EPYC 9135 vs i9-9940X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-9940X
2018
14 cores / 28 threads, 165 Watt
17.63
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.56
+107%

EPYC 9135 outperforms Core i9-9940X by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking35596
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.2929.26
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i9no data
Power efficiency10.1117.29
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Turin (2024)
Release date19 October 2018 (6 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,387$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9135 has 453% better value for money than i9-9940X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads2832
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache19.25 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die size484 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature88 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135 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 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135. 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 i9-9940X and EPYC 9135 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135 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 i9-9940X and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135.

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.

i9-9940X 17.63
EPYC 9135 36.56
+107%

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.

i9-9940X 28012
EPYC 9135 58070
+107%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.63 36.56
Recency 19 October 2018 10 October 2024
Physical cores 14 16
Threads 28 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 200 Watt

i9-9940X has 21.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 107.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-9940X in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-9940X is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-9940X and EPYC 9135, 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 i9-9940X
Core i9-9940X
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

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 38 votes

Rate Core i9-9940X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-9940X or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.