AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X vs Intel Core i9-7920X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i9-7920X across all eight head-to-head comparisons, but the margins tell two distinct stories. In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part wins every test by a consistent 1.8% delta. That is a narrow, repeatable edge rather than a dominant one. The i9-7920X posts 2015 in Cinebench R15 multicore against 1979 for the Threadripper 1920X, and the same 1.8% gap appears in R20 multicore (8396 vs 8248) and R23 multicore (19991 vs 19640). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: 284 vs 279 in R15, 1185 vs 1164 in R20, and 2822 vs 2772 in R23, each a 1.8% advantage for Intel.

The picture changes dramatically in Geekbench. The i9-7920X scores 9297 in Geekbench multicore, a 29.5% lead over the Threadripper's 7178. The single-core Geekbench gap is 17.6%, with the Intel chip at 1394 and the AMD chip at 1185. These are not incremental differences; they represent a substantial performance separation in workloads that resemble Geekbench's mix. The average benchmark score also favors Intel, 5673 versus 5306, putting the i9-7920X at the 61st percentile of all CPUs compared to the Threadripper's 60th.

The nearest rivals in the database place both chips in similar company. The i9-7920X sits within 1% of the AMD EPYC 7F32, EPYC 7351, and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, with a 1.1% lead over the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700. The Threadripper 1920X is effectively tied with the Intel Core i9-9900X at a 0.1% delta, and within 0.7% of the EPYC 7281, Core i9-10900KF, and Core i9-13900TE. Both parts are mid-pack performers by modern standards, but the Intel chip holds a measurable overall advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-7920X wins all eight head-to-head tests. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X does not win a single recorded comparison.

Q: Is the performance gap consistent across all workloads?

A: No. In Cinebench tests the Intel lead is a uniform 1.8%, while in Geekbench the lead expands to 29.5% multicore and 17.6% single-core. The margin depends heavily on the benchmark.

Q: How do these chips compare to their closest rivals?

A: The i9-7920X has an average score 0.5% below the AMD EPYC 7F32, 0.6% below the EPYC 7351, and 1% below the Threadripper 2920X, while running 1.1% ahead of the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700. The Threadripper 1920X is 0.1% ahead of the Core i9-9900X, 0.2% ahead of the EPYC 7281 and Core i9-10900KF, and 0.7% ahead of the Core i9-13900TE.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel chip has a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock. The AMD chip has a higher 3.50 GHz base clock but a lower 4.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which chip has a higher power draw?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is rated at 180W TDP, while the Intel Core i9-7920X is rated at 140W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-7920X uses the Skylake-X architecture on a 14 nm process fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 484 mm². The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X uses the Zen architecture, also on 14 nm, but fabricated by GlobalFoundries and built from two 213 mm² dies totaling 9,600 million transistors. The dual-die approach is a defining trait of the Threadripper line, allowing AMD to scale core counts by stacking compute dies, whereas Intel uses a single large monolithic die.

Cache structures differ noticeably. The Intel chip provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 16.5 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip offers 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 32 MB L3 cache. That larger L3 pool can help in certain data-heavy workloads, though the benchmark data does not show it translating into wins here.

Memory support is identical in width and bandwidth: both run DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus and 85.3 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs, with Intel providing Gen 3 with 44 CPU lanes and AMD providing Gen 3 with 60 CPU lanes, a notable advantage for the Threadripper in multi-GPU or heavy expansion scenarios. Both chips have unlocked multipliers, and neither includes integrated graphics.

Production status also differs. The Intel part is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD part remains active in production. Release dates are close, with the Threadripper arriving in August 2017 and the i9-7920X in September 2017. The Intel launch MSRP was $1199, while the AMD launch MSRP was $799.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i9-7920X is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. An 8-0 sweep with margins ranging from 1.8% to 29.5% leaves no ambiguity about raw performance. The Cinebench results show that in heavily threaded rendering workloads, the two chips are nearly equivalent, with the Intel part holding a slim but consistent edge. The Geekbench results, however, reveal a much larger separation, suggesting the Intel architecture handles certain integer and mixed workloads substantially better.

Buyers should weigh the Threadripper 1920X's advantages outside of raw compute. It has 60 PCIe lanes versus 44, a larger 32 MB L3 cache, and a lower launch MSRP of $799 compared to $1199. It also remains in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. For a system that needs maximum expansion capability or relies heavily on cached data, the Threadripper has legitimate appeal. But for pure CPU performance in the benchmarks recorded here, the i9-7920X is the clear choice.

The percentile rankings are close, 61st versus 60th, and the average benchmark scores differ by roughly 7%. That overall picture matches the Cinebench results more than the Geekbench results. The i9-7920X is not dramatically better on average, but it is better everywhere, and in Geekbench it is much better.

Specification Differences

The two processors share a core count of 12 cores and 24 threads, but nearly every other specification splits them apart. The Intel Core i9-7920X has a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a 3.50 GHz base clock and 4.00 GHz boost clock. TDP favors Intel at 140W versus 180W for AMD.

The Intel chip uses a single 484 mm² die on Intel's 14 nm process, while the AMD chip uses two 213 mm² dies on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with AMD listing 9,600 million transistors. Cache layouts are distinct: Intel uses 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 16.5 MB shared L3, while AMD uses 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 32 MB L3. Both support DDR4 with quad-channel memory and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and neither supports ECC. PCIe lanes favor AMD at 60 versus Intel's 44, both Gen 3. The Intel part is end-of-life with a September 2017 release, while the AMD part is active with an August 2017 release. The Intel launch MSRP was $1199, the AMD launch MSRP was $799. Both have unlocked multipliers, no integrated graphics, and target the desktop segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-7920X wins in every benchmark category recorded, so the question becomes which workloads amplify its advantage. The Cinebench tests, which stress sustained multi-threaded rendering, show only a 1.8% lead for Intel. In those workloads, the Threadripper 1920X is effectively competitive, and the choice between the two could reasonably come down to platform features. The Geekbench tests tell a different story: a 29.5% multicore lead and 17.6% single-core lead for Intel. Applications that resemble Geekbench's mix of tasks, particularly those with integer math, memory latency sensitivity, or shorter bursty workloads, will see a much larger benefit from the i9-7920X.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins on platform flexibility despite losing every benchmark. Its 60 PCIe lanes provide more room for multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, or other expansion cards than the Intel chip's 44 lanes. The 32 MB L3 cache is double the Intel's 16.5 MB, which can help in workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. The lower launch MSRP of $799 versus $1199 gives it a cost advantage, and its active production status means it remains available for new builds. For a workstation that prioritizes expansion capacity over peak CPU performance, the Threadripper has a clear niche. For anyone whose priority is maximum benchmark scores, the i9-7920X is the only choice in this pairing.