AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Yeah, it's a bad comparison, 9800X3D is an 8 core chip primarily intended for gaming, the 285K is an 8+16 core chip intended primarily for high end machines focusing on productivity. A more fair comparison would have been the 9950X3D.

I can present an article title to you, but I cannot comprehend it for you. Re-read the title. At no point does it state that this is a "gaming faceoff." Please read my response prior to your comment.

The first sentence of the article reads:

Today, we pit Intel's current-gen flagship Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the hands-down best CPU for gaming on the market, in a heated six-round match to find the winner.

That's the author admitting it's a flagship Intel CPU against NOT a flagship AMD CPU. If you do compare the flaghips against each other for power consumption efficency, which Techpowerup did, the 285K is more efficient in games and single threaded tasks, and only about 10% less efficient in full load.

Really there's no reason for this article to exist other than for the author to collect a paycheck.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Garbage article. I knew from the start that there was going to be some attempt to make Intel look less bad. 4 to 3. Lol. Even the 14900K gives the 285K a bigger beating than that. Don’t call it battle of the gaming flagships if you’re not going to focus on…you know…gaming. Where the 285K doesn’t stand a chance.

I had the chance to buy a very well spec'd HP Omen 45L with a 285K and RTX 5090 for $4200 and decided against it. I wanted the new Alienware Area 51 but they spec'd them out with Intel CPU's.

I built a rid for 100% gaming and my choice was very simple, an X3D CPU or nothing. So I went with the 9800X3D, although I considered the 9950X3D but they were hard to get at launch and cost a couple of hundred more.

For gaming, AMD CPU's is the best choice.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Yeah, it's a bad comparison, 9800X3D is an 8 core chip primarily intended for gaming, the 285K is an 8+16 core chip intended primarily for high end machines focusing on productivity. A more fair comparison would have been the 9950X3D.

Totally agree which is why I went with the 9800X3D instead of the 9950X3D. It would have been better if this article had compared the Ultra 9 vs the 9950X3D.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

We are now down to the part of the forum thread where most of the commenters have obviously not read either the article or the other comments in the thread. This is evidenced by repeated complaining about power consumption metrics, which are in fact covered in the article, or calls for a 9950X3D comparison that already exists (and is also included in this article as well). These types of misinformed comments are common, unfortunately.

From reading this thread, one would believe that AMD lost this faceoff, or that we said Intel was better in gaming, neither of which is accurate. How silly.

A reminder to those non-readers calling for the 9950X3D comparison: We already did that earlier this month. The article links to it multiple times, yet those who didn't read the article, or even bother to read the other comments, aren't aware of it, so here's a link:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff

Interestingly, some people argue that this is an unfair comparison, whereas on a price-based difference, the 9950X3D is $130 more expensive than the 285K, which is a higher delta than the $110 difference between the 285K and the 9800X3D. Price is the ultimate measuring stick, meaning the 285K vs 9800X3D is actually the more relevant comparison.

It's interesting that we didn't hear any complaints about an unfair comparison in the 285K vs 9950X3D faceoff article... 😛 It doesn't matter; we have both comparisons published.

Ryzen 7 9800X3D — $480
Core Ultra 9 285K — $590
Ryzen 9 9950X3D — $720

Whether you like it or not, the 285K is the best current-gen chip that Intel has to offer, and the 9800X3D is the undisputed best CPU for gaming that is priced closest to the 285K. The comparison is valid.

Which might be why Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus have also published direct comparisons of these two chips. I won't give you links; your Google works, too.

 

[baboma]

>Whether you like it or not...The comparison is valid.

Just here to say that it's good to see Paul Acorn showing up in the forum section, even if it's only to mix it up with the AMD fanboy contigent.

But really, the article--any X-vs-Y article--is basically red meat for the partisan crowd. I can't imagine you didn't anticipate the reaction.

Anyway, hope to see you and Jarred participating here for more than just fending off the usual partisan sniping. But given paucity of CPU/GPU specific news, it'll likely stay just a hope.

 

[truerock]

I was playing games in 1080p in 2012. Do people still do that?

Who owns a 1080p monitor in 2025?

 

[baboma]

>Who owns a 1080p monitor in 2025?

Counting... I have 4 1080p monitors in front (and to the side) of me right now. Well, 2 are 1200p but close enough. There's a 2.5K one but that's on a 13" laptop.

