AMD has launched their new 12 core Ryzen 9
3900X CPU at a similar price point to Intel’s 8 core i9-9900K, so let’s see what the differences
are and find out how they perform in games and applications, both at stock and while
overclocked. Let’s start out with the specs. The major
difference between the two is that the AMD 3900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the
Intel 9900K is 8 cores 16 threads, so straight away we’re expecting the AMD chip to have
an advantage in multicore workloads. The 3900X has a higher base clock, while the boost speed
on the 9900K is higher, though these aren’t directly comparable due to architecture differences.
While Intel is still at 14nm, Zen 2 makes use of 7nm, though these aren’t directly
comparable either anyway. Otherwise the 3900X has a fair amount more cache compared to the
9900K. I’m comparing these two CPUs because they’re
available for around the same price point. The 3900X is launching at $499 USD, while
at the time of recording Intel’s 9900K is going for $495 USD, although the KF version
without integrated graphics is available for $480 USD, granted neither of Intel’s offerings
include a cooler. There was recently news that Intel may lower prices though, so check
the description for updated prices. I’ll also be comparing the 8 core 3700X in a future
video, so make sure you’re subscribed for that one. Both CPUs were tested in the same system,
however I’ve obviously had to change motherboards. For the AMD 3900X I’ve tested with the MSI
X570 ACE motherboard and for the Intel 9900K I’ve used the MSI Z390 ACE motherboard.
The rest of the components were otherwise the same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200
memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.
Although the 3900X comes with a cooler included in the box I haven’t tested with it. I’ve
used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT-H1 paste for both CPUs so we can get an
apples to apples comparison. I’ve tested both CPUs at stock, and with
the 9900K overclocked to 5.1GHz and 3900X overclocked to 4.3GHz, so we can see how overclocking
helps improve performance with both, and I also haven’t kneecapped the 9900K to a 95
watt TDP because in my opinion that doesn’t really make sense in terms of practicality. With that in mind we’ll first check out
the differences in various applications, as well as power draw and thermals, followed
by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions afterwards, then finish up by comparing performance
per dollar. Let’s start out with Cinebench R20. I’ve
got the overclocked results on the upper half of the graph while the stock results are on
the lower half. As expected the 3900X is dominating in the multicore workload due to the 50% higher
core count, while single core is much closer. At stock the 3900X was actually slightly ahead
when it came to single core, however the score went down once it was overclocked to 4.3GHz
on all cores. This is a trend we’ll see as we continue, basically the 3900X would
boost higher than this in single core at stock, so by manually overclocking all 12 cores to
this speed we’re actually lowering single core performance. While Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the
newer R20 just covered, I wanted to also include the results of this one too. Again the 3900X
is smashing the 9900K in the multicore score, though this time the 9900K was ahead in single
core performance, while again the 3900X saw a lower single core result due to the 4.3GHz
all core overclock. I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom
benchmarks, and as a test that works better with more cores it’s another clear win for
the 3900X. At stock the 3900X is completing the BMW test 39% faster than the 9900K and
40% faster in the Classroom test. This gap closes a little once we overclock both CPUs,
with the 3900X reduced a little to a 37.5% lead in the BMW test, while coming out 39%
ahead for the Classroom test. Handbrake was used to convert a 4K file to
1080p, and then a different 1080p file to 720p. This is another workload that benefits
from more cores, so at stock settings we’re seeing the 3900X complete the 4K conversion
27% faster than the 9900K and 36% faster for the 1080p file. Again once overclocked the
gap narrows in a bit, with the 3900X now 22% ahead for the 4K conversion and 34% faster
for the 1080p file. Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my
laptop review videos at 1080p, and the results between the two CPUs were very close in this
particular test. At stock the 3900X was completing the task just a few seconds faster than the
9900K, only making it 2% faster. Once both CPUs are overclocked though the tables are
turned, the 9900K is now just a couple of seconds faster than the 3900X. Steve at Hardware Unboxed saw more than a
20% improvement with the 3900X when exporting a 4K video though, so this just goes to show
I need to move away from my standard 1080p export test. Unfortunately I couldn’t retest
this as I was only able to borrow a 9900K for a couple of days, so I suggest checking
Steve’s video out for more results. I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effect
in Adobe Premiere, basically this processes a video file to smooth it out, and in this
test the 3900X was 9% faster than the 9900K at stock, and then 5% ahead with both overclocked.
Again the 9900K is closing the gap once we overclock both CPUs. I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and
decompression speeds, and this test saw the largest difference between these two chips
out of all applications tested. With stock configurations the 3900X was performing compression
operations 57% faster than the 9900K, and a massive 73% faster for decompression. Interestingly
once overclocked the 3900X compression speed actually lowers slightly, now putting the
3900X a slightly lower 55% ahead of the 9900K while being 62% faster at decompression, again
showing the 9900K seems to benefit more here once both are overclocked. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption
and decryption speeds, and in this test the 9900K was ahead a fair amount both at stock
and when overclocked. At stock the 9900K was around 29% faster, though its speed did actually
drop a little once overclocked, while the 3900X saw a slight increase. The results from
this test can vary quite a bit though, so each of these averages were taken from 10
runs. The V-Ray benchmark is another that relies
on core count to boost performance, and as a result the 3900X is 37% faster than the
9900K at stock, and then with both CPUs overclocked it’s down just slightly to a 36% lead. The Corona benchmark is pretty similar, at
stock the 3900X is able to complete the task 33% faster than the 9900K, and then 30% faster
with both CPUs overclocked. We can see that the overclock only speeds up the 3900X by
a couple of seconds here, while the 9900K gets a larger 5 second improvement. These are the differences between the 3900X
and 9900K CPUs in all of these applications, as we can see it really depends on the specific
workload. In most cases though the 3900X is coming out ahead, as most of these tests are
multi core workloads. On average over all tests, the 3900X was almost 24% ahead of the
9900K, however I have grouped in both mutli core and lower single core performance here
too so I suppose it’s not really a true average, just the average of all my results. These are the results with both the 3900X
and 9900K CPUs overclocked, so 4.3GHz on the 3900X and 5.1GHz on the 9900K. In most cases
the gap between them narrows a bit as we’re able to squeeze out more performance from
the overclock on the 9900K, however over all tests the 3900X was still 21% faster on average. I’ve also measured total system power draw
from the wall while running the Blender benchmark. At stock the 3900X is using almost 10% more
power, however it’s worth remembering that it is also completing the task close to 40%
faster than the 9900K. With both CPUs overclocked they were much closer together now, however
the 9900K was using more power, while the 3900X was completing the task 37.5% faster.
In this specific workload, it would seem that AMD’s new 7nm architecture is helping out
here. These are the CPU temperatures with the same
blender tests running. Both at stock and while overclocked the AMD chip was running a bit
warmer, but again it’s also worth remembering that it’s got 50% more CPU cores and is
completing this test around 40% faster, so based on these differences I think the temperature
increase is justified. Let’s get into the gaming results next,
I’ve tested these games at all setting levels at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, and just
as a reminder I’m also using a 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as I can. We’ll
start off with stock results, then look at overclocked results afterwards. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with
the built in benchmark. In all upcoming gaming graphs I’ve got Intel’s 9900K shown by
the blue bars and AMD’s 3900X shown by the red bars. In this game the 9900K was ahead
at all setting levels, at highest settings this results in a 12% higher average frame
rate. Stepping up to 1440p the results get much closer together at higher settings, presumably
as we start getting more GPU bound at this resolution. There’s just a four FPS difference
at highest settings now, resulting in 3.6% higher average FPS from the 9900K. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested
with the built in benchmark, and in this test AMD’s 3900X was actually ahead when it came
to 1% lows, however for average frame rate the 9900K was still in front, with a 7% lead
at maximum settings. At 1440p the 3900X is still ahead for 1% lows, though only at high
settings and above now. In terms of average frame rate the 9900K was now 6% ahead of the
3900X, so again the gap lowers with higher resolution. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode,
I prefer testing this as I can more precisely perform the same test run with less variance,
however multiplayer does seem to be more CPU intensive. At 1080p there wasn’t too much
of a difference in average FPS, however the 1% low from the 9900K was always a fair amount
in front. At ultra settings the 9900K was almost 8% higher than the 3900X in terms of
average FPS. At 1440p the 1% lows get closer together at high and ultra settings, honestly
basically margin of error territory there, however the averages are still clearly higher
from the 9900K, which is now scoring 7.5% higher average FPS at ultra settings. Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built
in benchmark, and at 1080p we’re seeing the largest improvement with the 9900K out
of all games tested. At ultra settings the 9900K was 20% ahead of the 3900X both in terms
of average FPS and 1% low. At 1440p we’re not actually losing too much FPS in this test,
and the 9900K still has a clear win, with just a slightly lower 19% higher average frame
rate over the 3900X at maximum settings now, and a 22% higher 1% low. Watch Dogs 2 is a game that loves CPU power,
and at 1080p was another game where the 9900K was in front. At 1080p the 9900K was 9.6%
higher in terms of average frame rate when compared against the 3900X, though I admit
I couldn’t tell you the difference between the two while actually playing the game. At
1440p there’s not too much of a change at lower settings, however at 1440p the 9900K
is now nearing an 11% lead, the gap between the two got larger at this resolution rather
than smaller. CS:GO is a game that’s well known for performing
better on Intel CPUs, so I just had to try it out. I’ve tested it with the Ulletical
FPS benchmark, and the results weren’t really too different. There’s a bit of an improvement
at lower settings with the 9900K, which to be fair is where a lot of people playing this
game are at for max performance, however with all settings at maximum the results were basically
the same, just a 0.3% higher average frame rate with the 9900K. At 1440p now the results
are basically the same at minimum settings, while maximum has pretty much the same 1%
low result, while the average frame rate from the 9900K is now 4.5% higher than the 3900X. I’ve also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with
the built in benchmark. At 1080p with lower settings there wasn’t much of a difference,
while at ultra settings this increases to the 9900K coming out 10% ahead in terms of
average FPS and with a 14% higher 1% low. At 1440p the frame rates drop back quite a
bit, though are still quite high for this test. At ultra settings there’s now just
a 5% higher average frame rate from the 9900K at this resolution. Out of all 7 games tested we’re looking
at a 9.5% higher average frame rate with the 9900K at highest setting levels at 1080p.
Some games like Far Cry New Dawn saw a massive improvement with the 9900K, while others like
CS:GO saw next to no change, it really varies by game. At 1440p as we become more GPU bound
the difference lowers slightly to an 8.1% higher average FPS with the 9900K. The only
game out of these tests where the 3900X was coming out ahead was for the 1% low in Assassin’s
Creed Odyssey. That’s stock settings, so what about with
both CPUs overclocked? As testing every single setting level takes a long time I’ve just
picked one setting to test overclocked results at 1080p. I’ve also tested the 3900X with
Precision boost overdrive enabled, noted as PBO onwards, which essentially boosts power
limits. Speeds of each core are also controlled for us here, so in general we should see better
single core performance when compared with our manual 4.3GHz all core overclock. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey got a nice improvement
to the 1% low result with the overclocked 9900K, however it was still behind what the
3900X was able to offer. While manually overclocked to 4.3GHz the 3900X actually ends up performing
worse, however with PBO enabled it was able to get a nice boost and close the gap quite
well. Battlefield 5 saw very nice improvements from
either CPU once overclocked, especially in terms of 1% lows, while PBO was also able
to give the 3900X an even higher average frame rate. The overclocked 9900K has a 13% higher
1% low compared to the 3900X with PBO, though in terms of average frames per second it’s
just 4.6% ahead. Shadow of the Tomb Raider saw a larger improvement
with the overclock on the 9900K, though this only boosted average FPS by less than 2%,
while the overclock on the 3900X gave a smaller 0.7% higher average frame rate in this test,
and no difference between PBO and the manual overclock. Watch Dogs 2 saw the 9900K get a 6.4% higher
average frame rate once overclocked, while the 3900X had a smaller 4.7% boost with our
manual 4.3GHz overclock, rising up slightly to a 5.3% boost with PBO, though honestly
as a game I can play with a stable 30 FPS you’re not practically going to notice a
difference while actually playing this. In CS:GO we’re seeing a much larger improvement
with the overclock on the 9900K, while the 4.3GHz all core overclock on the 3900X is
performing worse when compared to stock. This seems to be another title where capping the
clock speed of the 3900X to 4.3GHz actually ends up with worse off results as single core
speeds can’t boost up higher anymore, and this is why we’re able to get a little extra
with PBO. Rainbow Six Siege didn’t really see much
of a change once applying the overclocks. At stock settings the 9900K is about 11% faster
in average FPS compared to the stock 3900X, however with the 9900K overclocked to 5.1GHz
and 3900X with PBO enabled this lowers to a 7% lead, so despite not catching up PBO
is certainly narrowing the gap. These are the differences between these games
at stock, shown by the purple bars, and with best case modifications, shown by the red
bars, so the 5.1GHz overclock on the 9900K and the 3900X with PBO enabled. With PBO enabled
we saw equal or better performance in games from the 3900X compared to our manual overclock,
so it appears to make more sense to just turn that on. The gap between the two CPUs narrows
with the modifications in place in games like rainbow six, battlefield 5 and assassin’s
creed, while CS:GO saw a massive improvement from the 9900k’s overclock. When it comes down to it I don’t think we’re
seeing that big of a difference in gaming performance at stock. To be fair I have only
tested 7 games here, however from what I’m seeing you can get decent gaming performance
with both, I honestly can’t say I personally was able to notice the extra FPS from the
9900K while testing. Despite this though, it was the clear winner in the games tested.
The 3900X was only coming out ahead in the 1% lows for Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. If you only care about gaming then at first
glance it appears that the 9900K is the better choice, however we need to factor in overall
costs. These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p averaged out over all 7 games tested
at maximum settings. I’ve got the 3900X shown up the top in red, with a few different
options for the 9900K in blue. In order to actually use the 9900K you have to buy a cooler
for it, making the two bars towards the bottom essentially useless, you can’t use the CPU
without a cooler. Decent coolers like the Dark Rock 4 from Be
Quiet are around $75, it doesn’t make much sense to buy a top of the line processor and
cheap out there, however for arguments sake I’ve also included the results with a cheaper
$50 cooler too. I’ve also added in the 9900KF, which is basically the same CPU but with the
integrated graphics disabled, so you can save some money with that one. Even if we factor
in a $50 cooler the 3900X is still ahead of the 9900K, and only just a little more than
the KF. Using a proper $75 cooler with the 9900K though and the 3900X is further ahead
in terms of cost per frame. Here are the results with both CPUs overclocked.
As we saw the 9900K overclocked better than the 3900X, which now narrows the gap between
them. The 3900X is extremely close now to the 9900K, and with PBO enabled the 3900X
is slightly ahead of even the 9900KF with good a cooler. It’s worth considering that
while overclocked to 5.1GHz you’re definitely going to want to go with a higher end cooler,
so with these results I wouldn’t personally even consider a cheaper option. It’s not all about gaming though, as we
saw earlier the extra four cores with the 3900X helps it come out ahead in multi core
workloads. These are the cost per frame values while exporting a 4K video file to 1080p with
Handbrake, and I’ve chosen this particular test as the 3900X was 27% faster than the
9900K, which was close to the average 24% improvement we saw out of all application
tests, plus it’s a very real world workload. At stock the 3900X is offering significantly
better value compared to the 9900K, and if we were looking at a different result like
Blender then the 3900X would be even further ahead, it really depends on your specific
workload. Once both CPUs are overclocked we see the
9900K results move in a bit closer, as the 3900X overclock saw far less improvement in
this particular test. Despite this though, the 3900X is still far better value for a
multicore workload like this. Again as these are overclocked results I wouldn’t even
consider the cheaper cooler as an option for the 9900K. I’ll also acknowledge that the
cooler I’m using with the 3900X is most likely better than the stock cooler, so with
the stock cooler we may see slightly different results. It’s likely that the 8 cores on offer from
the 9900K are going to be enough for gaming for the foreseeable future, however if you’re
someone that also uses your machine for productivity tasks, as we saw earlier the 50% higher core
count can help out quite a lot more there. Speaking of the future, we already know the
16 core 3950X is coming out in September 2019 which will be supported by the same AM4 socket.
At this time it’s not clear if current Intel motherboards will be able to push beyond the
9900K. If you only care about gaming and want the
best performance in terms of raw FPS, then you’re of course better off getting the
9900K. If you overclock it and even use a decent cooler the value proposition between
the two in terms of dollar per frame is similar in games. If you’re also or otherwise instead
using your system for other productivity tasks where the extra CPU cores are more beneficial
though, then the 3900X is offering an excellent all round solution for the price. For me personally the frame rates I was getting
from both CPUs were high enough and the games were playing well with either. I’d be more
than happy to sacrifice on average less than 10% FPS in gaming and take the extra cores
for other tasks, but that’s just me. It’s also possible, even likely, that over
time we’ll start seeing the 3900X catch up to the 9900K in terms of gaming performance,
as future titles and game updates continue to make better use of multicore CPUs, so perhaps
a revisit in a year or two from now would be worthwhile. Let me know which CPU you’d pick and why
down in the comments, Intel’s i9-9900K or AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X? I’m really interested
to hear which you’d go for. I’ve also got the 3700X here for testing, so if you’re
new to the channel you’re definitely going to want to get subscribed for my future CPU
comparisons.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel i9-9900K – CPU Comparison
Tagged on:                                                         

