EPYC 9274F vs i9-7960X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7960X
2017
16 cores / 32 threads, 165 Watt
18.17
EPYC 9274F
2022
24 cores / 48 threads, 320 Watt
46.32
+155%

EPYC 9274F outperforms Core i9-7960X by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking33442
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.2712.70
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i9AMD EPYC
Power efficiency10.4213.70
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date1 September 2017 (7 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,699$3,060

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9274F has 288% better value for money than i9-7960X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads3248
Base clock speed2.8 GHz4.05 GHz
Boost clock speed4.4 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data40.5
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size484 mm28x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature98 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data52,560 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA2066SP5
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size128 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/s460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes44128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i9-7960X 18.17
EPYC 9274F 46.32
+155%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i9-7960X 28867
EPYC 9274F 73582
+155%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.17 46.32
Recency 1 September 2017 10 November 2022
Physical cores 16 24
Threads 32 48
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 320 Watt

i9-7960X has 93.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9274F, on the other hand, has a 154.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9274F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-7960X in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-7960X is a desktop processor while EPYC 9274F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7960X and EPYC 9274F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i9-7960X
Core i9-7960X
AMD EPYC 9274F
EPYC 9274F

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 46 votes

Rate Core i9-7960X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 7 votes

Rate EPYC 9274F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7960X or EPYC 9274F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.