AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X vs Intel Core i9-9820X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along one axis: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins every recorded head-to-head test. Across six Cinebench workloads, the Threadripper 1920X takes all six wins, while the Intel Core i9-9820X records zero wins. That is not a narrow margin either, the AMD part leads by 12.5% in five of the six tests and by 12.6% in the remaining one.

The Threadripper 1920X leads in both multi-core and single-core workloads. In multi-core tests, the pattern is consistent: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 1979 points against 1759 points, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 8248 against 7332, and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 19640 against 17459. Each of these is a 12.5% advantage for AMD. The single-core tests tell the same story, with the Threadripper 1920X scoring 279 versus 248 in Cinebench R15, 1164 versus 1034 in R20, and 2772 versus 2464 in R23.

What does this imply for use cases? The Threadripper 1920X is the stronger choice for rendering workloads, which is what Cinebench simulates. The consistent 12.5% delta across every generation of the Cinebench test suggests the advantage is structural, not workload-specific. For users running CPU-bound rendering, the AMD part should complete frames faster in every tested scenario.

The Intel Core i9-9820X does not have a single benchmark win in the head-to-head data. That does not necessarily mean it is useless, but within the recorded measurements, there is no workload category where it overtakes the Threadripper 1920X. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz compared to 4.00 GHz does not translate into a single-core win in the data, which is notable given that single-core performance is often associated with higher clock speeds.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the gap. The Threadripper 1920X has an average benchmark score of 5306 across all recorded tests, while the Core i9-9820X sits at 5049. That is a difference of roughly 5%, although the head-to-head Cinebench tests show a larger 12.5% gap. The average score includes Geekbench results for the AMD part, which are not present in the Intel data, so the two metrics are not directly comparable, but both point in the same direction.

Both CPUs sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs in the database. That is a useful framing: they are peers in overall standing, yet the head-to-head results consistently favor AMD. The percentile ranking says they belong to the same performance tier, while the direct comparisons say the Threadripper 1920X is the faster chip within that tier.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward pick for rendering workloads: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a uniform 12.5% margin in five tests and 12.6% in one. For anyone choosing between these two specifically, the recorded measurements show no scenario where the Intel Core i9-9820X comes out ahead.

The Intel Core i9-9820X would be the choice only in situations not captured by these benchmarks. The database does not record any test where the Intel part wins, so any recommendation for it would have to rest on factors outside the measured performance data, such as platform preferences or ecosystem considerations, which are not quantified here.

The Threadripper 1920X also has more cores and threads: 12 cores and 24 threads against 10 cores and 20 threads. That core count advantage aligns with the multi-core benchmark results. The Intel part has a higher boost clock, 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, but the single-core benchmarks still favor AMD, suggesting the higher clock does not overcome other architectural differences.

For users who prioritize the highest multi-core rendering scores, the Threadripper 1920X is the choice. For users who need Intel-specific platform features, the Core i9-9820X remains an option, but the performance data does not provide a reason to prefer it. The production status also differs: the Threadripper 1920X is listed as active, while the Core i9-9820X is end-of-life, which may matter for long-term availability and platform support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. Every Cinebench test shows the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X winning by 12.5%, except for Cinebench R20 single-core, which shows 12.6%. This consistency across different Cinebench versions, from R15 to R23, indicates the performance gap is stable across workload generations, not an artifact of one specific test version.

Multi-core results: Cinebench R15 multi-core has the Threadripper 1920X at 1979 points and the Core i9-9820X at 1759 points. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 8248 versus 7332. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 19640 versus 17459. In all three, the delta is 12.5%. The absolute gap grows with each newer Cinebench version: 220 points in R15, 916 points in R20, and 2181 points in R23. The percentage stays constant, but the raw point difference expands as the workload scales.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R15 single-core: 279 versus 248, a 12.5% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core: 1164 versus 1034, a 12.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core: 2772 versus 2464, a 12.5% lead. The single-core advantage is surprising given the Intel part's higher boost clock, but the data is consistent across all three versions.

The Geekbench results are only recorded for the Threadripper 1920X, with a multi-core score of 7178 and a single-core score of 1185. No Geekbench scores exist for the Core i9-9820X in the database, so no head-to-head comparison is possible for that benchmark. The average benchmark score, however, includes these Geekbench numbers for the AMD part, which is why the average score gap (5306 versus 5049) differs from the head-to-head Cinebench gap.

