AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K: Which CPU Is Better?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Soaptrail

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
52
8
4,535
0
I have no clue how Intel "won" that category ... even in the section of the article, almost all nods went to the AM4 platform, then the article quickly concluded with "Intel mobos are cheaper" (what?), and "partial wireless AC"? (What even is this? I use a cable with my PC for transmission quality and speed reasons) - and then appoints Intel the winner ... discounting the fact you can run a 3900x in $50 motherboard if you want (saw it on youtube) due to the massively superior compatibility - and with AMD you get vastly superior range or prices and options without contest.

Seriously? Giving Intel the win on mobos is 100% wrong without question. I guess they wanted it to look like a closer battle ... so just arbitrarily gave this one to them?
Don't forget that overclocking is part of the reasoning when overclocking is a separate category.

The nod goes to Intel for now due to an overall cheaper price range and higher overclocking potential, along with partially-integration of Wireless-AC, something that isn’t part of X570.
Overclocking should not be part of the motherboard choice specially when both brands will overclock RAM.

The author must love us nit picking his article!
 
Reactions: joeblowsmynose

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
195
68
18,760
0
Don't forget that overclocking is part of the reasoning when overclocking is a separate category.
Overclocking should not be part of the motherboard choice specially when both brands will overclock RAM.
Yeah that's another good point ...


The author must love us nit picking his article!
Its probably annoying ... lol.

Well I think the points we are all making on the "mobo" category are reasonable, so I hope he just absorbs some of the reasoning to make better comparisons in the future. If that happens then its worth it. :)

I like to pick on the whole "bottlenecked" CPU thing on all cpu reviews, but 9900k still gets the gaming category win with that, I won't argue there ... But the mobo win was plain wrong.
 
Last edited:

ingtar33

Illustrious
I think they had to make it "close" to justify the 4.5/5 they gave the i9 back when they reviewed it and to obfuscate the 4.0/5.0 they gave the r9

Mod retracted


as a sidenote; not one of the games run at 1080p which showed the "performance" difference, were running at fps any normal human would notice (FPS gamers may disagree). furthermore, more thorough review sites noted the frame-times were all over the board for Intel, and have been since Intel went over 4 cores, meaning the AMD experience was ALWAYS smoother no matter what chips were being run against each other. granted the high end i7s and i9s only saw limited to undetectable frame time hiccups, but fraps certainly caught em. The frame time issues were so bad on the i5s (and one non HT i7) the reviewers who bothered to check for it, said they could find ZERO reason to recommend one over any AMD r5 or better anymore. while YMMV for the frame stutters on the i9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
195
68
18,760
0
I think they had to make it "close" to justify the 4.5/5 they gave the i9 back when they reviewed it and to obfuscate the 4.0/5.0 they gave the r9
While I also disagree with the 4.5/5 on that review, it doesn't play into this, I'm sure - things change over time, that's just the way it is.

Mod retracted
Not sure what you wrote here, must have had some attached drama ... :)
 
Reactions: remixislandmusic
No Intel fan can realistically argue with a straight face that the 3900X is 'slow' for gaming...

Conversely, no 3900X fan can really argue against that the 9900K is faster at gaming....

Ultimately, the consumer will be the judge, and, perhaps faster GPUs will magnify those differences, perhaps not...

Both are good for about any job, but, I ultimately agree 'approximately' with the author's assessment; I'm a fan of both!
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,272
11
19,785
0
We pit AMD’s new 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X flagship CPU against Intel’s 8-core Core i9-9900K. Can Zen 2 beat Intel’s current top-end mainstream chip?

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel Core i9-9900K: Which CPU Is Better? : Read more
Tom's you used to be my first place to go for competent reviews. Articles like this have gone a complete 180. I mean WTH? There is no mention of test beds for starters. I am assuming the Intel board was running an after market Water Cooling? Or does the author not even know? Where is this cost differential noted in the article? Shouldn't it be a factor in either the CPU or Motherboard costs? What patches were used on the Intel system? Was anything else run in the background while running the gaming benchmarks, like an anti-virus program, or streaming the game content?

Good gawd man, you got to do better.
 
Last edited:
I believe numbers were pulled from this article where most of that was outlined: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-5.html

Test System & Configuration
HardwareAMD Socket AM4 (X570)
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 7 2700X
MSI MEG X570 Godlike
2x 8GB G.Skill Flare DDR4-3200
Ryzen 3000 - DDR4-3200, DDR4-3600
Second-gen Ryzen - DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466
Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)

Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K
MSI MEG Z390 Godlike
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466
AMD Socket AM4 (X470)
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933

AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)
Threadripper 2920X
MSI MEG X399 Creation
4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933

Intel LGA 2066
Intel Core i9-7920X
MSI X299 XPower Gaming AC
4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666
All Systems
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W
Windows 10 Pro (1903 - All Updates)
CoolingCorsair H115i
Custom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Dual-720mm radiators
AMD Wraith Prism Stock Cooler
Enermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
I agree some improvement could be done. Costs were stated, but not elaborated on.
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,272
11
19,785
0
I believe numbers were pulled from this article where most of that was outlined: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-5.html

Test System & Configuration
HardwareAMD Socket AM4 (X570)
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 7 2700X
MSI MEG X570 Godlike
2x 8GB G.Skill Flare DDR4-3200
Ryzen 3000 - DDR4-3200, DDR4-3600
Second-gen Ryzen - DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466
Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)

Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K
MSI MEG Z390 Godlike
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466
AMD Socket AM4 (X470)
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933

AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)
Threadripper 2920X
MSI MEG X399 Creation
4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933

Intel LGA 2066
Intel Core i9-7920X
MSI X299 XPower Gaming AC
4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666
All Systems
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W
Windows 10 Pro (1903 - All Updates)
CoolingCorsair H115i
Custom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Dual-720mm radiators
AMD Wraith Prism Stock Cooler
Enermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
I agree some improvement could be done. Costs were stated, but not elaborated on.
So this is just a recap of the previous article, and presented as a new article......got it.

Wow.

I would like to see how many MB's Tom's has actually tested the AMD system on? My guess is just one.
 
Reactions: Soaptrail

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
680
27
5,010
0
So this is just a recap of the previous article, and presented as a new article......got it.

Wow.

I would like to see how many MB's Tom's has actually tested the AMD system on? My guess is just one.
We tested with MSI Godlike, Gigabyte Aorus Master, and ASRock Taichi to do performance comparisons. We used the Godlike for the review.
 

DavidDisciple

Commendable
May 29, 2017
27
3
1,535
0
I don't see enough advantage here of an Intel motherboard over AMD at all!!!! Intel can't even go two CPU's without making another socket, sometimes only one!! And to just throw PCI 4.0 to the wayside (which NO Intel Motherboard has). Really??? It's also a fact that due to the new architecture of Ryzen 2 there isn't much room for overclocking to begin with and not much of a performance gain if you do. There comes a point where you can't make a good thing better or much better. Oh, and get ready for that NEW socket 1159 which is purportedly coming up with Comet Lake. Another CPU, another Socket. You can thank Intel for that next motherboard upgrade while I wouldn't doubt the next gen Ryzen's will still work in an older AM4 motherboard. Look at allllll the money people have spent on NEW Intel motherboards every other generation and compare that to the money people have saved using their old motherboard with newer generations of AMD CPU's . Declaring Intel the winner in this category is wrong, wrong, wrong! It sure appears to some of us here that you gave this 'Win' (wrongfully) to Intel to appease the Intel crowds so as maybe not to anger them by giving AMD such a huge victory and lose a lot of followers.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Soaptrail

Gurg

Honorable
Mar 13, 2013
263
9
10,795
1
Why would a primarily gamer even consider buying an AMD 3900x for $499 just for the CPU unless an AMD fanboy?

"When the i9-9900K is manually overclocked to 5 GHz, that lead increases to an average of 14.5% (vs 3900x) across all our tested titles "

From TH 9600k review the 9600k only trailed the 9900k by 5% across the entire suite. (12/4/2018 review)

So a 9600K has 9-10% gaming performance advantage over 3900X and cost of only $220 with a z390 MB for $120.

Personally, I'll enjoy the 9600K performance advantage and use the price difference toward a new system in a few years when Intel CPUs are rocking 6+MHz.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS