmarks.

However, the average benchmark score tells a different story at the aggregate level: the i9-13900TE edges ahead with 5342 versus 5306, a 0.7% margin. This means the Threadripper’s Cinebench dominance does not translate to a higher overall average, likely because the i9-13900TE performs relatively better in other benchmark suites not included in the head-to-head data. The i9-13900TE also offers a dramatically lower TDP (35 W versus 180 W), integrated graphics, DDR5 support, and ECC memory, making it the more versatile and efficient platform. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench scores, the Threadripper 1920X wins outright. For those seeking a balanced, feature-rich modern platform with lower power draw, the i9-13900TE is justified by its aggregate score and specification advantages.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 1920X wins exclusively in the six Cinebench tests, R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. This makes it the choice for workloads that mirror Cinebench’s rendering and ray-tracing patterns, where its consistent 6% lead across all tests indicates a strong per-thread performance advantage. Its unlocked multiplier also makes it the better candidate for overclocking, provided the user can handle the 180 W TDP. The Threadripper’s quad-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth further supports memory-intensive rendering tasks, though this metric is not directly benchmarked in the head-to-head data.

The i9-13900TE wins on the aggregate average benchmark score (5342 versus 5306), suggesting broader strength outside the Cinebench suite. Its 24 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 35 W TDP, make it the superior choice for power-constrained or thermally limited systems. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. ECC memory support and DDR5 compatibility make it more future-proof for server-adjacent or reliability-focused builds. Its Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes offers higher bandwidth per lane, though the Threadripper’s 60 Gen 3 lanes provide more total connectivity. In short, the Threadripper 1920X is the Cinebench champion, while the i9-13900TE is the better-rounded modern processor.