Intel Core i9-10920X vs Intel Core i9-10940X Comparison

The Intel Core i9-10940X and Intel Core i9-10920X are siblings from the same Cascade Lake-X family, sharing a socket, a process node, and identical cache hierarchies, yet the recorded data shows a consistent performance split: the 14-core 10940X sweeps every Cinebench test by roughly the same margin, while the 12-core 10920X takes both Geekbench results. Both chips sit at the 62nd percentile against the full CPU database, with average benchmark scores of 6605 for the 10940X and 6347 for the 10920X, so this is a close comparison overall, decided more by workload type than by a dominant architecture. The analysis below walks through each benchmark, explains the architectural reasoning, and clarifies which user each chip favors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-10940X scores 2370 against 2203 for the i9-10920X, a 7.6 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core lands at 9878 versus 9181, again 7.6 percent in favor of the 10940X. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 23520 versus 21861, a 7.6 percent gap. That consistency across three generations of Cinebench is a strong signal, because it indicates the margin scales directly with the core count difference rather than being an artifact of any single test version. Fourteen cores against twelve is a 16.7 percent raw resource advantage on paper, and the measured 7.6 percent return suggests these rendering workloads extract only part of that theoretical headroom, likely due to shared cache, memory subsystem limits, or thermal and power constraints at the identical 165 W TDP.

Single-core Cinebench also favors the 10940X. R15 single-core reads 334 versus 311 (7.4 percent), R20 single-core reads 1394 versus 1296 (7.6 percent), and R23 single-core reads 3320 versus 3086 (7.6 percent). This is the more curious result, because both chips share the same 4.80 boost clock. The 10920X actually carries a higher 3.50 base clock versus 3.30 for the 10940X, yet it loses the lightly threaded tests anyway. The database cannot fully explain this inversion, but the pattern is stable across three Cinebench releases, and it means the 10940X leads in six of eight recorded head-to-head tests.

Geekbench flips the script. In Geekbench multi-core the i9-10920X scores 11165 against 10464 for the i9-10940X, a 6.3 percent win for the chip with fewer cores. Geekbench single-core goes the same way: 1673 versus 1556, a 7 percent advantage for the 10920X. Geekbench's shorter bursts and mixed workload profile behave differently from sustained rendering, and in this dataset they reward the 10920X's higher base clock and leaner core count. The aggregate score count stands at six wins for the 10940X and two for the 10920X.

Architecture Differences

There is very little architectural daylight between these two processors, which makes the benchmark divergences more instructive. Both are Cascade Lake design (Cascade Lake-X codename) parts, fabbed by Intel on the 14 nm node, launched on the same date, and both remain Active in the database. Both use Intel Socket 2066, both carry a 165 W TDP, and both have an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

The core counts differ: 14 cores and 28 threads on the i9-10940X versus 12 cores and 24 threads on the i9-10920X. Cache is identical at each level, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3. Note that because L1 and L2 are allocated per core, the 10940X effectively carries more total L1 and L2 than the 10920X even though the per-core figures and the shared L3 capacity match. Clocks diverge only at base, 3.30 versus 3.50 in favor of the 10920X, with an identical 4.80 boost ceiling.

The platform features are indistinguishable. Both support DDR4 memory on a quad-channel bus, both offer PCIe Gen 3, neither supports ECC memory, and neither ships with integrated graphics. Both belong to the Core 10th Gen X-Series i9 segment. In short, everything that defines the platform is shared, and the comparison reduces to two cores of extra silicon and a base clock trade.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-10940X is the rendering and sustained multi-core choice. Its 7.6 percent advantage holds in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core, and it also wins every single-core Cinebench test by essentially the same margin. For workloads that look like Cinebench, meaning long-running, heavily threaded render or compute jobs, the 10940X's 14 cores and 28 threads deliver a dependable lead. Its average benchmark score of 6605 sits above the 10920X's 6347, and both occupy the 62nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, so the 10940X converts its extra cores into real aggregate throughput without moving the percentile needle much relative to the broader market.

The i9-10920X is the Geekbench profile winner. It takes both Geekbench tests, 6.3 percent ahead in multi-core and 7 percent ahead in single-core, despite having fewer cores. Workloads with bursty, mixed, or responsiveness-oriented characteristics of the kind Geekbench represents favor its higher 3.50 base clock and lighter thread count. If a workload resembles Geekbench more than Cinebench, the 10920X is the stronger recorded performer, and it does so within the same 165 W envelope.

Context against the wider field is similar for both. The 10940X's nearest rivals by average score are the Intel Pentium Gold G6405 at 6605 (0 percent delta), the Intel Core i9-12900E at 6611 (-0.1 percent), the Intel Core i5-13500E at 6586 (0.3 percent), and the Intel Core i5-13400E at 6638 (-0.5 percent). The 10920X clusters near the AMD EPYC 7551 at 6391 (-0.7 percent), the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U at 6247 (1.6 percent), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at 6231 (1.9 percent), and the Intel Core i7-12800HE at 6467 (-1.9 percent). Both chips land in a crowded band of the database where workload fit, not headline class, determines the better result.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Intel Core i9-10940X wins six of eight head-to-head benchmarks, including all six Cinebench tests, and posts the higher average benchmark score at 6605 versus 6347. The i9-10920X counters with wins in both Geekbench tests.

Q: Why does the 12-core 10920X beat the 14-core 10940X in Geekbench multi-core?

A: The recorded data shows the i9-10920X scoring 11165 versus 10464 in Geekbench multi-core, a 6.3 percent edge. Geekbench's bursty, mixed workload profile differs from Cinebench's sustained rendering load, and in this dataset it favors the 10920X despite its lower core count.

Q: Do these two CPUs use the same socket and platform?

A: Yes. Both use Intel Socket 2066, support quad-channel DDR4 memory, provide PCIe Gen 3, lack integrated graphics, do not support ECC, and share a 165 W TDP.

Q: Is there any cache difference between them?

A: Shared L3 is identical at 19.25 MB, and per-core L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 1 MB. Because the 10940X has 14 cores versus 12, its aggregate L1 and L2 capacity is larger.

Q: Which CPU has higher clock speeds?

A: Both boost to 4.80. The i9-10920X has the higher base clock at 3.50 versus 3.30 for the i9-10940X, yet the 10940X still wins every Cinebench single-core test by 7.4 to 7.6 percent.

Q: Can both processors be overclocked?

A: Yes, both the i9-10940X and i9-10920X have unlocked multipliers.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-10940X | Intel Core i9-10920X |

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

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 28 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6605 | 6347 |

Every other recorded specification is shared: Cascade Lake architecture on the Cascade Lake-X codename, 14 nm Intel fabrication, Intel Socket 2066, 165 W TDP, 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 19.25 MB shared L3, quad-channel DDR4 support, PCIe Gen 3, no ECC, no integrated graphics, unlocked multiplier, Active production status, and a shared launch date in October 2019. The choice between them therefore rests entirely on the two extra cores of the 10940X versus the higher base clock and Geekbench profile of the 10920X.