Intel Core i9-9820X vs Intel Xeon W-1290 Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9820X and Intel Xeon W-1290 are both 10-core, 20-thread processors, but they target different platforms and use different architectures. Benchmark results from the database show a consistent, if narrow, performance edge for the i9-9820X across all Cinebench tests, while the Xeon W-1290 counters with ECC memory support, integrated graphics, and a much lower TDP. The i9-9820X is a desktop part from the Skylake-X family, while the Xeon W-1290 is a Comet Lake workstation/server chip, and the recorded data reflects that split.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon W-1290 boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the i9-9820X boosts to 4.20 GHz.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W-1290 supports ECC memory, while the i9-9820X does not.

Q: Which has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon W-1290 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i9-9820X has 16.5 MB.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The i9-9820X uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon W-1290 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Xeon W-1290 includes Intel UHD Graphics P630, while the i9-9820X has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which has a higher TDP?

A: The i9-9820X has a TDP of 165 W, while the Xeon W-1290 has a TDP of 80 W.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process, but they come from different architectural families. The i9-9820X uses the Skylake-X architecture (codename Skylake-X) and belongs to the Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen lineup. The Xeon W-1290 uses Comet Lake (codename Comet Lake) and is part of the Xeon Comet Lake generation. This architectural split leads to several platform-level differences.

The i9-9820X fits into Intel Socket 2066, while the Xeon W-1290 uses Intel Socket 1200. Memory support diverges sharply: the i9-9820X runs quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, whereas the Xeon W-1290 runs dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s. The i9-9820X also offers 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), compared to 16 lanes on the Xeon W-1290. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon W-1290, and the Xeon also includes an integrated GPU (Intel UHD Graphics P630) that the i9-9820X lacks.

Cache layouts differ as well. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the i9-9820X has 1 MB of L2 per core versus 256 KB per core on the Xeon W-1290. The Xeon W-1290 has a larger shared L3 pool at 20 MB, while the i9-9820X has 16.5 MB. The Xeon W-1290 also has a recorded die size of 206 mm², while no die size is listed for the i9-9820X.

The i9-9820X has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon W-1290 is locked. Production status also differs: the i9-9820X is end-of-life, while the Xeon W-1290 is active. The i9-9820X was released on 2018-10-18, and the Xeon W-1290 on 2020-05-12. The i9-9820X had a launch MSRP of $889, and the Xeon W-1290 had a launch MSRP of $498.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the i9-9820X wins all six Cinebench tests in the head-to-head comparison, with margins between 2.4% and 2.5%. That includes both multi-core and single-core workloads. The Xeon W-1290, despite a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, trails in every recorded test. This suggests that the i9-9820X's architecture and memory configuration (quad-channel, higher bandwidth) provide a measurable advantage in these workloads.

However, the Xeon W-1290 is not without its own strengths. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive workstation and server tasks. It includes integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is not required for basic display output. Its TDP is 80 W versus 165 W, making it far more power-efficient on paper. It is also an active product, while the i9-9820X is end-of-life.

For a user who prioritizes raw Cinebench performance, the i9-9820X is the clear choice. For a user who needs ECC, integrated graphics, or a lower power envelope, the Xeon W-1290 offers features the i9-9820X cannot match. The launch MSRP difference ($889 for the i9-9820X, $498 for the Xeon W-1290) is notable, but the decision should be driven by platform requirements and workload needs.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: 3.30 GHz (i9-9820X) vs 3.20 GHz (Xeon W-1290)
• Boost clock: 4.20 GHz (i9-9820X) vs 5.20 GHz (Xeon W-1290)
• TDP: 165 W (i9-9820X) vs 80 W (Xeon W-1290)
• Socket: Intel Socket 2066 (i9-9820X) vs Intel Socket 1200 (Xeon W-1290)
• Architecture: Skylake (i9-9820X) vs Comet Lake (Xeon W-1290)
• Codename: Skylake-X (i9-9820X) vs Comet Lake (Xeon W-1290)
• Generation: Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen (i9-9820X) vs Xeon Comet Lake (Xeon W-1290)
• L2 cache per core: 1 MB (i9-9820X) vs 256 KB (Xeon W-1290)
• L3 cache (shared): 16.5 MB (i9-9820X) vs 20 MB (Xeon W-1290)
• Memory bus: Quad-channel (i9-9820X) vs Dual-channel (Xeon W-1290)
• Memory bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s (i9-9820X) vs 46.9 GB/s (Xeon W-1290)
• ECC memory: No (i9-9820X) vs Yes (Xeon W-1290)
• PCIe lanes (CPU only): 44 (i9-9820X) vs 16 (Xeon W-1290)
• Integrated graphics: None (i9-9820X) vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 (Xeon W-1290)
• Market segment: Desktop (i9-9820X) vs Server/Workstation (Xeon W-1290)
• Production status: End-of-life (i9-9820X) vs Active (Xeon W-1290)
• Release date: 2018-10-18 (i9-9820X) vs 2020-05-12 (Xeon W-1290)
• Launch MSRP: $889 (i9-9820X) vs $498 (Xeon W-1290)
• Multiplier unlocked: Yes (i9-9820X) vs No (Xeon W-1290)
• Part number: SREZ8 (i9-9820X) vs SRH94 (Xeon W-1290)
• Die size: Not listed (i9-9820X) vs 206 mm² (Xeon W-1290)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six Cinebench comparisons, and the i9-9820X wins every one. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-9820X scores 1759 against 1718 for the Xeon W-1290, a 2.4% lead. In R15 single-core, the i9-9820X scores 248 versus 242, a 2.5% advantage. The pattern continues in R20: multi-core 7332 versus 7162 (2.4% lead), single-core 1034 versus 1010 (2.4% lead). In R23, the i9-9820X posts 17459 versus 17054 in multi-core (2.4% lead) and 2464 versus 2407 in single-core (2.4% lead).

These margins are consistent and small, but they are present in every test. The Xeon W-1290's higher boost clock (5.20 GHz) does not translate into a win in any Cinebench test. The i9-9820X's quad-channel memory and higher memory bandwidth (85.3 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s) likely contribute to its edge, though the database does not isolate the cause. The average benchmark score for the i9-9820X is 5049, placing it in the 60th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon W-1290 averages 4932 and sits in the 59th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-9820X wins on raw performance in every recorded Cinebench test. For users who run multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or other workloads that scale with cores and memory bandwidth, the i9-9820X is the stronger choice. Its quad-channel memory and higher L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 256 KB) are notable advantages. The i9-9820X also has an unlocked multiplier, which allows overclocking, though the database does not include overclocked results.

The Xeon W-1290 wins on platform features. It supports ECC memory, which is essential for data integrity in servers and workstations. It includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios. Its TDP of 80 W is less than half that of the i9-9820X, making it suitable for power-constrained environments. It is also an active product, while the i9-9820X is end-of-life. The Xeon W-1290 has a larger L3 cache (20 MB versus 16.5 MB) and a higher boost clock, but those do not overcome the i9-9820X's benchmark lead.

In short, the i9-9820X is the performance pick based on the recorded Cinebench data. The Xeon W-1290 is the feature pick for ECC, integrated graphics, and lower power consumption. The choice depends on whether raw compute or platform capabilities matter more for the intended workload.