Intel Core i9-9940X vs Intel Core i9-9960X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records eight head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core i9-9960X and the Intel Core i9-9940X, with the 9960X taking seven wins and the 9940X taking one. The most consistent pattern is in the Cinebench suite, where the 9960X maintains a nearly uniform advantage across every version of the test, both single-core and multi-core.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9960X scores 2532 against the 9940X’s 2400, a 5.5% lead. The single-core result in the same test shows a similar gap: 357 versus 338, also a 5.6% edge. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 10550 for the 9960X and 10000 for the 9940X, again a 5.5% difference, while single-core lands at 1489 versus 1411, another 5.5% margin. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern almost exactly: multi-core 25120 versus 23810 and single-core 3546 versus 3361, both with the 9960X ahead by 5.5%. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench workload suggests the 9960X’s advantage is structural rather than workload-specific, tied to its additional cores rather than any clock advantage, since both chips share the same 4.50 GHz boost clock.

The Geekbench results break the trend. In multi-core, the 9960X scores 10512 against 10466 for the 9940X, a slim 0.4% win. But in Geekbench single-core, the 9940X reverses the outcome: it scores 1468 versus 1396 for the 9960X, a 4.9% advantage. This is the only test where the 9940X wins, and it is notable because the 9940X has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 3.10 GHz for the 9960X. The data suggests that in a lightly threaded workload, the 9940X’s higher base frequency translates into a measurable single-core performance edge, even though both processors boost to the same 4.50 GHz ceiling.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this mixed picture: the 9960X averages 6938 across all recorded tests, while the 9940X averages 6657. That puts the 9960X at the 63rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 62nd percentile for the 9940X. The nearest rivals for the 9960X include the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G at 6931 (a 0.1% delta), the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 at 6969 (a -0.4% delta), the Intel Core i5-3470 at 6906 (a 0.5% delta), and the Intel Xeon W-2195 at 6892 (a 0.7% delta). For the 9940X, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X at 6647 (a 0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-13400E at 6638 (a 0.3% delta), the AMD EPYC 72F3 at 6700 (a -0.6% delta), and the Intel Core i9-12900E at 6611 (a 0.7% delta). These rival comparisons show that both chips sit in a crowded performance band, where small percentage differences separate them from far cheaper mainstream parts, an interesting result for processors that both launched at premium price points.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i9-9960X wins 7 of the 8 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core i9-9940X winning only the Geekbench single-core test.

Q: How much faster is the 9960X in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 9960X scores 25120 versus 23810 for the 9940X, a 5.5% advantage.

Q: Does the 9940X have any performance advantage at all?

A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core the 9940X scores 1468 against 1396 for the 9960X, a 4.9% lead, likely related to its higher 3.30 GHz base clock.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The 9960X averages 6938 across all recorded tests, while the 9940X averages 6657, a difference of roughly 281 points.

Q: How do the two chips compare in memory bandwidth?

A: Both processors support quad-channel DDR4 memory with an identical 85.3 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, the database lists both as end-of-life products, with both released on 2018-10-18.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows directly from the benchmark data. The 9960X is the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads. Its two additional cores (16 versus 14) give it a consistent 5.5% edge across every Cinebench multi-core test, from R15 through R23. The scores are 2532 versus 2400 in R15, 10550 versus 10000 in R20, and 25120 versus 23810 in R23. For rendering, video encoding, compilation, or any task that scales across cores, the 9960X delivers measurably higher throughput. The Geekbench multi-core result, while much closer at 10512 versus 10466, still favors the 9960X.

The 9940X wins in one specific scenario: single-threaded Geekbench performance. Its 1468 score versus 1396 for the 9960X represents a 4.9% advantage, the largest single delta in either direction across all eight tests. This matters for applications that are poorly parallelized, legacy software that runs on one or two threads, or interactive tasks where per-core responsiveness is paramount. The 9940X also has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz versus 3.10 GHz), which likely explains its single-core edge despite matching the 9960X’s 4.50 GHz boost.

Interestingly, in Cinebench single-core tests, the 9960X actually wins by 5.5% to 5.6% in every version, despite losing the Geekbench single-core test. This suggests the two workloads stress different aspects of the architecture. Cinebench single-core may benefit from the 9960X’s larger 22 MB shared L3 cache versus 19.25 MB on the 9940X, while Geekbench’s single-core test appears more sensitive to base clock frequency. Users should match the workload to the processor: Cinebench-style rendering favors the 9960X, while Geekbench-style system-level single-thread tasks favor the 9940X.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a handful of recorded specifications. The most consequential is core count: the 9960X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 9940X has 14 cores and 28 threads. This two-core, four-thread difference drives the multi-core benchmark advantages.

Base clock frequencies also differ. The 9960X runs at 3.10 GHz, while the 9940X runs at 3.30 GHz. Both share the same 4.50 GHz boost clock, which explains why the 9940X’s single-core Geekbench advantage appears despite identical boost behavior. The higher base clock on the 9940X means it starts from a higher frequency before boosting, which can help in short, lightly threaded bursts.

The L3 cache differs as well. The 9960X has 22 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9940X has 19.25 MB. The per-core L1 cache is identical at 64 KB, and per-core L2 is also the same at 1 MB. The larger L3 on the 9960X provides more shared cache for its 16 cores, which may contribute to its multi-core wins beyond just the raw core count.

The launch MSRP also differs: the 9960X launched at $1684, while the 9940X launched at $1387. Both are unlocked for overclocking (multiplier unlocked), both have a 165 W TDP, and both use the Intel Socket 2066. Memory support is identical: quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is the same: Gen 3 with 44 lanes from the CPU. The part numbers differ (SREZ4 for the 9960X, SREZ5 for the 9940X), and both were released on the same date, 2018-10-18, with a production status of end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Skylake, specifically the Skylake-X codename, built on Intel’s 14 nm process node at Intel’s own foundry. The die size is identical at 484 mm². The generation is also the same: Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen. This means the architectural differences are limited to what the silicon implementation allows: core count, cache allocation, and frequency binning.

The 9960X uses its larger 22 MB shared L3 cache to serve 16 cores, while the 9940X allocates 19.25 MB across 14 cores. This works out to slightly more L3 per core on the 9940X (1.375 MB per core versus 1.375 MB per core on the 9960X, actually the same ratio, though the absolute numbers differ). The 9960X’s additional two cores require additional silicon, but the die size remains constant, suggesting the 9940X may be a binning of the same physical die with two cores disabled or a different configuration of the same 484 mm² layout.

Both processors lack integrated graphics, which is consistent with the high-end desktop X-Series positioning. Neither supports ECC memory. Both are unlocked for overclocking, and both carry the same 165 W TDP, meaning the 9960X delivers two extra cores within the same power envelope. The 9940X’s higher 3.30 GHz base clock suggests it may be better binned for frequency at lower core counts, while the 9960X prioritizes core count within the same thermal budget.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i9-9960X is the stronger processor. It wins every Cinebench multi-core test by a consistent 5.5% margin, and it also wins Geekbench multi-core, albeit by a narrower 0.4%. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a larger 22 MB L3 cache, give it a measurable throughput advantage that holds across three generations of Cinebench rendering tests. The average benchmark score of 6938 versus 6657 reinforces this: the 9960X is, on average, the faster chip.

For single-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i9-9940X has a specific, narrow win. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1468 beats the 9960X’s 1396 by 4.9%, the largest margin in any test. The higher 3.30 GHz base clock is the likely explanation. However, this advantage does not carry over to Cinebench single-core tests, where the 9960X wins by 5.5% to 5.6% across R15, R20, and R23. The 9940X’s single-core edge is therefore workload-dependent rather than universal.

The broader database context shows both processors sitting near the 63rd and 62nd percentiles respectively, with nearest rivals that include mainstream parts like the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G and Intel Core i5-13400E. This suggests that while the 9960X and 9940X were high-end at launch, their absolute performance today places them in a competitive mid-range band. The 9960X should be the pick for anyone running parallel workloads where every core counts. The 9940X makes sense for users who prioritize single-thread response in specific applications and want a slightly higher base clock, while accepting lower multi-core throughput. Both are end-of-life products, so the choice is about matching available hardware to workload characteristics rather than future upgrade paths.