EPYC 9274F vs i9-7980XE

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7980XE
2017
18 cores / 36 threads, 165 Watt
19.66
EPYC 9274F
2022
24 cores / 48 threads, 320 Watt
48.08
+145%

EPYC 9274F outperforms Core i9-7980XE by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7980XE and EPYC 9274F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30641
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.7611.96
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i9AMD EPYC
Power efficiency10.8613.70
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date30 May 2017 (7 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999$3,060

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9274F has 333% better value for money than i9-7980XE.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7980XE 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 cores18 (Octadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads3648
Base clock speed2.6 GHz4.05 GHz
Boost clock speed4.4 GHz4.05 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data40.5
L1 cache1.125 MB1536 KB
L2 cache18 MB24 MB
L3 cache24.75 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size484 mm28x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature94 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data52,560 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE 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.

i9-7980XE 19.66
EPYC 9274F 48.08
+145%

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.

i9-7980XE 30094
EPYC 9274F 73582
+145%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.66 48.08
Recency 30 May 2017 10 November 2022
Physical cores 18 24
Threads 36 48
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 320 Watt

i9-7980XE has 93.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9274F, on the other hand, has a 144.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9274F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-7980XE in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-7980XE is a desktop processor while EPYC 9274F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE
Core i9-7980XE
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.


4.8 278 votes

Rate Core i9-7980XE 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 i9-7980XE or EPYC 9274F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.