The nearest rival data provides context for each CPU's standing. The Threadripper 1920X's closest rival is the Intel Core i9-9900X with an average score of 5301, a delta of 0.1%. The Core i9-9820X's closest rival is the Intel Core i9-12900TE with an average score of 5050, a delta of 0%. These are different peer groups, and both CPUs are tightly clustered with their respective rivals. The Threadripper 1920X sits within 0.7% of its four nearest rivals, and the Core i9-9820X sits within 0.5% of its four nearest rivals.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 1979 versus 1759 in R15, 8248 versus 7332 in R20, and 19640 versus 17459 in R23, each a 12.5% advantage over the Intel Core i9-9820X.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-9820X win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows six wins for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and zero wins for the Intel Core i9-9820X. There is no recorded test where the Intel part comes out ahead.

Q: Why does the Intel part lose single-core tests despite a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-9820X has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, higher than the Threadripper 1920X's 4.00 GHz, yet it loses all three single-core Cinebench tests by 12.5% to 12.6%. The data suggests clock speed alone does not determine single-core performance in these workloads.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has an average benchmark score of 5306, while the Intel Core i9-9820X has 5049. Both CPUs rank at the 60th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is listed as active production, while the Intel Core i9-9820X is listed as end-of-life.

Q: How does each CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Threadripper 1920X is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i9-9900X and 0.2% behind the AMD EPYC 7281 and Intel Core i9-10900KF. The Core i9-9820X is level with the Intel Core i9-12900TE, 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 6334, and 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X uses the Zen architecture, with the codename Zen and the generation listed as Ryzen Threadripper (Zen, Whitehaven). The Intel Core i9-9820X uses the Skylake architecture, with the codename Skylake-X and the generation listed as Core i9 (X-Series 9th Gen). Both are built on a 14 nm process node, but the foundries differ: AMD uses GlobalFoundries, while Intel uses its own fabs.

The core and cache layouts differ substantially. The Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, with 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. Its L3 cache is 32 MB. The Core i9-9820X has 10 cores and 20 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. Its L3 cache is 16.5 MB, listed as shared. The Threadripper 1920X has a larger L3 cache at 32 MB, while the Intel part has larger per-core L2 caches at 1 MB.

The transistor and die size data is incomplete for the Intel part. The Threadripper 1920X has 9,600 million transistors and a die size of 2x 213 mm². The Core i9-9820X has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. This makes a direct comparison of silicon complexity impossible from the available data.

Memory support is similar on paper. Both support DDR4 memory with a quad-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory according to the database. The PCIe capabilities differ: the Threadripper 1920X offers 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i9-9820X offers 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. For users with many PCIe devices, the AMD part provides more lanes.

The sockets are incompatible, as expected. The Threadripper 1920X uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the Core i9-9820X uses Intel Socket 2066. Neither CPU has integrated graphics. Both have unlocked multipliers, allowing overclocking on compatible platforms.

Release dates differ by over a year. The Threadripper 1920X launched on August 9, 2017, while the Core i9-9820X launched on October 18, 2018. The part numbers are YD192XA8UC9AE for AMD and SREZ8 for Intel.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i9-9820X has 10 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, but the Intel part has a higher boost clock at 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. TDP also differs, with the Threadripper 1920X rated at 180 watts and the Core i9-9820X at 165 watts.

Cache configurations differ in both size and organization. The Threadripper 1920X has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3. The Core i9-9820X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16.5 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has more total L3, while the Intel part has more L2 per core.

PCIe lane counts differ: the Threadripper 1920X provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i9-9820X provides 44. Both support DDR4 memory in quad-channel configuration with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and neither supports ECC. The sockets are different: SP3r2 for AMD and Socket 2066 for Intel. Neither CPU has integrated graphics.

Production status differs: the Threadripper 1920X is active, while the Core i9-9820X is end-of-life. The launch dates differ, with the AMD part releasing on August 9, 2017, and the Intel part on October 18, 2018. The launch MSRP for the Threadripper 1920X is $799, and for the Core i9-9820X it is $889. Both have unlocked multipliers. The Threadripper 1920X is listed as part of the 1000 series, while the Intel part has no series designation in the database.