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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RobCrezz

Titan
Herald
Why are the mid-high end AMD boards so expensive?

In the UK the Maximus XI Hero is £260, the Crosshair VIII Hero is £390!

MSI Z390 gaming pro carbon £165, MSI x570 gaming pro carbon £250.

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus pro £150, Gigabyte x570 Aorus pro £265.

etc etc.
 
There are cheap and expensive z390 and x570 boards.

The difference is the high end i9s draw a ton more power than amds comparable 8 and 12 cores.

So for a high power consumption chip you can get by with a cheap x570, but not with a cheap z390.
 

RobCrezz

Titan
Herald
There are cheap and expensive z390 and x570 boards.

The difference is the high end i9s draw a ton more power than amds comparable 8 and 12 cores.

So for a high power consumption chip you can get by with a cheap x570, but not with a cheap z390.
Yeah but see my examples above. They are the exact same class of board, but theres a large premium on the x570 boards over £100 more in many cases.
 
What do you think about aliexpress cpus?

I am looking at Ryzen 5 tray cpus and they are like $20 cheaper on aliexpress than the cheapest used boxed cpus on ebay.

I have a couple of AM4 coolers so the fact that they are tray cpus doesnt matter.
 

DavidDisciple

Commendable
May 29, 2017
27
3
1,535
0
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.
(WRONG) So a 9600K has 9-10% gaming performance advantage over 3900X and cost of only $220 with a z390 MB for $120.

The 9600K does NOT have 9-10% advantage over the 3900X. At best in gaming it sometimes is on par but the rest of the games it loses.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkpWjaGYSGM
 
Reactions: Soaptrail
Jul 13, 2019
1
1
15
0
How can the 3900x lose in the motherboard section when a $60 dollar two generation older A320 motherboard can deliver the full performance of the processor in stock clock? PCI x4.0 is not even relevant as Intel doesn't even have this technology.
 
Reactions: Soaptrail
Why are the mid-high end AMD boards so expensive?

In the UK the Maximus XI Hero is £260, the Crosshair VIII Hero is £390!

MSI Z390 gaming pro carbon £165, MSI x570 gaming pro carbon £250.

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus pro £150, Gigabyte x570 Aorus pro £265.

etc etc.
You didn't compare like for like, as you didnt put WiFi in both of them, also Pci 4.0 and USB 3.2 in the X570 makes it more expensive than an older standard.
Motherboard: MSI - MPG X570 GAMING PRO CARBON WIFI ATX AM4 Motherboard ($259.99 @ B&H)

Motherboard: MSI - MPG Z390 GAMING PRO CARBON AC ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($218.90 @ OutletPC)

Tom's just showed its natural bias because of the huge amount of money Intel pay them for advertising.
 
Jul 13, 2019
5
0
10
0
9700k overclocks better and scores better in SC/QC games than a 9900k... Guess hyperthreading only "hinders" some games.

So if you want the very best gaming performance... go with a 9700k? If you want a good deal, go AMD.

View: https://i.imgur.com/da1lkT4.png


I think it would be nice to see tests with higher MHZ ram. You have the best boards, 2080 ti and relevant processors, but "only" 3466 ram for intel and 3600 ram for AMD. I'm pretty sure you can get more frames with 4200 mhz ram.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-TxiaJNyto
 

Soaptrail

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
53
8
4,535
0
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.
At 1440p resolution gaming show me the 14.5% difference. No gamer plays at 1080p.
 

Gurg

Honorable
Mar 13, 2013
263
9
10,795
1
(WRONG) So a 9600K has 9-10% gaming performance advantage over 3900X and cost of only $220 with a z390 MB for $120.

The 9600K does NOT have 9-10% advantage over the 3900X. At best in gaming it sometimes is on par but the rest of the games it loses.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkpWjaGYSGM
TW 3 king: OC 3900x 111.8, 9600k 105.4
Div 2: OC 3900x 146, 9600k 150
Metro Ex: OC 3900x 94.1, 9600k 100
Far Cry 5: OC 3900x 129, 9600k 134
OC 3900x vs NON-OC 9600k.

Average 4 games 122.8 for OC 3900x vs NON-OC 122.4 for 9600k.

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/28

Far Cry 5 FPS: 3900x 124 , 9600k 133.4
GTA5 FPS: 3900x 101.8 9600k 99.7
Tomb FPS: 3900x 138.8, 9600k 136.3
Div 2 FPS: 3900x 133, 9600k 142
TW 3K: 3900x 112.9, 9600k 101.3

Average all 5 games: 3900X 122.1 9600k 122.5

Both NON OC.

https://www.tomshw.de/2019/07/07/amd-ryzen-3900x-und-3700x-im-test-igorslab/13/

Note these are before overclocking the 9600k which overclocks well to 5+ GHz all core. The reviews are stating that the OC headroom on 3900X is minimal to roughly 4.1 GHz.

AMDs best still struggles to beat a NON-OC Intel 9600k costing 56% less in gaming.
 
Why are the mid-high end AMD boards so expensive?

In the UK the Maximus XI Hero is £260, the Crosshair VIII Hero is £390!

MSI Z390 gaming pro carbon £165, MSI x570 gaming pro carbon £250.

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus pro £150, Gigabyte x570 Aorus pro £265.

etc etc.
Not really a fair comparisons, e.g. for the Asus boards you're comparing a 4 phase board to a 14 phase.

Edit: And of course PCIe 4.0.
 
Last edited:
AMDs best still struggles to beat a NON-OC Intel 9600k costing 56% less in gaming.
I agree the averages are close, but if clock speeds were everything, we would all still be rocking FX CPUs wouldn't we?

Look at people running any recent assassins creed or battlefield game on a 9600k. They almost all complain about stutter hurting playability, much like 4 core I7 or 8 core FX owners. Other games like sottr also exhibit this behavior. The Ryzen 9 beats the I5 in gaming once you factor in the game-breaking stutter in some cases.

Look at the lows. The I3s and I5s are plagued with stutter and suck at everything non-gaming compared to Ryzen CPUs.

Also, while the 9600k and 3900x are close in games, the 3900x literally doubles the 9600ks performance in another supposed intel favored program.
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Premiere.png

Also, the ryzens extra cores will help even more later. For example, the I5 7600k creamed the Ryzen 5 1600 in gaming when the Ryzen 5 launched. 2 years later, the 7600k stutters to death and the 1600 destroys the 7600k in most titles.
 
Jul 13, 2019
5
0
10
0
At 1440p resolution gaming show me the 14.5% difference. No gamer plays at 1080p.
A lot do? 240hz is a drug.

I will consider improving to 1440p + 240 hz once that becomes a reality, however. The difference will only shrink if you're GPU-bound, really, so as long as you put in enough 2080 ti in a NVLink you're good.

But most importantly, it depends on a game-to-game basis. If you check the benchmarks simpler games have as much as 25% difference. And if you want the best it's not like AMD is cheaper. The equivalent top-tier mobo comes at a 200$ premium, and you certainly wouldn't settle for a stock cooler "present" over a Noctua-DH15 or water cooling if you want to overclock an AMD chip.
 

San Pedro

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2007
1,269
3
19,290
1
I'm actually amused if someone has a i9 9900K for gaming with a 2080ti and plays at 1080p, medium settings. I'm playing at 1440p with a 2700x and a 1070 (144hz panel and at about 90 fps or over I'm plenty happy for twitch shooters).

I'll still stand by my assertion that there really isn't a "gaming CPU". Better to put that money into a better graphics card most times.

edit Yeah, the motherboard win to Intel did make my head spin. I can upgrade to a 3900x without upgrading my motherboard.
 
I'm actually amused if someone has a i9 9900K for gaming with a 2080ti and plays at 1080p, medium settings. I'm playing at 1440p with a 2700x and a 1070 (144hz panel and at about 90 fps or over I'm plenty happy for twitch shooters).

I'll still stand by my assertion that there really isn't a "gaming CPU". Better to put that money into a better graphics card most times.

edit Yeah, the motherboard win to Intel did make my head spin. I can upgrade to a 3900x without upgrading my motherboard.
I totally agree. It's all about meeting recommended system requirements for said game. Prioritize multicore performance for high resolution triple A gaming, because that is what going to ensure gaming longevity to meet triple A title recommend gaming requirements for long periods of time.
 
What? So it makes more sense to compare boards with the same amount of phases than it does to compare the competing model?
No, it makes sense to compare boards with the same or similar features. The large difference in phase count was just an example of how the boards differ in features (in a way that would obviously have an impact on price). Whether boards have similar features (and/or similar price) is what determines whether boards are competing; the names of the boards are inconsequential.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS