AMD Ryzen 9 3950X vs Intel Core i9-9900K: The Battle for Mainstream Supremacy

[Arbie]

While Intel will be happy enough with the typical shmear job you have produced, you
might also have had categories for:

• Number of letters in company name - winner Intel
• Number of years architecture has been milked - winner Intel
• Number of years process has been milked - winner Intel
• Number of characters in product name - winner Intel
• Number of hardware vulnerabilities - winner Intel

Every Intel vs AMD article here is marked by blatant favoritism shown to the former. Any characteristic in which they lead is dug out and presented as important, so the few bones thrown to AMD are outnumbered. Huge Intel disadvantages simply aren't mentioned. This so muddies the water that an otherwise uninformed reader would come away ignorant of AMD's massive tech and value advantages and - trusting you - might well buy an Intel dinosaur. After all, if their chips "overclock better" and "are easier to cool" etc. they're probably the best choice.

I understand that this does keep the Intel goodies coming, but still you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

While Intel will be happy enough with the typical shmear job you have produced, you
might also have had categories for:

• Number of letters in company name - winner Intel
• Number of years architecture has been milked - winner Intel
• Number of years process has been milked - winner Intel
• Number of characters in product name - winner Intel
• Number of hardware vulnerabilities - winner Intel

Every Intel vs AMD article here is marked by blatant favoritism shown to the former. Any characteristic in which they lead is dug out and presented as important, so the few bones thrown to AMD are outnumbered. Huge Intel disadvantages simply aren't mentioned. This so muddies the water that an otherwise uninformed reader would come away ignorant of AMD's massive tech and value advantages and - trusting you - might well buy an Intel dinosaur. After all, if their chips "overclock better" and "are easier to cool" etc. they're probably the best choice.

I understand that this does keep the Intel goodies coming, but still you should be ashamed of yourselves.

"Winner: AMD."

 

[Arbie]

"Winner: AMD."

Right - with 5 points out of 9. Someone looking at the final table and thinking they might tilt a little more towards gaming than productivity would read it as "buy Intel". Which would be stupid.

As with the other recent Intel vs AMD "shoot-outs" here, this article is a carefully devised pretense of even-handedness, by which a less-informed reader is guaranteed to be misled.

I no longer think that's accidental - it happens too often and is always in Intel's favor. Nor do I expect it to change any time soon because Intel is desperate, will be behind for years on the desktop at least, and has huge marketing muscle. But it doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[ikce]

This review makes absolutely zero sense. Two completely different CPUs were tested against each other. Not in the same class; enthusiast (3950X) vs mainstream (9900K), not even close to the same price point, and even the core counts don't match. HUH?? How about comparing the 9900K to the 3900X? At least they have the same price point and are both in stock today.

Nah bruh, this is life as it is now. 32 thread is mainstream, welcome to real world.

I'am one of the guy that bought a Broadwell HEDT cpu. 6850k at 1000$ CAD price tag, I guess it's arround 800$ USD.

I've spent 650$ CAD on the motherboard to support a 12 thread CPU.
When I did my choice on wich platform I would build my pc, Ryzen was delayed.
I'am not AMD fan boy, but I loved the Phenom platform and, because I was poor my previous built was running on AMD FX-8370.

I've waited for the Ryzen first gen for years, and AMD didn't deliver on time.

My 6850k is by far the CPU I'm the more ashame of.

I will NEVER buy an Intel CPU again for my personal workstation, IT DIDN'T WORTH WHAT I'VE PAID FOR. After one year, a Ryzen 5 2nd gen outperformed a 1000$ flagship chip.
As an Intel HEDT owner, this is a shame and a stain on whatever crown Intel wish to keep. Single core speed for sh*tty task isn't a excuse for POOR multi threaded performance.

This CPU redefine what we, as AMD customers, waited for years.
The 9900k is no more than a joke. It ain't no match for today's CPU.
Wich by the way, AMD has redefined, like they did with x64 and multi core chips.

 

[ikce]

Right - with 5 points out of 9. Someone looking at the final table and thinking they might tilt a little more towards gaming than productivity would read it as "buy Intel". Which would be stupid.