100 thoughts on “AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel i9-9900K – CPU Comparison

  • July 7, 2019 at 1:42 pm
    Permalink

    The 3700X vs 9700K comparison is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZZDoXwtMXc

    Reply
  • July 8, 2019 at 10:02 pm
    Permalink

    No one uses the amd box cooler, its so freaking loud😂

    Reply
  • July 8, 2019 at 11:33 pm
    Permalink

    One of the best reviews I've seen so far, good balance between applications and games, flawless methodology, and the price/performance charts are really great.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 12:57 am
    Permalink

    another review that don't use AMD recommendation 3600mhz – 3800 mhz.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 1:40 am
    Permalink

    going for the Ryzen 3900 (later on 3950). Use case is mostly for work. This blows my 1950 out of the water in productivity. (convert the 1950 into a linux server)

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 2:12 am
    Permalink

    Your benchmarks are very, very well done. Many thanks!

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 5:45 am
    Permalink

    Good review, especially of high resolution & low, but as someone else has already pointed to 3900X shall do better when gaming & capture/streaming in comparison to i-9s. OTOH, just F**K apples to apples tests, I would like to see the higher memory speed & latency scaling and to see more optimum 3600-3733 Dimms used with Ryzen 2 at low latencies… why do so many reviews not try to show us these better case scenarios instead of (slightly) gimping their Ryzens with 3200 CL-16, sure they might use the same with their comparison Intel, but still why?

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 6:23 am
    Permalink

    You can play watchdogs at 30fps 🤯, I cant play anything at 30fps without cringing

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 6:36 am
    Permalink

    Was amd tested with stock cooler??? Thats impressive for stock cooler!!

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 6:39 am
    Permalink

    Your cost per frame result is a bit misleading. You forgot to add $75 cooler to amd.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 7:34 am
    Permalink

    wake me up when AMD win also in game benchmark

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 7:44 am
    Permalink

    great job!

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 9:47 am
    Permalink

    AMD suck :)))) always in games 8/16 vs 12/24 pffffff fucking shit amd

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 9:48 am
    Permalink

    You even made corona becnhmark. You are absolutely the best. This has been best review so far and I watched so many.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 11:52 am
    Permalink

    My son just got a 9900K because he's focused on gaming and 8 cores/16 threads is more than enough for his music production.
    I'm getting a R9 3900X because I like the extra threads for video production plus for me it games just fine.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 1:25 pm
    Permalink

    I am sitting here, still at the push the BUY button with 9700k in the purchase bin. After waiting a long time for 3rd gen ryzen to come out, i am fairly dissapointed in their gaming performance. I have a custom water loop, so i am hoping i can push the 9700k above 5.2 ghz (although steve at gamer nexus couldn't, but he could push i9 9900k to 5.4 ghz on water). I don't think i will be able to go far on the AMD chip even with water. So, i should in games really pull away even further from AMD.

    To your 'future games will be using more threads and more cores' – multi core and multi thread processors have been out ages ago. I think in the future the sweet spot is going to be 8 cores, mostly because of the new ps5 spec leaks etc, and porting over to PC will be much easier on the new console platforms. And as far as i know, there is no hyperthreading on a console. More work = more money = f it, just port the game geeves asap so i can get my moneh.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 2:04 pm
    Permalink

    intel is getting left behind.
    they should do 7nm too now.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 2:28 pm
    Permalink

    8:57 Gaming Results

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 2:32 pm
    Permalink

    So, if I play at 4K Ultra, there would be no difference in frame rate.
    That's so awesome man. I see a 3950X in my future. So long Intel.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 3:19 pm
    Permalink

    Why isn't there ANY temperature comparison whatever the benchmark? Isn't that one of the main advantages of a smaller node? Kind of suspicious… Is that still under NDA ? o_O

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 3:32 pm
    Permalink

    how about overclocking the 2080Ti also and see if Intel is pulling further ahead in games ? The 2080Ti has so much overclocking headroom available after flashing higher TDP bios.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 3:36 pm
    Permalink

    Disappointing result from AMD for me, I was expecting it from the hype to perform better in games, even though its a big uplift from previous Gens, I think its clever marketing from AMD, we all saw the specs and expected these processors to clock faster, or is it the top end of the tree only i.e the 3950x is going to have the best silicon that will be able to overclock higher, i just don't know, I've just got to remember this is a new architecture and there will be things that still need ironing out.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    can I use any SSD in my laptop or does it have to match with the other one?

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 7:28 pm
    Permalink

    12 core vs 8? Compare 8 vs 8. but nice to see still best gaming cpu is the 8 core intel. or must i say sad to see?

