AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X vs Intel Core i9-11900KB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: across every single test recorded, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X takes the win. The Intel Core i9-11900KB does not secure a single head-to-head victory in any of the six comparisons available. This uniformity is striking, especially given how different these two processors are in design and target market.

Looking at the Cinebench suite, the Threadripper 2920X leads by a nearly identical margin in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2154 against Intel's 1946, a lead of 10.7%. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 304 versus 274, again a 10.9% advantage. What is notable here is that the gap does not widen or shrink dramatically between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads—the AMD part is consistently about 10.7% ahead across the board.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds precisely. The multi-core result shows 8979 for AMD versus 8112 for Intel, a 10.7% delta. Single-core R20 comes in at 1267 against 1145, also 10.7%. This consistency suggests that the performance difference is not merely a matter of core count scaling, but rather a fundamental per-thread advantage that the Threadripper maintains even when both chips are pushed to their limits.

The newest test in the set, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. AMD posts 21380 multi-core and 3018 single-core, while Intel manages 19316 and 2727 respectively. The delta remains fixed at 10.7% for both metrics. This is a curious data point—it implies that the architectural gap between these two parts produces a uniform performance differential regardless of workload type, at least within the Cinebench rendering engine.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the head-to-head results. The Threadripper 2920X averages 5730 across all its benchmarks, while the Core i9-11900KB averages 5587. That is a 2.6% gap in the aggregate, which is smaller than the Cinebench deltas because the Geekbench scores are included only for the AMD part—the Intel chip has no Geekbench entries in the pack, so the averages are not directly comparable across the full suite.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is built on the Zen+ architecture with the Colfax codename, fabricated on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 9,600 million transistors across a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 213 mm². The Intel Core i9-11900KB, by contrast, uses the Tiger Lake-H codename on the Tiger Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a single die measuring 190 mm².

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Threadripper offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel chip provides 8 cores and 16 threads. This 50% advantage in core count for AMD is partially offset by clock speeds—the Intel part boosts to 5.30 GHz versus AMD's 4.30 GHz, while base clocks are closer at 3.30 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. The higher boost clock suggests Intel is relying on frequency to close the gap that AMD opens with additional cores.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure. The AMD chip allocates 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of shared L3. Intel uses a smaller 80 KB L1 per core but a much larger 1.25 MB L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The L2 design difference is particularly telling—Intel's larger per-core L2 suggests a focus on reducing latency for frequently accessed data, while AMD's approach leans on the larger L3 pool.

Memory subsystems also contrast. The Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 93.9 GB/s, while the Core i9 uses dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. This nearly 2x bandwidth advantage for AMD is significant for memory-bound workloads. PCIe connectivity follows a similar pattern: AMD provides 60 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers only 20 Gen 4 lanes. The newer Gen 4 standard doubles per-lane bandwidth, but the lane count disparity is enormous.

Process node and production status differ as well. AMD uses 12 nm and lists the part as Active, while Intel's 10 nm chip is End-of-life. The Intel part also includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, whereas the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. Socket types are entirely different—AMD uses SP3r2, Intel uses BGA 1787—meaning these are not interchangeable in any system.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for AMD in every recorded benchmark, so the "where each one wins" section is necessarily one-sided. The Threadripper 2920X wins in all six head-to-head tests, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads across three Cinebench versions. There is no benchmark category in the pack where the Intel Core i9-11900KB comes out ahead.

For multi-threaded rendering and compute tasks, the AMD part's 12 cores and 24 threads provide a clear structural advantage over Intel's 8 cores and 16 threads. The Cinebench multi-core results confirm this: the Threadripper leads by 10.7% in every version of the test. This advantage persists even though the Intel chip has a 1 GHz higher boost clock, which suggests that the extra cores more than compensate for the frequency deficit.

Single-core performance is more interesting because it isolates per-thread efficiency. Here, the Threadripper still leads by 10.7-10.9%, despite Intel's higher boost clock. This is a surprising result given the clock speed difference. It implies that the Zen+ architecture delivers more instructions per clock in this workload, or that the Intel chip's boost behavior does not reach its rated 5.30 GHz under these test conditions.

The Intel part does have advantages that are not captured in raw benchmark scores. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Threadripper's 180 W, which has implications for cooling requirements and system design. It also includes integrated graphics, which the AMD part lacks entirely. These are qualitative advantages that the benchmark numbers do not reflect.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i9-11900KB has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper 2920X scores 21380 versus 19316 for the Core i9-11900KB, a 10.7% advantage. Single-core R23 shows 3018 versus 2727, also a 10.7% lead.

Q: Which chip has higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB has a higher boost clock at 5.30 GHz compared to 4.30 GHz for the Threadripper. However, the AMD chip has a slightly higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth capabilities compare?

A: The Threadripper 2920X supports quad-channel memory with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i9-11900KB supports dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two parts?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is listed as Active production. The Intel Core i9-11900KB is listed as End-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms the Intel Core i9-11900KB by a consistent 10.7% margin across every recorded test. This includes both single-core and multi-core workloads, which is notable because the Intel part has a significantly higher boost clock. The data suggests that core count and memory bandwidth play a more decisive role in these workloads than raw frequency.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Threadripper 2920X is the clear choice based on the numbers. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, quad-channel memory, and 93.9 GB/s bandwidth deliver measurable advantages in rendering workloads. The 10.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates to real-world time savings in CPU-bound tasks.

However, the data also reveals trade-offs that matter outside of benchmarks. The Intel chip's 65 W TDP is less than half of the AMD part's 180 W, which simplifies cooling and power delivery. The Intel chip also includes integrated graphics, which the Threadripper lacks entirely. These are qualitative factors that the benchmark scores do not capture, but they are relevant for system design.

The Intel Core i9-11900KB's higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz does not translate into a win in any recorded benchmark. The data shows that the Zen+ architecture's per-thread performance, combined with the additional cores, overcomes the frequency disadvantage. Interestingly, both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, indicating similar standing in the broader market despite their different approaches.

For a system where raw compute throughput is the only metric that matters, the data points squarely to the Threadripper 2920X. For a system where power efficiency, integrated graphics, and a smaller physical footprint are priorities, the Core i9-11900KB offers advantages that the benchmark charts do not reveal. The choice between them depends on whether the use case rewards the Threadripper's 10.7% performance lead or the Core i9's lower power envelope and integrated GPU.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X | Intel Core i9-11900KB |

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

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 | Intel BGA 1787 |

| Architecture | Zen+ | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Colfax | Tiger Lake-H |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 213 mm² | 190 mm² |

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

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

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

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 93.9 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 750 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | $649 | $539 |

| Transistors | 9,600 million | Not specified |