 

[hotaru251]

The gaming flagship from AMD is the 9950X3D though?

productivity is that chips selling point.

the x800x3d are always betetr gaming cpu than the HALO cpu as most games dont beenfit from higher core count and (idk if changed) but the 1ccd on 800x3d gave better latency.
hence why the lower chip wins in gaming vs big brother.

>Who owns a 1080p monitor in 2025?

me as well. I don't care about the sharpest, most amazing screen. 1080p is reliable & doesnt demand a ton of GPU power to give me an img and games still run great.

 

[rm12]

I read article expecting to see how the two cpus compared in gaming, and expecting a clear win from AMD.

So a lot of people, me including, expect an article focused on gaming.
And the end score is ... tada ... 3-4.
And why is Intel in the table on the left, so before, AMD?

As others mentioned: the best Intel gaming cpu is not the 285, but the 14900. So, why didn't you pick that one? This is especially strange.

 

[USAFRet]

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships​

Seems pretty clear to me and as others have said apples to apples it should have been the 9950x3d you used or a lower tier and price matched Intel unit.
Its like having a dance off and throwing a marathon in the middle just because....well i dont know really, Intels ad budget must be looking very tempting is all i can say.
Credibility damaged
Edit
Ahh there it is on the same page

Intel's lackluster Arrow Lake appears to have a refresh inbound — Arrow Lake Refresh appears in reference document​

Please don't assume partisanship.

 

[newtechldtech]

We are now down to the part of the forum thread where most of the commenters have obviously not read either the article or the other comments in the thread. This is evidenced by repeated complaining about power consumption metrics, which are in fact covered in the article, or calls for a 9950X3D comparison that already exists (and is also included in this article as well). These types of misinformed comments are common, unfortunately.

From reading this thread, one would believe that AMD lost this faceoff, or that we said Intel was better in gaming, neither of which is accurate. How silly.

A reminder to those non-readers calling for the 9950X3D comparison: We already did that earlier this month. The article links to it multiple times, yet those who didn't read the article, or even bother to read the other comments, aren't aware of it, so here's a link:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff

Interestingly, some people argue that this is an unfair comparison, whereas on a price-based difference, the 9950X3D is $130 more expensive than the 285K, which is a higher delta than the $110 difference between the 285K and the 9800X3D. Price is the ultimate measuring stick, meaning the 285K vs 9800X3D is actually the more relevant comparison.

It's interesting that we didn't hear any complaints about an unfair comparison in the 285K vs 9950X3D faceoff article... 😛 It doesn't matter; we have both comparisons published.

Ryzen 7 9800X3D — $480
Core Ultra 9 285K — $590
Ryzen 9 9950X3D — $720

Whether you like it or not, the 285K is the best current-gen chip that Intel has to offer, and the 9800X3D is the undisputed best CPU for gaming that is priced closest to the 285K. The comparison is valid.

Which might be why Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus have also published direct comparisons of these two chips. I won't give you links; your Google works, too.

Why not the 9900X3d ?? $600 ??? you just wanted some wins for intel to appear in productivity !

 

[atomicWAR]

Wow just wow. I am disappointed in some of the posters as I thought we were better on TH and not a rehash of Wccftech forums. I am not saying you shouldn't call out things if you believe they are unfair, quite the opposite actually but on TH we have always tried to be respectful in the past while we critque so lets not devolve now.

First off to those just roasting the article. I agree it may have been better to compare flagships... ie 9950X3D instead of 9800X3D BUT the article was clear what was being tested in the title. So for those claiming shill status, grow up. TH isn't perfect but it is one of the last publishing sites I trust for the most part. Tom's guide, PCGamer, GameRant etc... are another story. And let's remember an 8 core CPU still won out against a 24 core one. That is saying a lot about how well AMD is excuting at this time

@PaulAlcorn has been an excellent reviewer in the past and I see this as no exception for the most part. So to @PaulAlcorn I am sorry for the flack you're catching, it is mostly unfair and completely uncalled when delivered in a fashion such as...

Why not the 9900X3d ?? $600 ??? you just wanted some wins for intel to appear in productivity !

Really there's no reason for this article to exist other than for the author to collect a paycheck.

This is a bit overly harsh and simplistic take. Which is sad as Miles started off strong making fair points as they usually do. Now had a vendor forced Paul's hand, which there is no reason to believe they did, it would be a different story. This isn't Nvidia rtx 5060 preview/reviews for example. Where you have a vendor forcing unfair comparisons. End of the day this is still a buisness. Unless there is proof contray I think such posts are unnessasry at this time.