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 7:51 pm
    Permalink

    No compiling benchmark 😕

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 8:15 pm
    Permalink

    Where does the 9900 (not the 9900K or 9900KF) play a role in all this? I mean, it's 8 cores/16 threads with 5 GHz boost, and some people (like me) are not interested in pushing clock speeds higher than that. Not to mention, it's 60 dollars cheaper than the 9900K and the 3900X. Any thoughts? Really tempted to buy it but there are barely any reviews out there, I'm not sure if I'm missing something.

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 9:57 pm
    Permalink

    AMD for applications and Intel for games

    Reply
  • July 9, 2019 at 11:31 pm
    Permalink

    3900X all day!!!

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 12:16 am
    Permalink

    Intel 7960x shits on this POS.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 3:58 am
    Permalink

    My 3900X & Asus Crosshair Hero VIII X570 will be arriving on Friday! ^.^

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 4:17 am
    Permalink

    No one is going to buy either of these two CPU's on cost per frame. Clearly the 9900k is still the king of gaming and when you consider it's an old 8c16t 14nm CPU against a brand spanking new 12c24t 7nm CPU that is a amazing! Can't wait to see what Intel has up there sleeves!

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 4:24 am
    Permalink

    My fx 6300 died a few months ago, i got saved 2k$ to buy a new pc and i was waiting till the gen 3 ryzen launch to know what cpu suits better for my pc needs and because i only interested in gaming i guess I'm going for the 9900k.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 4:42 am
    Permalink

    So close … its a draw.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 6:44 am
    Permalink

    Your Cost per frame comparisons don't really make a lot of sense. You say "there's no reason to buy an expensive CPU and cheap out on a cooler" so you saddle the 9900k with an expensive cooler but then compare it to the 3900x with a stock cooler… but your tests were run on a water cooler. Unless I'm mistaken, those graphs are pretty flawed. You would need to test the 3900x with stock cooler vs 9900k and the $75 cooler, yes? Otherwise it was a good video thanks for the info.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 6:56 am
    Permalink

    consider that he might not have done the new bios update this would cause the scores to be lower

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 9:49 am
    Permalink

    Do i9 9980 XE.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 10:49 am
    Permalink

    amd is using random core to process game's instruction / programme instead of fixed core according to Linus tech tip (if I remember that correctly). they also said if game optimised for it (use fixed core to process game's programme) they will have much greater performance. at least better than what it is now.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 11:11 am
    Permalink

    Intel is still faster than AMD

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 12:58 pm
    Permalink

    nice work

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 1:39 pm
    Permalink

    zen 2 disappointing gaming performance and no oc headroom because amd maxed the chips out. hmm. oh well.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 6:00 pm
    Permalink

    which CPU for streaming and gaming? Thank you so much!

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 6:43 pm
    Permalink

    which of the 2 CPUs for streaming and gaming? Thank you so much!

    Reply
  • July 10, 2019 at 9:11 pm
    Permalink

    Always been an intel guy because the first pc given to me was pure intel. I'm not a closed minded individual so I'm considering going with the 3900x since I enjoy streaming, gaming and light video editing. My question is which motherboard would be compatible with this cpu under $250?

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 1:14 am
    Permalink

    Ryzen aut intel in

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 2:37 am
    Permalink

    The main difference in the two is basically that the 3900x is better lol

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 3:22 am
    Permalink

    The TL:DR
    3900x is 40% better in multi-core workload situations
    9900k is 10% better in pure gaming framerates

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 10:39 am
    Permalink

    https://www.tomshw.it/hardware/intel-core-i9-10900kf-10-core-e-20-thread-a-52-ghz/ amd bhuhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha sei un nabbo

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 6:17 pm
    Permalink

    like amd

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019 at 8:23 am
    Permalink

    Not surprised for Adobe product.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019 at 8:45 am
    Permalink

    thx for the vid but why the fuck i would game on shitty 1080p with 3900x and 2080 Ti?!?!?

    yes i know its for benchmarking purposes, but this is not logical and reviewers should focus on real world scenarios, i was waiting for 1440p/4k while both are overclocked but only 1080p benches! please do 1440p/4k gaming benchmarks while both are OCed.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019 at 1:38 pm
    Permalink

    INTEL WIN GAME,AMD WIN WORK .

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019 at 2:15 pm
    Permalink

    If you just benchmark rendering and encoding speeds, more cores will almost always come out on top.. but I think I would still want better single core while working in big scenes in 3D and send my render off to my internal render farm.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2019 at 6:12 pm
    Permalink

    What about the 3900x vs 9980Xe for gaming idc about work I’m just gaming honestly.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2019 at 6:22 am
    Permalink

    I think AMD is perfect for me, Music Production, Video Editing, virtualization and a little bit gaming.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2019 at 11:41 am
    Permalink

    Your $ per fps graph is flawed, x570 motherboards are much more expensive. Also an z390 can can reach much higher ddr4 speeds which do have an impact on fps delivery at lower resolution/settings (esports titles). Im not an Intel fanboy but the 3900x doesn't destroy the 9900K for what most users will actually use a PC for, (very) light work load productivity and gaming.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2019 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    dislike for benchmark..i want gameplay comparison

    Reply
  • July 15, 2019 at 5:55 am
    Permalink

    Intel – Expensive for gaming
    AMD – Cheap for gaming

    What whould you choose?

    Reply
  • July 16, 2019 at 2:38 pm
    Permalink

    Hmm… I mainly do graphic design using adobe illustrator and photoshop, sometimes do some premiere and after effects…learning to use 3D works loads using maya, blender.
    I'm a gamer as well…still considering about setting up game streaming as far as I know those main workloads and gamming tends to lend towards strong single-core while my sub workloads including the streaming idea favor multi-cores…it's confusing for me to sort of drawing a line whether to opt for
    R7 3700X vs i7 9700K
    R9 3900X vs i9 9900K
    I wanna build this machine to last about 5 years, so I paired it 2070 super planning to try 1440p or 2K.

    Reply
  • July 16, 2019 at 10:43 pm
    Permalink

    I wanted to go amd as well. I was hyped I thought finally they will beat Intel in gaming buy I was let down. Very disappoint. I guess I will have to go 9900k after all :/ at least until amd can truly beat Intel in gaming as well. Maybe in a year or and hope fully no longer :/

    Reply
  • July 17, 2019 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    biggest test issue for any cpu of different or the same gen but different release dates is program…..is the program able to use full capacity of cpu….we have already seen this in the past with gaming and compatibility eg dual core vs quad core on games present at time of release – no game was release demanding or capable of using the full capacity of the quad core, not relevant my arse same shit same crap testing no real results lmao think about it stupid to put them in 1v1 with no real test that will really push or use full capacity………..moral of story is lnd and new both have pro's and con's all made for purpose s in mine….its simple……………..im a amd radeon video card fan but cpu is intel hands down, never an issue.

    Reply
  • July 18, 2019 at 3:22 am
    Permalink

    Great Video did you enable intels internal graphics along with the discrete GPU when using premiere pro?

    Reply
  • July 18, 2019 at 3:34 pm
    Permalink

    I'm still ok with my i7 6700k.

    Reply
  • July 20, 2019 at 3:21 am
    Permalink

    So Intel's quick sync is a eye wash ? I thought the quick sync helps to speed up rendering times in premier pro , please tell me whether internal graphics enabled or not in Intel build ? Thanks

    Reply
  • July 20, 2019 at 9:19 pm
    Permalink

    9900k all day

    Reply
  • July 22, 2019 at 1:23 am
    Permalink

    Only thing I would of done different is took off the price of cooler anyone that spends 500 dollars on cpu would buy a better air cooler and an aio or water cooled

    Reply
  • July 23, 2019 at 12:48 pm
    Permalink

    I find your cost per frame argument about games be a bit silly. We are talking a $75-100 difference here. It sounds significant until you calculate that cost over a 5 year period. The cost increase is really not much in the long run ($1.50 more per month). Would I pay $1.50 a month for 5 to 25 more frames in games? Absolutely!

    Reply
  • July 23, 2019 at 8:05 pm
    Permalink

    Amd is more clever than Intel because of its multitasking capabilities.

    Reply
  • July 24, 2019 at 12:17 am
    Permalink

    3600 now 3950x later

    Reply
  • July 24, 2019 at 1:04 am
    Permalink

    Amd can never with intel

    Reply
  • July 24, 2019 at 7:02 pm
    Permalink

    If you dont like 9900k give it to me.

    Reply
  • July 24, 2019 at 7:02 pm
    Permalink

    More cores reduces power.

    Reply
  • July 25, 2019 at 1:16 am
    Permalink

    I feel dumb for asking, but what does it mean when it says “1% low”?

    Reply
  • July 26, 2019 at 6:09 pm
    Permalink

    the cooler cost comparison is going to be a bit off since you ran it with a watercooled solution though

    personally, i'd gun for a 9900k, plenty of cores for VM's, handles encryption better, and i game. not one for editing videos myself so many of the other benches didn't mean much for me.

    Reply
  • July 26, 2019 at 9:21 pm
    Permalink

    AMD totaly useless if we do only gaming ?

    Reply
  • July 29, 2019 at 2:45 pm
    Permalink

    1000 like 😀

    Reply
  • July 29, 2019 at 10:45 pm
    Permalink

    So amd or Intel on gaming and streaming?

    Reply
  • August 2, 2019 at 6:11 pm
    Permalink

    hi how far will the results change with background apps like chrome discord and spotify open

    Reply
  • August 3, 2019 at 9:36 am
    Permalink

    An Intel system has optane while amd has that software solution for ssding ur hdd

    Reply
  • August 3, 2019 at 11:01 pm
    Permalink

    Wow the Ryzen is more expensive now.

    Reply
  • August 3, 2019 at 11:10 pm
    Permalink

    9:50 so that means AMD's CPU runs more stable (not fluctuating as much) which I prefer.

    I can happily renounce on 2 frames if it means it's more stable and I don't have as bad dips!!

    Reply
  • August 8, 2019 at 5:51 am
    Permalink

    Good vid. But I would like to see at which speed (ghz) the CPu runs. Ryzen can´t go high as Intel. So they are not OC? OC Intel will beat Ryzen hard? I hoped upgrading from my 2700x to the 3900x would bring much more advantages.

    Reply
  • August 8, 2019 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    RYZEN IS BETTTER

    Reply
  • August 9, 2019 at 1:44 pm
    Permalink

    AMD Ryzen 9 3900x very nice

    Reply
  • August 9, 2019 at 7:19 pm
    Permalink

    En stock y overclock AMD le patea el culo al todo poderoso i9

    Reply
  • August 10, 2019 at 1:26 am
    Permalink

    Thinking of buying a prebuilit gaming computer or building My own very soon. I think ima pick up the 3900x for sure

    Reply
  • August 11, 2019 at 10:47 pm
    Permalink

    got 9900k since first came out… well,.. no need to switch.. im happy with it 🙂

    Reply
  • August 14, 2019 at 11:24 pm
    Permalink

    Came here for h265 & vp9. Left disappointed

    Reply
  • August 21, 2019 at 2:20 pm
    Permalink

    i wouldnt mind 3900x but not for $500 if you can get 8700k for around $300 that probably best for gaming till 2022

    Reply
  • August 22, 2019 at 12:51 pm
    Permalink

    I have the 3900x, and it’s really good

    Reply
  • August 26, 2019 at 5:48 pm
    Permalink

    Alright, it's time to let go of CS:GO for benchmarks, this is ridiculous

    Reply
  • September 8, 2019 at 12:43 am
    Permalink

    You should do the test of playing games and running obs

    Reply
  • September 10, 2019 at 12:45 pm
    Permalink

    3:30 Почему в разгоне хуже чем в стоке? Или я в шары долблюсь? Что за бред

    Reply
  • September 10, 2019 at 1:08 pm
    Permalink

    тесты других ютюберов не показывают такого большого преимущества интела над амд. кому верить?

    Reply
  • September 11, 2019 at 3:18 pm
    Permalink

    Intel has integrated graphics in chip plus lower cores so its power consumption should be less.

    Reply
  • September 21, 2019 at 9:23 am
    Permalink

    The graphs of cost per frame are useless. The comparison must be made according to the price of the processor and the motherboard.

    Reply
  • September 24, 2019 at 2:56 pm
    Permalink

    Ryzen 7 3700x will be good for me + 1080 Ti = fun 😏

    Reply
  • September 24, 2019 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    Not that im a fanboy or something, but since like always I had only Intel/Nvidia combo. My wife had AMD gpu in her laptop yet it overheated and got burnt.
    Now only Intel HD 4000 works for her sadly. The games run better with Nvidia/Intel, and im a graphics whore, so Raytracing/DLSS, Physx, Hairworks, gameworks, allworks seems like a candy to me. I tried to find some good AMD build, but what I found is 3700x and 5700xt which is like a sweet spot for AMD users, and yet it still doesn't have great performance.
    So I'm buying I7 8700k and rtx 2080ti tomorrow.
    If you guys know something from Red guys what could compete with that in gaming performance, feel free to tell me.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2019 at 9:13 pm
    Permalink

    i wanted to know witch one was better and u give me this complicated shit

    Reply
  • October 7, 2019 at 3:37 pm
    Permalink

    intel destroy them hand down 👊👌and i9 is cheeper too.

    Reply
  • October 9, 2019 at 3:08 am
    Permalink

    I would love to buy that 3900x for my 3D workstation / gaming 🤤🤤🤤

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *