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

[Admin]

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

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

 

[HyperMatrix]

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.

 

[Eg0]

Winner: 9950x3D!

 

[Kindaian]

The additional issue that is not addressed in the article is the fact that Intel has a mix of performance and economy cores.

And the hidden secret is that on some workloads, the wrong core is selected, meaning that you get subpar and rubbish performance (even when the performance cores are snoozing around, doing nothing).

So, yes, Intel does have on those two specific CPUs some multi-thread advantage, but only if the correct cores are selected (which doesn't happen 100% of the time).

Also in terms of performance, you also need to measure latency. What is the point of having a fast memory interface, if the cache chokes and needs to constantly being updated from the slower memory? At that point, having a slightly faster memory does help, but again, depends on the workloads (and the comparison is using also productivity multi-threading, so not 100% game oriented this comparison).

Also I would like to see the comparison per watt used, and not just a raw performance.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

The additional issue that is not addressed in the article is the fact that Intel has a mix of performance and economy cores.

And the hidden secret is that on some workloads, the wrong core is selected, meaning that you get subpar and rubbish performance (even when the performance cores are snoozing around, doing nothing).

So, yes, Intel does have on those two specific CPUs some multi-thread advantage, but only if the correct cores are selected (which doesn't happen 100% of the time).

Also in terms of performance, you also need to measure latency. What is the point of having a fast memory interface, if the cache chokes and needs to constantly being updated from the slower memory? At that point, having a slightly faster memory does help, but again, depends on the workloads (and the comparison is using also productivity multi-threading, so not 100% game oriented this comparison).

Also I would like to see the comparison per watt used, and not just a raw performance.

Thanks for the feedback. We do mention that Intel chips have different types of cores, and ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, which is the application benchmarks. Theoretical comparisons are always great, but the end performance tells the tale.

We do have detailed performance-per-watt and power efficiency metrics in the power section.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

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.

My life would be much simpler if there were users who simply turned on their computer, loaded a game, and only played the game (no web browser, no Discord, no anything), then shut down the computer. That use case really doesn't exist, at least not for the overwhelming majority of users. So the onus is on us to fully quantify these competing processors in every facet that impacts the purchasing decision. Yes, that includes things other than gaming.

There is no attempt here to deny the 9800X3D's dominance in gaming. In fact, it is spelled out multiple times in the article, too many for me to waste my time here quoting them. It is also the top processor on our list of Best CPUs for Gaming. We have always offered nothing but effusive praise for the 9800X3D in gaming, and this article is no different. It starts at the first sentence and ends in the conclusion, with more than enough statements to that fact in between.

 

[redgarl]

This comparison should have been against the 9950x3D.

What is the point of comparing a 24 cores CPU flagship against the entry 8 cores CPU... and telling it is better at productivity than the 8 cores offering.

And you guys stated GAMING FACE-OFF on the thumbnail... but you still include productivity scores? If it is a gaming face-off, then the weighting of the scores about GAMING should be way more important.

It is not a GAMING face-off, it is a plain 430$ vs 600$+ CPU face-off at this point.

Man, I am about to start a youtube channel call TechInfluencers and put all this nonsense there... It is breathtaking.

The worst is seeing Paul doing some kind of damage control about it just above.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

This comparison should have been against the 9950x3D.

What is the point of comparing a 24 cores CPU flagship against the entry 8 cores CPU... and telling it is better at productivity than the 8 cores offering.

And you guys stated GAMING FACE-OFF on the thumbnails... but you still include productivity scores?

Man, I am about to start a youtube channel call TechInfluencers and put all this nonsense there...

It is breathtaking to see such nonsense.

Please re-read the title, as I believe you are interpreting it wrong. The first half of the headline says this is a faceoff of two processors; it does not say this is a gaming-only faceoff. The second half points out that these are gaming flagships.

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.

I can assure you we would have far more complaints if we left out productivity work and power metrics, thus being so myopic as to assume gaming is all that colors someone's purchasing decision on a $590 processor, not to mention all of the other costs required to integrate it into a build.

Additionally, the categories for all our CPU faceoffs are the same, regardless of the processors under examination. This is to ensure consistency in the most relevant factors and also prevent claims that we are merely tailoring the articles to fit a predetermined narrative.

We have a separate comparison of the 285K vs 9950X3D, which is linked in the article multiple times.

 

[HyperMatrix]

My life would be much simpler if there were users who simply turned on their computer, loaded a game, and only played the game (no web browser, no Discord, no anything), then shut down the computer. That use case really doesn't exist, at least not for the overwhelming majority of users. So the onus is on us to fully quantify these competing processors in every facet that impacts the purchasing decision. Yes, that includes things other than gaming.

There is no attempt here to deny the 9800X3D's dominance in gaming. In fact, it is spelled out multiple times in the article, too many for me to waste my time here quoting them. It is also the top processor on our list of Best CPUs for Gaming. We have always offered nothing but effusive praise for the 9800X3D in gaming, and this article is no different. It starts at the first sentence and ends in the conclusion, with more than enough statements to that fact in between.

As another commenter mentioned…you decided to label this as a gaming article, then went into productivity, somehow gave Intel the win in overclocking, didn’t match it against the more similar 9950X3D, and also fully ignore the issues around thread scheduling for gaming, on this gaming benchmark, which was actually one of the top reasons I moved away from Intel.

 

[A Stoner]

I'll give you kudos since everyone else is attacking you.

I came into this, after reading the title, knowing this was going to be an Intel props post.

But you did not give that to me. Instead, you gave a fair comparison of the 2 chips giving AMD wins it deserves, and Intel wins where it deserves.

Drop the 'gaming' in the title and I think most people's ability to attack would go away.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

As another commenter mentioned…you decided to label this as a gaming article, then went into productivity, somehow gave Intel the win in overclocking, didn’t match it against the more similar 9950X3D, and also fully ignore the issues around thread scheduling for gaming, on this gaming benchmark, which was actually one of the top reasons I moved away from Intel.

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.

 

[HyperMatrix]

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 this comment.

- 285K isn’t the strongest gaming CPU from Intel.
- 285K doesn’t provide better overclocking gains than the 9800X3D
- 285K is on an end of life platform
- 285K has potential optimization/thread scheduling issues with gaming that Intel is still working to address.

As someone suggested, take the mention of gaming out of the article title. Nobody will deny the 285K is better for productivity, even though the 9950X3D is clearly the more appropriate comparison here if your intention was to give the best advice to your readers and not just so overtly be a marketing company.

 

[HyperMatrix]

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.

AI Results. Prompt:

“AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships” What would you imply the article is about based off of that title?”

ChatGPT Answer:
Based on the title “AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships”, I would infer that the article is a head-to-head comparison between two high-end desktop CPUs from AMD and Intel, specifically focusing on gaming performance.

Grok Answer:
Based on the title “AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships,” the article is likely a detailed comparison between two high-end processors, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a focus on their performance in gaming. The term "faceoff" suggests a head-to-head competition, evaluating key aspects such as gaming performance, efficiency, and possibly other metrics like productivity workloads or power consumption. The phrase "Gaming Flagships" implies that both CPUs are top-tier models designed to excel in gaming, positioning the article as a guide for consumers, particularly gamers, to determine which processor is superior for their needs. The article likely includes benchmarks, technical specifications, and an analysis of strengths and weaknesses to declare a winner or recommend one CPU over the other based on specific use cases.



Comprehension definitely does appear to be an issue. But from your side.

 

[HyperMatrix]

WHAT’S IS A TJ MAX??? A CLOTHING STORE? DID YOU MEAN TP INSTEAD OF TJ??? Two professional journalists composed this article???

Tj max is the junction temperature or thermal limit before throttling or shutdown occurs. This is one part of the article that they didn’t get wrong. 😛

 

[newtechldtech]

You are comparing two different levels of CPU cores wise AND price wise .

You should compare the 9900X3d against the ultra 9 285K . both are $600 .
Why choose the 8 cores ? to show intel wins in some productivity ?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

with eight high-performance "Lion Cove" P-cores and 16 efficiency-focused "Skymont" E-cores, totaling 24 cores and 32 threads.

Huh!? You mean 24 threads, don't you?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-36m-cache-up-to-5-70-ghz/specifications.html

 

[TerryLaze]

That use case really doesn't exist, at least not for the overwhelming majority of users.

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.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

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.

There are far more tests for power than y-cruncher — there are two albums of power testing, both with multiple tests covering consumption and efficiency. Everything from Idle, Active Idle, y-cruncher, Cinebench, Blender, etc. (11 direct power tests, 7 efficiency tests).

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>


Comprehension definitely does appear to be an issue. But from your side.

I definitely would not expect an AI to have better comprehension than a human. Here's the response you shared from Grok. But let me fix your bolding in the Grok quote you provided to highlight that Grok at least gets something right:

"Grok Answer:
Based on the title “AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — Battle of the Gaming Flagships,” the article is likely a detailed comparison between two high-end processors, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a focus on their performance in gaming. The term "faceoff" suggests a head-to-head competition, evaluating key aspects such as gaming performance, efficiency, and possibly other metrics like productivity workloads or power consumption. The phrase "Gaming Flagships" implies that both CPUs are top-tier models designed to excel in gaming, positioning the article as a guide for consumers, particularly gamers, to determine which processor is superior for their needs. The article likely includes benchmarks, technical specifications, and an analysis of strengths and weaknesses to declare a winner or recommend one CPU over the other based on specific use cases."

That's almost exactly accurate. Bravo, Grok.

We'll have to agree to disagree about your complaints. Have a good day.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

CPUs are top-tier models designed to excel in gaming,

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....

 

[mac_angel]

there are a lot of people complaining about various aspects of the article, and rightfully so. They make some good points. I didn't read through them all to know if my thought was covered or not, but I think it's very relevant.
If someone is buying either of these CPUs, they are either overclocking the Intel, or PBO with the AMD. As far as I know, Intel can overclock far more than AMD. Not to mention, the difference in RAM. While Intel's specs may 'suggest' RAM speeds, there are very few that are getting a 'K' processor, not overclocking it, or getting faster RAM. While this may be a 'silicone lottery', it's not hard to find what an average overclock is online, as well as many motherboards being able to handle much higher XMP profiles.

 

[Deleted member 2839125]

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​

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Thanks for the article Paul, keep these type of head to head battles coming. Can you consider some recommendations of mine? Battle of 16 core flagships 9950X vs 9950X3D, battle of productivity flagships 285K vs 9950X, battle of sub $400 gaming CPUs 7800X3D vs 265K vs 14700K vs 9700X.

 

[usertests]

- 285K isn’t the strongest gaming CPU from Intel.

It's the latest gaming flagship, the one that Intel intended to be an all-round replacement for the 14900K, and 14900K/14700K are included in the results. Seems fair.

 

[-Fran-]

The gaming flagship from AMD is the 9950X3D though? The 9800X3D is the more sensible choice for "just gaming", but by no means the "gaming flagship" from AMD, even by AMD's own acknowledgement:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/9000-series/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d.html

The ultimate 16-core desktop CPU with 2nd gen AMD 3D V-Cache™ Technology that can do it all with incredible performance for the most demanding gamers and creators.

Bold part mine.

Leaving outside other arguably important metrics from the point-counting, which have also been contention points before, I think it's important to just acknowledge this article needs revisiting using the 9950X3D instead. I could even argue the "true" gaming flagship from Intel is still the 14900KS, but I won't even go there, since it seems from the replies above, now it's taboo to even mention that?

EDIT: I did miss there was already a 9950X3D "vs" article, so that's on me. As for the rest, it still stands.

Regards.