[SOLVED] Ryzen 9 3900x vs i9 9900k (ON QUAD CHANNEL MEMORY)

[Flame1]

So I have seen a lot of benchmarks where the Ryzen 3rd gen CPUs get really close to a 9900k in gaming, to the point where it would be more worth it to buy the Ryzen cpus instead, whether you game, stream or anything else. The thing is all of those benchmarks comparing ryzen 3rd gen to intel equivalents that I have seen were done using Dual Channel memory, and I know that's fine on the Ryzen side since Ryzen CPUs only support dual channel BUT intel equivalents DO support quad channel memory and from what I have seen from other benchmark videos, using a quad channel config gives intel a significant boost of fps in many games. (Im currently using 4 sticks in my build)

If anyone could provide me with Ryzen 3rd gen vs intel equivalents benchmark with QUAD channel memory (preferably the 3900x vs 9900k) I would be grateful.

The reason being that Im currently thinking whether it would be worth it to sell my current mobo with the cpu (my current cpu bottlenecks my gpu really bad in almost every game which is why I want to upgrade) and buy the 9900k with a z390 instead, more so now since the 9900k price dropped to £430 or should I just keep my mobo, update the bios and get the 3900x instead?

I use my PC mainly for Photoshop, illustrator, Unity, Blender, Video Editing (Davinci Resolve), Streaming and Gaming.

Thanks in advance.

 

[geofelt]

9900K is still dual channel.
Intel performance is relatively insensitive to ram specs.
For photoshop, more ram is better than faster ram.
Here is one article on photoshop hardware:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recomm...obe-Photoshop-CC-139/Hardware-Recommendations

 

[Flame1]

9900K is still dual channel.
Intel performance is relatively insensitive to ram specs.
For photoshop, more ram is better than faster ram.
Here is one article on photoshop hardware:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recomm...obe-Photoshop-CC-139/Hardware-Recommendations

Wow I was convinced that the 9900k is quad channel since I have seen a benchmark video that showed quad channel vs dual channel on i7 9700k so I just assumed that it's the same with the 9900k. (This is the video that I'm talking about:

View: https://youtu.be/IDKzCsC9Svs
)
But then if quad channel makes such a difference for the 9700k, wouldn't that mean that the 9700k is a better gaming cpu than a 9900k if you have 4 sticks of ram?

 

[Flame1]

9900K is still dual channel.
Intel performance is relatively insensitive to ram specs.
For photoshop, more ram is better than faster ram.
Here is one article on photoshop hardware:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recomm...obe-Photoshop-CC-139/Hardware-Recommendations

Also the article on photoshop hardware that you've sent seems a little outdated and doesn't include Ryzen 3rd gen CPUs.

 

[geofelt]

Puget sells photoshop systems, they will have some comparisons with ryzen also.
Look for them.
I found the videos of 2 x 8gb vs 4 x 4gb interesting particularly BF
The specs of the ram kits used was not stated. Possibly there is a difference in latency or other factors.
Anyway, not a sufficiently significant difference.

 

[prophet51]

Wow I was convinced that the 9900k is quad channel since I have seen a benchmark video that showed quad channel vs dual channel on i7 9700k so I just assumed that it's the same with the 9900k. (This is the video that I'm talking about:

View: https://youtu.be/IDKzCsC9Svs
)
But then if quad channel makes such a difference for the 9700k, wouldn't that mean that the 9700k is a better gaming cpu than a 9900k if you have 4 sticks of ram?

Video says the test was done on a quad chan motherboard.

 

[geofelt]

Video says the test was done on a quad chan motherboard.

Having 4 ram slots does not make a motherboard quad channel capable.

 

[Flame1]

Puget sells photoshop systems, they will have some comparisons with ryzen also.
Look for them.
I found the videos of 2 x 8gb vs 4 x 4gb interesting particularly BF
The specs of the ram kits used was not stated. Possibly there is a difference in latency or other factors.
Anyway, not a sufficiently significant difference.

In the description of that video I have found this:

"RAM: 2x8GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB DDR4/3200 CL16
RAM: 4X4GB Corsair Dominator® Platinum DDR4/3200MHz CL16 "

This would mean that both kits had the same frequencies and CAS ratings.... I started to think that this video is fake but after checking out other quad channel vs dual channel videos I've noticed that they had the same results... Im seriously confused with that.

