4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

[Strawman]

This test clearly shows that certain games are rigged to perform worse on AMD chips. The only honestly made game here seems to be World of Tanks. The rest of the AAA games seem to be in bed with Intel.

Because there is no other explanation how can a chip running at the same clock, with a higher IPC, and same instruction set, be faster in all standard tests, but slower in selected games. There's no overclock, there's no cores running faster, everything is the same and only IPC counts.

That means the game is corrupt. It detects the AMD CPU and deliberately slows down. Nasty, very nasty. Foul play, Intel. The question is, how low can Intel go? Instead of spending money on improving their chips, especially security, they've spend all the money on bribing game producers. One more reason not to buy hardware from those cheaters.

Not to mention that Intel chips have more security holes than Swiss cheese. I guess they spent entire budget on bribing game producers. There was no money left for fixing the bugs. Wait... is it possible that Intel experts designed firmware for Boeing 737 MAX??

Uhm, paranoid much? Its called latency, check it out. My 8700k with 4000c17 ram has 37-38ms of latency, Ryzens have over 65, which is a big difference in gaming scenarios

Why didn't Intel bribe software companies as well?

 

[Strawman]

At 720p low quality on a 9900K and a 2080Ti.

Do you actually think it's a valid idea to buy a 9900K and a 2080Ti for 720p low? $1700 just for those two components to play at 15 year old settings?

It's called headroom. It's called a non gpu bound test. That's where we can see the actual gaming differences between the CPU's. If we are running at 1440p or 4k then an i3 8100 is as good for gaming as the 3900x. Is it though? No, the faster cpus are just being bottlenecked by the graphics cards.

After all, it's all about what you are after. If you are after playing games at the highest quality settings @1440p or above, sure Ryzen is fine. There are other people though that are trying to lock to the highest FPS their system can produce, and that usually comes down to the CPU in most games. For example im playing PUBG on almost everything on low, and im pretty much CPU bound during the whole game cause im trying to lock to 144hz. The R5 1600 I used to have couldnt do that, it was going between 50 and 120 (it averages above 100 but still). My 8700k is usually hovering at over 200

 

[Puiu]

Your exaggerated metaphor is useless here.
Using a 240Hz and 168FPS example does nothing to backup your comment, or combat mine. 15-20FPS difference is major at 1440p, and that's before overlocking.
We are talking about these GPU's struggling to hit over 100FPS in games @ 1440p, so when you have a 1440p 120/144/165hz monitor, this is huge.
Again, Ryzen is not doing bad at all in this comparison, but Intel is better.



I think it has more to do with how most game engines are coded and what instruction sets they use.

You will be GPU limited way before you will get CPU limited at 1440p 144Hz. Zero games in techspot's review showed that kind of a difference at 1440p. All of them were sub 10FPS (with the exception being World War Z which was tested before the performance patch which helps AMD a lot).

 

[treetops]

I wonder how much using 3733 mhz ram would have mattered. I know, we really shouldn't have to use one type of ram to cater to AMD. I saw that big headed guy on linus tech tips say AMD CPUs will probably get better down the line via updates, who knows.

 

[SPAM1]

Sry for offtop; How to "contact the administrator"?

 

[amghwk]

As far I can tell, Techspot (and most of it's readers) are AMD "friendly". While Techspot had been favouring AMD for it's 'underdog' status and 'lower price for "almost"-similar-performance-to-Intel's-arguements, and the AMD supporters ready to go all out to defend AMD, I for once, am happy to see how much AMD has been able to catch up to Intel with these latest benchmarks after all these years. (I'm still using an Intel, namely the 8700K, and happy with it, but I too feel good about the stride the AMD has made recently.)

I have mentioned before in other threads that I am an opportunistic user, and would get the clear victor in all benchmarks, and that I wouldn't mind getting the next CPU even if it's AMD, if it is able to trounce Intel once and for all and keep the crown for a few iterations, (for which I received some backlash from AMD supporters, which I don't care anyway), but honestly I am happy to see the AMD's improvements lately.

We as end-users deserve better pricing, but also better performance. Not just some compression or conversion benchmarks but as an ordinary, everyday home user.

Rather than bickering against each other, and arguing some pointless debates over favourship, useless practicality or to prove one's point, it's much better to focus on one's own budget and help to improve fellow user's experience.

 

[Lionvibez]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

This test is pointless, its like handing capping a corvette to 4 cylinders and testing against a honda civic.

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

I guess reading comprehension isn't important where you guys live.
The title says testing at 4Ghz not max overclock, what you want has already been tested all over the internet so either go find those results or build a test rigs yourself and run the numbers.
This was an interesting article and something I was waiting to see thanks for the write up tech spot.

 

[NotABadSlime]

I’m one of those “boys” who builds home desktop towers exclusively for gaming and I earn enough to afford expensive hardware. Ironically I earn that money on a Xeon workstation PC and spend far more time using that then I do at home playing games on my tower. So I would benefit more from a workstation upgrade than I would from a gaming rig upgrade, especially as I game at 4K and the CPU is barely ever the limiting factor (although sometimes it is, GTAV is CPU bottlenecked at 4K for example).

However which one would I spend my own money on? The 9900K. It’s an inferior chip in most respects and for my uses I’d technically get more from Ryzen. It’s just I am only really enthusiastic about a chips gaming performance. If my boss were to buy me a 3900X system or even a Threadripper system I’d appreciate it a lot. But I wouldn’t spend my own money on a work system and I don’t care about it’s performance anywhere near as much.

Still, there isn’t much in it. If I were poorer I’d get very excited about the R5 3600, which for $200 is absolutely outstanding.

This is so much the real TRUTH!

Look if AMD wants to knock Intel out of the server/enterprise/work market, more power to them. More cores for that kind of appplication makes lots of sense and the price performance gains there should make Intel really worried.

But more cores do NOT make for a good gaming solution. I would love it to see AMD win on the gaming front like they had in the socket 939 era, but all the data to date only show them falling short and even worse when overclocking gets added in. I am not spending my dollars for extra cores that have no real value for my gaming. I'll let upper level management spend more on more cores for work. AMD is more than two years behind is what all the data shows. Had they released these when the in late 2016 to compete with the 7700K for games, it would have been a major victory, even if it just matched the 7700k performance level.

 

[NotABadSlime]

I wonder how much using 3733 mhz ram would have mattered. I know, we really shouldn't have to use one type of ram to cater to AMD. I saw that big headed guy on linus tech tips say AMD CPUs will probably get better down the line via updates, who knows.

Then pay for it down the line usually with lower prices too. There is no good reason to pay extra now, especially knowing how the 1700x went from $400 to $120 (in 2 years) and the 2700x went from $350 to $200 (in 1 year) and obviously the same trend will play out for the 3700x. AMD running the marketing hype engine real hard to get people to pay more right now, do NOT fall for the marketing.

And it is not like you get to win any bragging rights with these Ryzen stuff. The only real win is a R5 1600 for $80, that flat out wins the bang for the buck. Then throw in $30 mobo discount, and it is untouchable.

 

[amstech]

I just remembered something, there is a 10/20 Core i9-9900X.
It's silly expensive though.

 

[PetrolHead]

I wonder how much using 3733 mhz ram would have mattered.

Likely about 1-2% for the Ryzen 9, not sure about the i9. According to Techpowerup's memory scaling tests, there is surprisingly little to gain from going 2400CL16 to 3600CL17 with a 3900X in both application tests and games. The AMD recommended "sweet spot" for price/performance was 3600CL16, but it seems that 3200CL14 will continue to work just fine with Zen 2, since in their tests 3200CL14 was in practice equal with 3600CL17.

 

[Evernessince]

L

It's 5-30FPS faster across many titles, and this is only 5.1GHz.
Thats on top of already being faster in stock form.
So, in total, about 10-30% faster across the board, give or take.
I am not arguing anything but, Intel is still the fastest gaming CPU, and by a noticable margin when overclocked. It's not all just 5%, sorry.
Congrats to Ryzen for making it a very competitive race, and for a great dispute.
Some people may be happy with 105FPS compared to a 122FPS.
Not me. I want the 122, and then 128 when overclocked...and so do many gaming enthusiasts.
Also your reach for the 3900X to save you is cute, its a $500 CPU, costs more then the 9900K and doesn't game as well, and doesn't overclock nearly as well.... guess thats 'niche' Thing will rip good in WinRaR though, thats important for 15% of us. Kidding.
But for games Intel>AMD. The end.