As with the other recent Intel vs AMD "shoot-outs" here, this article is a carefully devised pretense of even-handedness, by which a less-informed reader is guaranteed to be misled.

I no longer think that's accidental - it happens too often and is always in Intel's favor. Nor do I expect it to change any time soon because Intel is desperate, will be behind for years on the desktop at least, and has huge marketing muscle. But it doesn't go unnoticed.

This is something I realised years ago.. it seem like Intel have bought enough vote to make people believe they still have a crown. At this very moment, it's like the beguining of x64 era where AMD did crushed Intel by a unprecedent margin. And still, people were promoting the friggin Pentium 4.

I've been arround for too long to believe it was a fair CPU contest.

 

[vov4ik_il]

Offtop: Are you guys checking the thread dates before posting?

 

[ikce]

Offtop: Are you guys checking the thread dates before posting?

Yes, and this is why "post notifications" has been invented for ^_^

 

[bit_user]

My 6850k is by far the CPU I'm the more ashame of.

At work, I use a Xeon E5-1650 v4, which is basically equivalent. I still like it.

... outperformed a 1000$ flagship chip.

List price on your CPU was $628 (US).

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...6850k-processor-15m-cache-up-to-3-80-ghz.html

As for being a "flagship", there are two models above it: i7-6900K and i7-6950K, though I don't feel their additional cores justify the price difference.

As an Intel HEDT owner, this is a shame and a stain on whatever crown Intel wish to keep.

Well, you did get 40 PCIe lanes and the quad-channel memory bandwidth to feed them. That platform isn't only about core-count.

This CPU redefine what we, as AMD customers, waited for years.

I'll agree that Intel was holding back on core-counts and over-charging for them, but it's not really fair to compare a CPU from 2018 to one from 2016 (built on tech from 2014). Of course CPU cores are going to get cheaper and better!

Also, high-end products tend to be a relatively poor value for money, and the worst at holding their value over time. This is nothing new, and it's as true of 1st/2nd gen Threadripper as of Intel HEDT CPUs.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

Nah bruh, this is life as it is now. 32 thread is mainstream, welcome to real world.

I'am one of the guy that bought a Broadwell HEDT cpu. 6850k at 1000$ CAD price tag, I guess it's arround 800$ USD.

I've spent 650$ CAD on the motherboard to support a 12 thread CPU.
When I did my choice on wich platform I would build my pc, Ryzen was delayed.
I'am not AMD fan boy, but I loved the Phenom platform and, because I was poor my previous built was running on AMD FX-8370.

I've waited for the Ryzen first gen for years, and AMD didn't deliver on time.

My 6850k is by far the CPU I'm the more ashame of.

I will NEVER buy an Intel CPU again for my personal workstation, IT DIDN'T WORTH WHAT I'VE PAID FOR. After one year, a Ryzen 5 2nd gen outperformed a 1000$ flagship chip.
As an Intel HEDT owner, this is a shame and a stain on whatever crown Intel wish to keep. Single core speed for sh*tty task isn't a excuse for POOR multi threaded performance.

This CPU redefine what we, as AMD customers, waited for years.
The 9900k is no more than a joke. It ain't no match for today's CPU.
Wich by the way, AMD has redefined, like they did with x64 and multi core chips.

No bruh - you are wrong on some counts here. As sad as the state of Intel is today trying to catch up to AMD, it still leads in IPC ratings and the main reason why it still beats AMD in gaming performance. If gaming is not the only thing someone does with their computer, then yes, AMD is by far the better choice. I own both an AMD PC and Intel PC and know what I'm talking about by actually owning both products. Next time, pay closer attention to the sig block 😛

 

[bit_user]

No bruh - you are wrong on some counts here. As sad as the state of Intel is today trying to catch up to AMD, it still leads in IPC ratings and the main reason why it still beats AMD in gaming performance.

IPC is Instructions-Per-Clock, indicating which core would be faster, if you ran both cores at the same clock speed. On this count, Intel's desktop chips are objectively behind! Check out the last table, below:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6​

Not surprisingly, that's why Intel has been scrambling to push clock speeds ever higher, at the expense of heat and power consumption. Such measures have managed to keep them in the lead, on single-thread performance, which is what gives them the edge in gaming.