 

[Flame1]

Video says the test was done on a quad chan motherboard.

The title of that videos says otherwise???

 

[Karadjgne]

There's a little confusion. Channels are not sticks. Channels are pathways on the motherboard. Mainstream motherboards are all dual channel, whether 2 or 4 stick capable. As are the cpus and their memory controllers. You wont get quad channel except on the HEDT motherboards like 2011 or 2066. Certainly not on lga1151.

The above video posted compares 2x 8Gb sticks to 4x 4Gb sticks, both are in dual channel.

What isn't shown is that 4Gb sticks often have slightly tighter timings vrs 8Gb, and some games can often take advantage of that. But here's the kicker, there's really no difference between single, dual or quad within the boundaries of the bandwidth. So let's say single channel has a 0-50, dual channel is double that, quad channel doubles that again. If your game is only using 32 bandwidth, having more does nothing. It's only when you get to 51 that dual channel is better than single as single bandwidth is saturated and becoming a bottleneck. If the bandwidth hit 101, quad would have a performance benefit, dual is saturated. But under 50? All the same.

Most games haven't had the bandwidth requirements to saturate single channel bandwidth, so dual wasn't a benefit in that area. It was in others. With Ryzens, even more so.

4x sticks of 4Gb Cas15 is going to be faster than 2x sticks of 8Gb Cas16 (assuming same clock speeds) . Whether that'll translate to fps gains will be on the cpu and the game, whether or not they benefit to any significant degree.

But you won't find any documentation on any quad channel benefits to mainstream cpus over dual channel, as they do not exist and cannot exist since mainstream isn't quad channel able.

 

[geofelt]

Here are the intel 9900K specs:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html
It clearly shows 2 channels.

If you go to the corsair ram web site, it does not show that they make any 4 stick kits of 4gb 3200 speed cl 16 dominator platinum ram.

Most likely, they used a 4 x 8gb stick kit of 3200 speed cl 16 ram.

 

[Flame1]

Here are the intel 9900K specs:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html
It clearly shows 2 channels.

If you go to the corsair ram web site, it does not show that they make any 4 stick kits of 4gb 3200 speed cl 16 dominator platinum ram.

Most likely, they used a 4 x 8gb stick kit of 3200 speed cl 16 ram.

So at the end of the day it's not worth it to go around watching these kinds of benchmark videos. Got it.
Thanks for your help.

 

[Flame1]

There's a little confusion. Channels are not sticks. Channels are pathways on the motherboard. Mainstream motherboards are all dual channel, whether 2 or 4 stick capable. As are the cpus and their memory controllers. You wont get quad channel except on the HEDT motherboards like 2011 or 2066. Certainly not on lga1151.

The above video posted compares 2x 8Gb sticks to 4x 4Gb sticks, both are in dual channel.

What isn't shown is that 4Gb sticks often have slightly tighter timings vrs 8Gb, and some games can often take advantage of that. But here's the kicker, there's really no difference between single, dual or quad within the boundaries of the bandwidth. So let's say single channel has a 0-50, dual channel is double that, quad channel doubles that again. If your game is only using 32 bandwidth, having more does nothing. It's only when you get to 51 that dual channel is better than single as single bandwidth is saturated and becoming a bottleneck. If the bandwidth hit 101, quad would have a performance benefit, dual is saturated. But under 50? All the same.

Most games haven't had the bandwidth requirements to saturate single channel bandwidth, so dual wasn't a benefit in that area. It was in others. With Ryzens, even more so.

4x sticks of 4Gb Cas15 is going to be faster than 2x sticks of 8Gb Cas16 (assuming same clock speeds) . Whether that'll translate to fps gains will be on the cpu and the game, whether or not they benefit to any significant degree.

But you won't find any documentation on any quad channel benefits to mainstream cpus over dual channel, as they do not exist and cannot exist since mainstream isn't quad channel able.

I took notes from that, thank you.

 

[j3ster]

9900k is dual channel, its a common misconception that using 4 sticks used = to quad channel.

quad channel configurations are usually reserved for HEDT platforms.

 

[prophet51]

The title of that videos says otherwise???

Sorry I meant dual channel

 

[Endre]

The Z390 Intel chipset is dual channel memory only!
Motherboards do have 4 memory slots, but that’s because there are 2 memory modules on a channel.

If you want a quad channel configuration, you must buy a platform with Intel X299 chipset (which is very expensive).