EPYC 9654P vs i7-9700F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-9700F
2019
8 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
8.34
EPYC 9654P
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
71.74
+760%

EPYC 9654P outperforms Core i7-9700F by a whopping 760% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9037
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.721.90
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i7AMD EPYC
Power efficiency12.1418.86
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake (2017−2019)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$323$10,625

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-9700F has 359% better value for money than EPYC 9654P.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P 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)96
Threads8192
Base clock speed3 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.7 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3024
L1 cache64K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache12 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data12x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P 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
SocketFCLGA1151SP5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P. 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++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
SIPP+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P 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 i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P 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 i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size128 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

i7-9700F 8.34
EPYC 9654P 71.74
+760%

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.

i7-9700F 13247
EPYC 9654P 113949
+760%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.34 71.74
Recency 23 April 2019 10 November 2022
Physical cores 8 96
Threads 8 192
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 360 Watt

i7-9700F has 453.8% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654P, on the other hand, has a 760.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-9700F in performance tests.

Note that Core i7-9700F is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-9700F and EPYC 9654P, 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 i7-9700F
Core i7-9700F
AMD EPYC 9654P
EPYC 9654P

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.


4.2 678 votes

Rate Core i7-9700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 9 votes

Rate EPYC 9654P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-9700F or EPYC 9654P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.