The simple fact is Intel has the multithreaded lead atm in a lot of price catagories. They just suck at gaming and we all know it, comparatively speaking at least. And before you scream shill at me. Look at my rig in the signature. I am running a 7950X3D as is my wife and my lappy is a 7945X3D. I buy whats best at gaming and good at multithreading so I can do my editing quickly without much hassle. I care not who built it and I fanboy no one.

I guess my point is two fold. Yes the 9950X3D would have been a more accurate chip to use. And we shouldn't act like childish trolls just because we think an article went the wrong way, came to the wrong conclusion etc etc. Voice up if you think something isn't above board but do it as an adult with respect as many posters did do. You want change that is great, the squeakly wheel gets the grease but the unhinged wheel... it tends to be discarded.

 

[m3city]

I was playing games in 1080p in 2012. Do people still do that?

Who owns a 1080p monitor in 2025?

I do. And feel no reason to update to 4k, because all it brings is a headache due GPU required to run games on it. And human eye resolution at viewing distance of 70cm, at 24-27" display makes 4k details in moving scenes irrelevant. Sure, i see 4k vs fhd difference in static shots. Gaming? Meh, whatever. Fhd @ 60 fps is great, and you have that with APU (more or less) without baking ocen under your desk, pci-e power cables burning, water cooling, RT crap.

 

[HyperMatrix]

Wow just wow. I am disappointed in some of the posters as I thought we were better on TH and not a rehash of Wccftech forums. I am not saying you shouldn't call out things if you believe they are unfair, quite the opposite actually but on TH we have always tried to be respectful in the past while we critque so lets not devolve now.

First off to those just roasting the article. I agree it may have been better to compare flagships... ie 9950X3D instead of 9800X3D BUT the article was clear what was being tested in the title. So for those claiming shill status, grow up. TH isn't perfect but it is one of the last publishing sites I trust for the most part. Tom's guide, PCGamer, GameRant etc... are another story. And let's remember an 8 core CPU still won out against a 24 core one. That is saying a lot about how well AMD is excuting at this time

@PaulAlcorn has been an excellent reviewer in the past and I see this as no exception for the most part. So to @PaulAlcorn I am sorry for the flack you're catching, it is mostly unfair and completely uncalled when delivered in a fashion such as...




This is a bit overly harsh and simplistic take. Which is sad as Miles started off strong making fair points as they usually do. Now had a vendor forced Paul's hand, which there is no reason to believe they did, it would be a different story. This isn't Nvidia rtx 5060 preview/reviews for example. Where you have a vendor forcing unfair comparisons. End of the day this is still a buisness. Unless there is proof contray I think such posts are unnessasry at this time.

The simple fact is Intel has the multithreaded lead atm in a lot of price catagories. They just suck at gaming and we all know it, comparatively speaking at least. And before you scream shill at me. Look at my rig in the signature. I am running a 7950X3D as is my wife and my lappy is a 7945X3D. I buy whats best at gaming and good at multithreading so I can do my editing quickly without much hassle. I care not who built it and I fanboy no one.

I guess my point is two fold. Yes the 9950X3D would have been a more accurate chip to use. And we shouldn't act like childish trolls just because we think an article went the wrong way, came to the wrong conclusion etc etc. Voice up if you think something isn't above board but do it as an adult with respect as many posters did do. You want change that is great, the squeakly wheel gets the grease but the unhinged wheel... it tends to be discarded.

Simple explanation of the general “outrage” here from my own perspective:

- I saw an article mentioning gaming flagship head2head

- As someone who bought a 10900K, 11900K, 12900K, 13900KS, 14900K, and 9800X3D, who currently has 2 Intel systems and 1 AMD system, I was curious to see what new testing and information was going to be shared

- I start reading and notice a pattern. There doesn’t seem to be an objective “here are our usual tests, let’s apply them to these CPUs and see objectively what happens.” There’s selective testing, and subjective takes (like Intel winning on overclocking somehow because the reviewers more levers and knobs that don’t give more of an uplift over the 9800X3D)

- I notice that my time has been wasted here. Nothing new or interesting is shared. The information shared is at least partially disingenuous by omission of facts or simply lack of understanding of testing methodology actual use cases by end users.

- I’m reminded that Tom’s Hardware’s parent company advertises itself as a marketing platform designed to help push product sales.

- I feel like an idiot.

- Paul then continues to fully defend the article and misleading title without admitting to any mistakes or shortcomings or potentially better paths to have taken, and offering no corrections whatsoever. He then insults user comprehension skills despite obviously seeing the AIs point out he’s wrong. Says that he’s not wrong and AI and the majority of commenters who assumed the same thing from the title are all wrong because his feelings of what the title meant to him are more correct.

If you want this to continue being a respected tech site, perhaps you shouldn’t insult the intelligence of the users who read articles here. It damages your own credibility and will make any smart person question any future content you put out. Marketing $$ and Good Reviews don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But when you feed us an advertisement and claim it’s valid and faultless objective testing, yes, you should expect some push back.

To put it in the simplest of terms: This article is basically a “RTX 5070 is 4090 Power” level move.

Edit: I'll even add some constructive feedback that allows you to maximize those marketing/ad $$$ without having to be shady.

- Compare the $588 285K to the $599 9900X3D instead
- This results in less of a gaming lead for the 9900X3D
- 285K would win in productivity
- 285K would win on price

Almost nobody could have complained about why you picked X cpu or Y cpu because you would have picked similarly priced products and wanted to demonstrate the best you could get from each vendor at a given price point.

 

[Makaveli]

A reminder to those non-readers calling for the 9950X3D comparison

Even in this review the 9950X3D is in all the charts so its there just not highlighted.

While I do think the title of the article could probably use an edit I don't see what all the noise is about.

 

[m3city]

Overclocking win for Intel? For AMD its oneclick solution for the masses, Just turn it on in bios. For Intel, one has to go i to granulat controls, meaning 99% users wont bother. So, in my World, Intel loses in that as well.

 

[redgarl]

I don't get all the vitriol. I think this article is a fair assessment. The 285k is Intel's current flagship offering for gaming. That it doesn't perform as well as a 14900k is almost moot. The chip itself is their best current chip on their current node. It's simples. That others are determined to nit-pick and argue semantics, there's no changing the fact that this is Intel's best offering from their latest CPU socket. Build a bridge....

Comparing two different tier of CPU and have weighting system that are not focusing on gaming while the title is clearly stating GAMING face-off?

Wow, the denial is soo strong that it is not even funny anymore. It is just depressing...

 

[spongiemaster]

The gaming flagship from AMD is the 9950X3D though?

No, it isn't.

Ever since AMD released the 5800X3D, the x800X3D has been the gaming flagship regardless of the higher core X3D chips of later generations. You've been around long enough to know that, so stop spreading marketing BS from AMD. Intel didn't even win, and you AMD worshippers are still losing your minds.

If you're a gamer, you should not buy a 9950X3D. Plain and simple. You all are also ignoring the dual CCD headache that "gamers" will have to deal with using a 9950X3D, that doesn't exist with the 9800X3D. Considering it is never a good idea to use the same system for legitimate work and gaming, the 9950X3D doesn't really make sense for anyone.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

Comparing two different tier of CPU and have weighting system that are not focusing on gaming while the title is clearly stating GAMING face-off?

Wow, the denial is soo strong that it is not even funny anymore. It is just depressing...

It's not stating a gaming faceoff. It could've been worded differently but it's simply saying the respective best gaming CPUs are facing off, it is not specifying games as the metric. If it was saying that it'd be more like "Battle of the gaming CPUs in different titles."

As it stands the title is somewhat geared to get that demographic looking, but it's not promising something the way you're saying it does.

 

[Amdlova]

So much heat and hate... I keep playing the most games at 18w cpu powa with an intel T cpu series

Both Intel and amd sucks. Milking the sheep's out there.

 

[Thunder64]

Why not compare it against the 9950X3D as prices today are $520 for the 9590X3D and $589 for the 285k both sold and shipped by Amazon. It would've been a bloodbath. Sure the 9950X3D is on sale but even at $650 that's closer in price to the 285k than the $480 9800X3D and your whole premise was to use the one that is closest in price. This article was either written some time ago or someone didn't do their research.

EDIT, my mistake, that listing is for the 9950X. The 9950X3D does not seem to be available from Amazon at the moment.

 

[SonoraTechnical]

Why would you designate an advantage (postive things) with a RED X instead of a GREEN CheckMark?

 

[truerock]

I do. And feel no reason to update to 4k, because all it brings is a headache due GPU required to run games on it. And human eye resolution at viewing distance of 70cm, at 24-27" display makes 4k details in moving scenes irrelevant. Sure, i see 4k vs fhd difference in static shots. Gaming? Meh, whatever. Fhd @ 60 fps is great, and you have that with APU (more or less) without baking ocen under your desk, pci-e power cables burning, water cooling, RT crap.

I was kidding...

But, I bought a Samsung Odyssey G7 28” 4K UHD IPS AMD FreeSync Premium Pro & G-Sync Compatible Smart 144Hz 1ms monitor for $380 at BestBuy and a GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 WINDFORCE OC V2 6GB GDDR6 PCI Express 4.0 Graphics Card for $180 on Amazon. I probably save myself a couple of hours per day not scrolling around looking at documents on a small res screen.

I could never go back to 1080p

I would like a 34" 4k screen someday.

I don't spend a lot of time playing games - but, I did think it was interesting to play 4k versions of Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Half Life 2, L.A. Noir, etc.

 

[atomicWAR]

Simple explanation of the general “outrage” here from my own perspective:

- I saw an article mentioning gaming flagship head2head

- As someone who bought a 10900K, 11900K, 12900K, 13900KS, 14900K, and 9800X3D, who currently has 2 Intel systems and 1 AMD system, I was curious to see what new testing and information was going to be shared

- I start reading and notice a pattern. There doesn’t seem to be an objective “here are our usual tests, let’s apply them to these CPUs and see objectively what happens.” There’s selective testing, and subjective takes (like Intel winning on overclocking somehow because the reviewers more levers and knobs that don’t give more of an uplift over the 9800X3D)

- I notice that my time has been wasted here. Nothing new or interesting is shared. The information shared is at least partially disingenuous by omission of facts or simply lack of understanding of testing methodology actual use cases by end users.

- I’m reminded that Tom’s Hardware’s parent company advertises itself as a marketing platform designed to help push product sales.

- I feel like an idiot.

- Paul then continues to fully defend the article and misleading title without admitting to any mistakes or shortcomings or potentially better paths to have taken, and offering no corrections whatsoever. He then insults user comprehension skills despite obviously seeing the AIs point out he’s wrong. Says that he’s not wrong and AI and the majority of commenters who assumed the same thing from the title are all wrong because his feelings of what the title meant to him are more correct.

If you want this to continue being a respected tech site, perhaps you shouldn’t insult the intelligence of the users who read articles here. It damages your own credibility and will make any smart person question any future content you put out. Marketing $$ and Good Reviews don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But when you feed us an advertisement and claim it’s valid and faultless objective testing, yes, you should expect some push back.

To put it in the simplest of terms: This article is basically a “RTX 5070 is 4090 Power” level move.

Edit: I'll even add some constructive feedback that allows you to maximize those marketing/ad $$$ without having to be shady.

- Compare the $588 285K to the $599 9900X3D instead
- This results in less of a gaming lead for the 9900X3D
- 285K would win in productivity
- 285K would win on price

Almost nobody could have complained about why you picked X cpu or Y cpu because you would have picked similarly priced products and wanted to demonstrate the best you could get from each vendor at a given price point.

You make some fair points and did so without sinking to a low level or trolling. That was my bigger point on how things should be handled in the forums. I didn't agree with the CPU choice myself as a 9950X3D would have been far more fitting imo though the 9900X3D would have been a good choice too.

Some of the flack Paul got was absolutely fair and I didn't mean to imply otherwise though in hindsight I could see where it was taken as such even though I did try to point some of it out. Paul would have been better served to have owned the criticisms when addressing posters. Going on the attack has it place but I am not sure this was that time or worth the perception it led to. And that was sort of my point though I did a poor job of saying it when I spoke about the squeaky wheel vs the unhinged one. You go the latter route and people tend to be less receptive. Making valid complaints fall on deaf ears do to a poor/classless delivery method. Regardless I just don't want to see the forums sink into insult fests and name calling as that ruins the experience for everyone. And there were a few posts that seem to walk along that line.

We need to hold our tech sites/tubers to an ethical standard and call it out when that line is crossed. I think on that we can all agree. But we as readers need to hold each other to a proper interaction standard as well. I have called out plenty of pieces myself in the past and posters for exactly that reason. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That said these "face-off" pieces have never been that in-depth... and this isn't the first time I have seen an uproar one way or another around a vendor/decision. I think most users on TH are for the most part on the more informed side of readers, save a handful. Editorial needs to remember that sometimes. This needed a better comparison and a more in-depth take otherwise save it for one of the less in-depth sites that fall under the umbrella like Tom's guide.

 

[Pierce2623]

Any particular reason it’s not 9950x3d vs 285k other than financial interests?