EPYC 7H12 vs i9-9900KF

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-9900KF
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 95 Watt
11.94
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
45.50
+281%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core i9-9900KF by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking67246
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.32no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i9AMD EPYC
Power efficiency11.4614.82
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date7 January 2019 (5 years ago)18 September 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$488no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads16128
Base clock speed3.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed5 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data26
L1 cache512 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12 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 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

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.

i9-9900KF 11.94
EPYC 7H12 45.50
+281%

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.

i9-9900KF 18266
EPYC 7H12 69633
+281%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.94 45.50
Recency 7 January 2019 18 September 2019
Physical cores 8 64
Threads 16 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 280 Watt

i9-9900KF has 194.7% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7H12, on the other hand, has a 281.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-9900KF in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-9900KF is a desktop processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-9900KF and EPYC 7H12, 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 i9-9900KF
Core i9-9900KF
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.


3.8 501 vote

Rate Core i9-9900KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-9900KF or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.