AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X vs Intel Core i9-7940X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a sweep for the Intel Core i9-7940X across all eight head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins tell two very different stories. In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part wins by a razor-thin 0.3% in every single test, whether single-core or multi-core. The R15 multi-core score is 2161 versus 2154, the R20 multi-core is 9006 versus 8979, and the R23 multi-core is 21444 versus 21380. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 at 305 versus 304, R20 at 1271 versus 1267, and R23 at 3027 versus 3018. These are statistical ties in practical terms, suggesting the two processors are nearly interchangeable under Cinebench's rendering workload.

The Geekbench results break that pattern decisively. In Geekbench multi-core, the i9-7940X posts 10516 against the Threadripper 2920X's 7473, a 40.7% advantage that dwarfs anything seen in Cinebench. The single-core Geekbench test also favors Intel by 14.1%, with scores of 1445 and 1266 respectively. This is the largest divergence in the entire dataset and it raises a question: why does one benchmark family show near-parity while another shows a massive gap? The answer likely lies in how each test scales with thread count, memory latency, and instruction handling, though the database does not break down those internals directly.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark average, the i9-7940X sits at 6147 while the Threadripper 2920X averages 5730. That is a 7.3% overall difference, driven almost entirely by the Geekbench multi-core result. The Cinebench scores contribute almost nothing to the separation. The Intel chip also lands in the 61st percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD part matches that same 61st percentile, an unusual coincidence given their average score gap. The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these numbers: the i9-7940X sits within 0.3% of the EPYC 7501, 0.6% below the EPYC 7272, and 1.4% below the Threadripper 1950X. The 2920X, meanwhile, is 0.4% above the EPYC 7351, 0.5% above the EPYC 7F32, 0.7% below the Xeon W-2175, and 1% above the i9-7920X.

Where Each One Wins

The data offers no ambiguity about the head-to-head winner: the i9-7940X wins all eight recorded comparisons. However, the magnitude of those wins dictates where each processor makes sense. For Cinebench workloads, which stress sustained multi-threaded rendering and single-core responsiveness, the two chips are effectively equal. A user choosing purely on those benchmarks would be picking between 0.3% differences, which falls within normal run-to-run variance. The 2920X holds its ground here despite having 12 cores and 24 threads against the Intel part's 14 cores and 28 threads, an indication that AMD's Zen+ architecture extracts competitive throughput per core in this specific workload.

The Geekbench results flip the analysis. The i9-7940X is 40.7% ahead in multi-core and 14.1% ahead in single-core, making it the clear choice for applications that resemble Geekbench's test patterns. These might include encryption, compression, image processing, or other tasks that stress memory bandwidth and per-thread efficiency differently than Cinebench does. The 2920X, by contrast, offers no benchmark category where it leads, yet its Cinebench parity means it remains viable for rendering pipelines where the Intel premium buys almost nothing measurable. The database also shows the 2920X with a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, and a marginally lower boost at 4.30 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, which may explain why the Cinebench single-core scores stay so close.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-7940X uses a Skylake-X architecture built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 484 mm². It packs 14 cores and 28 threads, backed by a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB, a per-core L2 cache of 1 MB, and a shared L3 cache of 19.25 MB. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X uses a Zen+ architecture, specifically the Colfax codename, fabricated on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries with a transistor count of 9,600 million spread across two dies of 213 mm² each. It offers 12 cores and 24 threads, with a larger per-core L1 at 96 KB, a smaller per-core L2 at 512 KB, and a larger total L3 at 32 MB.

Memory bandwidth also differs. Both support DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, but the AMD part edges ahead at 93.9 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s. The PCIe configuration favors AMD as well: the 2920X provides Gen 3 with 60 lanes from the CPU, while the i9-7940X provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes. Neither includes integrated graphics, and both lack ECC memory support. The sockets are incompatible, with Intel using Socket 2066 and AMD using Socket SP3r2. The i9-7940X was released on 2017-08-31 and is now end-of-life, while the 2920X launched later on 2018-10-02 and remains active in production. The Intel part lists a launch MSRP of $1399, while the AMD part lists a launch MSRP of $649. Both have unlocked multipliers, and the process node difference is notable: 14 nm for Intel versus 12 nm for AMD, with AMD's smaller node potentially contributing to its higher base clock despite fewer cores.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmarks, the Intel Core i9-7940X is the faster processor. It wins every head-to-head comparison, with the Geekbench multi-core margin of 40.7% being the single largest differentiator. Anyone running workloads that mirror Geekbench's structure should favor the Intel part without hesitation. The Cinebench results, however, suggest that for rendering tasks, the 2920X delivers essentially identical performance at a lower listed launch MSRP, though this analysis does not weigh cost as a factor. The 2920X also offers more PCIe lanes and higher memory bandwidth, which could matter for expansion-heavy systems or memory-sensitive tasks, even if those advantages do not show up in the recorded CPU benchmarks.

The i9-7940X's 14 cores and 28 threads give it a raw thread-count edge, and the data shows that edge translates into a substantial Geekbench multi-core lead. The 2920X counters with a smaller process node, a higher base clock, and a larger L3 cache, yet those attributes only manifest as near-parity in Cinebench, not as a win anywhere. The percentile ranking ties both at 61, which underscores how close they sit within the broader CPU landscape despite the head-to-head sweep. For a buyer choosing between these two, the data points to the i9-7940X for maximum performance, while the 2920X remains competitive in specific rendering workflows and offers architectural advantages in memory bandwidth and PCIe capacity that the benchmarks do not fully capture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-7940X wins all eight head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, with no wins recorded for the AMD part.

Q: How large is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench multi-core, where the i9-7940X scores 10516 versus 7473, a 40.7% advantage. The smallest gaps are 0.3% across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: Do the two processors differ in core and thread counts?

A: Yes, the Intel i9-7940X has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The Intel part has a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the AMD part has a higher 93.9 GB/s. Both use quad-channel DDR4.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, the Intel i9-7940X is marked as end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is listed as active in production.

Q: How do their PCIe lane counts compare?

A: The Intel i9-7940X provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X provides Gen 3 with 60 lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-7940X | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |

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

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 28 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | AMD Socket SP3r2 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen+ |

| Codename | Skylake-X | Colfax |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 9,600 million |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 2x 213 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 19.25 MB (shared) | 32 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 93.9 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 44 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Release Date | 2017-08-31 | 2018-10-02 |

| Launch MSRP | $1399 | $649 |

| Part Number | SR3RQ | YD292XA8UC9AF |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6147 | 5730 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 61 | 61 |