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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, it isn't.
relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png


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.
Wrong, its a flagship article, its also been used as a productivity test so if as you say the 9800x3d is the gaming king from AMD then the 9950x3d is the all rounder with fantastic gaming as well which mirrors what the Intel chip is claiming, how can you possibly compare an 8 core CPU to a CPU with way more cores in a productivity test and claim the 8 core lost because its not as good!
This should have been either a cheaper price matched Intel CPU or the same Priced AMD or at least match the core counts and make it a fair comparison
 
Yup, yup, yup, that's why you are basing the power usage results on y-cruncher and AVX right?! because that's what the majority of users are running all day long.......
Also the 285k is officially limited to 250W and you got it all the way up to 325W....
Man, it's like you haven't read anything on the internet for the last few years, you have to apply intel default settings and make sure your mobo sticks to them, otherwise you might burn your CPUs.
When i referred to processing power vis-a-vis to power consumption i was referring to a very simple metric, which was used long time ago and now it looks to be forgotten. How many processing instructions does the cpu process, under load, with default settings in 1H, maxed out, and how much power is drawn by the computer on that hour. Divide the two and you get the performance per watt/hour.

Unfortunately, nowadays people just stick crappy RGB on their computers and parts to make them shiny, as if they would run faster or better with the lights.

It is a sad time for this kind of articles indeed.
 
Here we go again, another article from Tom's that appears to be written for Intel's benefit by comparing an expensive flagship Intel CPU against a much cheaper AMD one. The folks posting complaints about this are right to do so.

What is even more disturbing is the authors arrogant and dismissive responses to these legitimate complaints.
 
I’ve never seen so much hair-splitting over something so straightforward.

Let’s be real.....most of you didn’t read the article. You skimmed the headline, glanced at a few benchmark graphs, and sprinted to the comments section like it was a race. Or worse, you misunderstood the headline entirely and thought, “I have a voice, time to kick off the pot stirring contest.”

Next time, try reading past the first line before lighting the torches. Read the article.

I digress, but for those of you that want a 9950X3D vs 285K, they already did that here ya go!
 
No, it isn't.
relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png


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.
I honestly do not know what your problem is with my statement and your single point of reference trying to prove me wrong. Calling me a fanboi repeatedly (this is the second time) won't make your point correct either.

Given the test criteria, the 9950X3D is the better suited CPU because it is both the gaming flagship and productivity flagship, much like the 285K intends to be (again, leaving aside the 14900KS is still the better gaming CPU). You could say the same argument used to pick the 9800X3D could be used to justify using the 14900KS over the 285K, but here we are.

I'll stop here.

Regards.
 
Intel fanboy here, AMD already won!!! Considering AMD doesn't even have to use the flagship to beat out Intel, embarassing as all heck. Intel has to whip out 500 watts on 29,000 hybrid cores just to keep up with AMDs eight performance cores. E cores are the worst thing to happen to Intel since 11th gen. 9800X3D destroys everything in its path and then when the 9800 gets tired of beating you all up it calls its big brother the 9950X3D and then the whole crowd runs away because the psycho just pulled up.
 
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.
Overclocking CPUs is pretty much cooked. They are already clocking high out of the box, over-performant for most, and going too high causes more issues (see Raptor Lake pushed to death by voltage, or recent Zen 5 in mystery PBO mode getting destroyed on ASRock boards).

If I get my hands on a 120-170W CPU, I'm taking it down to 35/65/105W.

Any particular reason it’s not 9950x3d vs 285k other than financial interests?
They already did that article in early May and it's linked in this article:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...-9-9950x3d-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff
 
The thought process here is simple:

The Core Ultra 9 285K is Intel's gaming flagship.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is AMD's gaming flagship.

Let's compare them. Fully. The Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 7 9800X3D.
First of all, thank you for the tests and analyses performed and presented in this informative and well-structured article. Much appreciated!

That being said, I think that quite a few people would have preferred to see a comparison between the 9950x3d and Intel's Core Ultra 9 285 because they are both gaming flagships AND productivity flagships., while the 9800x3d is just a gaming flagship that was never designed nor intended to compete in the productivity field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR
Intel fanboy here, AMD already won!!! Considering AMD doesn't even have to use the flagship to beat out Intel, embarassing as all heck. Intel has to whip out 500 watts on 29,000 hybrid cores just to keep up with AMDs eight performance cores. E cores are the worst thing to happen to Intel since 11th gen. 9800X3D destroys everything in its path and then when the 9800 gets tired of beating you all up it calls its big brother the 9950X3D and then the whole crowd runs away because the psycho just pulled up.
I was pretty much blown away by the huge gap in power efficiency, especially given the Intel CPU was built on the latest and greatest 3 nm node, which in itself should provide quite a bit of power savings over older and larger process nodes.
This on turns means that Intel's microarchitecture is comparatively so utterly bad that it requires tons of power more in order to be able to be able to run tasks at higher speeds than the competition.
 
That being said, I think that quite a few people would have preferred to see a comparison between the 9950x3d and Intel's Core Ultra 9 285 because they are both gaming flagships AND productivity flagships., while the 9800x3d is just a gaming flagship that was never designed nor intended to compete in the productivity field.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...-9-9950x3d-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff

265K prices have been pretty low lately ($300 + free stuff in some deals). I'm surprised that the 285K hasn't budged from $600. If it fell down to the $450-500 range where it ought to be, the comparison with the 9800X3D would be more "fair".
 
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...-9-9950x3d-vs-intel-core-ultra-9-285k-faceoff

265K prices have been pretty low lately ($300 + free stuff in some deals). I'm surprised that the 285K hasn't budged from $600. If it fell down to the $450-500 range where it ought to be, the comparison with the 9800X3D would be more "fair".
Agreed. In that case, a direct comparison would be warranted based on similar pricing - which, however is not the case, at least not yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usertests
I was pretty much blown away by the huge gap in power efficiency, especially given the Intel CPU was built on the latest and greatest 3 nm node, which in itself should provide quite a bit of power savings over older and larger process nodes.
This on turns means that Intel's microarchitecture is comparatively so utterly bad that it requires tons of power more in order to be able to be able to run tasks at higher speeds than the competition.
Only because the review forced the CPU to use almost 150W more than intel even allows and then ran completely nonsensical benchmarks.

Other than maybe the x3d CPUs the 285k is twice as efficient as ryzen, or the 14900k for that matter, at low power, at 45W the 285k gets ~1,300 points compared to the less than 800 of ryzen.
Ryzen needs 125W and above to come close to intel.

https://www.computerbase.de/artikel...19/seite-5#abschnitt_effizienz_in_anwendungen
00HJj5p.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottonis
Wrong, its a flagship article, its also been used as a productivity test so if as you say the 9800x3d is the gaming king from AMD then the 9950x3d is the all rounder with fantastic gaming as well which mirrors what the Intel chip is claiming, how can you possibly compare an 8 core CPU to a CPU with way more cores in a productivity test and claim the 8 core lost because its not as good!
This should have been either a cheaper price matched Intel CPU or the same Priced AMD or at least match the core counts and make it a fair comparison
Just as Paul alluded to earlier. Another poster who didn't read the article and isn't following the conversation.
 
I honestly do not know what your problem is with my statement and your single point of reference trying to prove me wrong. Calling me a fanboi repeatedly (this is the second time) won't make your point correct either.

Given the test criteria, the 9950X3D is the better suited CPU because it is both the gaming flagship and productivity flagship, much like the 285K intends to be (again, leaving aside the 14900KS is still the better gaming CPU). You could say the same argument used to pick the 9800X3D could be used to justify using the 14900KS over the 285K, but here we are.

I'll stop here.

Regards.
Addressed nothing I said. The fact you're denying being an AMD fanboy is hilarious on multiple levels. This isn't even a AMD vs Intel debate. AMD won which seems to be lost on all of you. This is an AMD vs AMD discussion, and the 9800X3D is simply the better option for gamers with higher and more consistent gaming performance, because it doesn't have to deal with the dual CCD problems that you continue to pretend don't exist, which makes the 9800X3D the flagship. Flagship doesn't mean most expensive. You're not even capable of acknowledging the better AMD product because you're too obsessed with trying to defend anything and everything negative said about the the other AMD product.
 
Addressed nothing I said. The fact you're denying being an AMD fanboy is hilarious on multiple levels. This isn't even a AMD vs Intel debate. AMD won which seems to be lost on all of you. This is an AMD vs AMD discussion, and the 9800X3D is simply the better option for gamers with higher and more consistent gaming performance, because it doesn't have to deal with the dual CCD problems that you continue to pretend don't exist, which makes the 9800X3D the flagship. Flagship doesn't mean most expensive. You're not even capable of acknowledging the better AMD product because you're too obsessed with trying to defend anything and everything negative said about the the other AMD product.
flagship literally means the top of the top of the cream.

In the same way every group has its own "flagship".
the 9950X being the fastest of the masses group.
the threadrippers got their HALO as well.
Same with EPYCS and everything else.

Also the hilarity of the article is trying to claim "game flagships" while then throwing productivity benchmarks well knowing one of the chips is heavily nerfed.

This is literally the most cherrypicking article and showcases tom's bias towards intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder64
flagship literally means the top of the top of the cream.

In the same way every group has its own "flagship".
the 9950X being the fastest of the masses group.
the threadrippers got their HALO as well.
Same with EPYCS and everything else.

Also the hilarity of the article is trying to claim "game flagships" while then throwing productivity benchmarks well knowing one of the chips is heavily nerfed.

This is literally the most cherrypicking article and showcases tom's bias towards intel.
I get where you're coming from, but the term "flagship" isn’t just a matter of opinion.....it has a widely accepted meaning in tech. A flagship CPU is the top-tier, best-performing model within a given lineup or generation, regardless of the market segment. In this case, the 9800X3D is the flagship for gaming, as @spongiemaster pointed out. The 9950X3D, while higher up in the product stack, is hampered by its design when it comes to gaming workloads. Intel doesn't face this same limitation due to architectural differences. Productivity is thrown in as most of us gamers do not just game, we work as well and that needs to be factored in.

So yes, the 9950X3D may be the flagship of the Ryzen 9000 series for mainstream desktop overall, just as the Threadripper Pro 9995WX is the flagship in the HEDT segment, and EPYC has its own in the server space. Different tiers, different flagships.

As for the article being biased.....that’s subjective and honestly depends on the reader. Just because you don’t agree with the conclusion doesn’t make it biased. From my perspective, it’s a valid comparison of two of the best selling chips from both camps in a similar price bracket, focused on gaming performance. That makes it relevant for a lot of people, especially those building a gaming PC to use for work as well. Relevance is contextual.

It should be pretty clear what the article is aiming to do, but as usual, the internet never runs short of strong opinions.

Again, if you want to see the comparison for the 9950X3D, well TH did one on that as well 3 weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
I get where you're coming from, but the term "flagship" isn’t just a matter of opinion.....it has a widely accepted meaning in tech. A flagship CPU is the top-tier, best-performing model within a given lineup or generation, regardless of the market segment. In this case, the 9800X3D is the flagship for gaming, as @spongiemaster pointed out. The 9950X3D, while higher up in the product stack, is hampered by its design when it comes to gaming workloads. Intel doesn't face this same limitation due to architectural differences. Productivity is thrown in as most of us gamers do not just game, we work as well and that needs to be factored in.

So yes, the 9950X3D may be the flagship of the Ryzen 9000 series for mainstream desktop overall, just as the Threadripper Pro 9995WX is the flagship in the HEDT segment, and EPYC has its own in the server space. Different tiers, different flagships.

As for the article being biased.....that’s subjective and honestly depends on the reader. Just because you don’t agree with the conclusion doesn’t make it biased. From my perspective, it’s a valid comparison of two of the best selling chips from both camps in a similar price bracket, focused on gaming performance. That makes it relevant for a lot of people, especially those building a gaming PC to use for work as well. Relevance is contextual.

It should be pretty clear what the article is aiming to do, but as usual, the internet never runs short of strong opinions.

Again, if you want to see the comparison for the 9950X3D, well TH did one on that as well 3 weeks ago.

Considering the 9950X3D essentialy ties the 9800X3D makes it the flagship. Saying the 9800X3D is the flagship for gaming is bunk. From your own link it's a tie between the two. Depending on the game one is slightly better than the other. The 9950X3D, however, generally has higher minimum FPS regardless.
 
Considering the 9950X3D essentialy ties the 9800X3D makes it the flagship. Saying the 9800X3D is the flagship for gaming is bunk. From your own link it's a tie between the two. Depending on the game one is slightly better than the other. The 9950X3D, however, generally has higher minimum FPS regardless.
true, but cost $225 more

that tier is way above the 285k and 9800X3D, so not so bunk.

That's what this article is about.
 
Last edited:
true, but cost $225 more

that tier is way above the 285k and 9800X3D, so not so bunk.

That's what this article is about.

I was trying to say that the 9800X3D is a flagship as you said when it is not. The real winner is the 9950X which matches the 285k in gaming and has a slight lead in productivity and is currently $517 at Amazon, so cheaper too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottonis
I was trying to say that the 9800X3D is a flagship as you said when it is not. The real winner is the 9950X which matches the 285k in gaming and has a slight lead in productivity and is currently $517 at Amazon, so cheaper too.
Just a heads up, the 9950X is not a 9950X3D .... might want to re-read your own post.

If you meant to refer to the 3D variant, then you wouldn’t have said, “Depending on the game one is slightly better than the other. The 9950X3D, however, generally has higher minimum FPS regardless.” That clearly implies you're comparing it to the 9950X3D ... not the 9950X.

Fact is, the 9950X doesn't come close to the 9800X3D in gaming performance, and it certainly doesn't outperform it in any meaningful scenario.

It’s alright to be wrong ... it happens. Owning up is easier than digging a deeper hole. Your call.
 
Last edited:
Just a heads up, the 9950X is not a 9950X3D .... might want to re-read your own post.

If you meant to refer to the 3D variant, then you wouldn’t have said, “Depending on the game one is slightly better than the other. The 9950X3D, however, generally has higher minimum FPS regardless.” That clearly implies you're comparing it to the 9950X3D ... not the 9950X.

Fact is, the 9950X doesn't come close to the 9800X3D in gaming performance, and it certainly doesn't outperform it in any meaningful scenario.

It’s alright to be wrong ... it happens. Owning up is easier than digging a deeper hole. Your call.

In that quote I was comparing the 9950X3D to the 9800X3D.

Then I went on to compare the 9950X to the 285k. It's basically even in gaming and has the edge in productivity. I was suggesting that Tom's should've compared the 285k to the 9950X as they are price comparable and the 9950X would win. Instead they went with the 9800X3D, when they could've used the 9900X3D which is almost equal in price and would perform better.

Basically it comes down to 9950X > 285k at similar price and 9950X3D is much better than both in gaming but you pay more for it. If you care more about gaming and only do basic productivity, then get the 9800X3D.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ottonis