The 9900K does indeed gain little to nothing from an OC. It looks like my "10% when OCed" figure was too much. Your "10-30% faster across the board" figure is certainly incorrect though, as not a single game tested of the 36 get past 19%, let alone near 30. Even overclocked the 9900K only has a 5% advantage over the 3900X, much less then I initially thought.

 

[amstech]

Your "10-30% faster across the board" figure is certainly incorrect though, t.

I was never talking about a $500 3900X...or a 'niche' CPU.
That thing costs more then the 9900K.

In that video by Steve, the 9900K shows massive 15-20 FPS differences in some games, holy Fortnite. You just shot yourself in the foot. uch:
Also about 10% slower in Far Cry.
Do you even watch these videos?
Across 40 games there is a significant difference in 15-20 of them, and 99-100% of the time the 9900K wins. It's also outmatched with less cores, even the 9900X is a 10/20.

RYZEN IS A SLOWER GAMING CPU.
Your phony numbers are an average, they don't tell the whole story.
If this situation was reversed, and Ryzen was 10-15%% faster in several games, good god almighty we would NEVER hear the end of it.

 

[Evernessince]

Your phony numbers are an average, they don't tell the whole story.

I'm going to quote this comment as you are likely to delete this post and I don't want this hilarity to go away.

"Your phony numbers are an average, they don't tell the whole story."

-amstech, July 7th 2019



That's EXACTLY what averages do, tell the whole story!

And please, my phony numbers? This coming from the guy who linked a youtube benchmark that didn't have a single average / min FPS graph. Where exactly did you get your "10-30%" performance number from in that demonstration? Cherry picking FPS at random times in the video? Very reliable.

If this situation was reversed, and Ryzen was 10-15%% faster in several games, good god almighty we would NEVER hear the end of it.

If the Ryzen CPUs were 10-15% percent faster in games, that would be 2 to 3 times larger an advantage then the 9900K vs a stock 3900X. Unless you are going to dispute Steve's results from the linked 36 game benchmark, I don't see why you wouldn't praise AMD if it was 15% in the lead (that's on average of course, single games don't mean much). I've posted multiple times on multiple articles about how I would still recommend a 9900K for a ultra-high end gaming only build. It would be hypocritical for me not to recommend a hypothetical AMD CPU that has 3 times the margin that the 9900K has. I will add that's also conditional on power consumption, multi-threaded performance, ect. For me gaming performance isn't the only factor. And god forbid we hear the end of you and your love of Intel CPUs. The hypothetical situation you prose is something you already do over a much smaller margin to a much worse degree. You are on every AMD CPU related article touting Intel's "15-30%" FPS advantage or some other cherry picked or made up number. At the very least I would state whatever the data presents, not some ridiculous dramatization.

 

[MikitaM]

I tested on Shadow of the Tomb raider, 8700k @ stock vs 3600 @ stock (4000c17 for the Intel 3600c16 for the Ryzen), at stock the 3600 was a tad bit in front. It was within margin of error. When I oced my 8700@5.1 / 4.7 for the cache then yeah, it was ~20-25% up in minimums / averages and around 30-35 in maximums.

Thanks for info. While I think that price-wise 8700K should be compared to 3800X or 3700X, but still interesting. BTW - why didn't you try same RAM speed on both and max overclock of Ryzen 3600? Say, use Ryzen 3600 OCd @4.3 or PBO + Auto and RAM @3600 CL16 for both?

 

[amstech]

The hypothetical situation

Nope, its real.

You are on every AMD CPU related article touting Intel's "15-30%" FPS advantage or some other cherry picked or made up number.

I was referring to the 8700K @ 5.2GHz roasting the 3700X by 10-30% across the board, and I'm right.
The 9900K also blitzes the 3900X by 10-15% in many games, as shown. That being said I never argued against the totals/average of the 3900X and 9900K, you brought that up when you got butthurt over the data of the 8/16's and 6/12's I've provided, directly from Techspots article.

At the very least I would state whatever the data presents, not some ridiculous dramatization.

Having to use their more expensive $500 flagship CPU to counter my point about the 8/16 chips is quite dramatic.
Its 10-30% across the board when the Intel is overclocked using the 8/16 chips to compare as I stated and you have failed to counter, because you can't. Why not give props instead of bitching about it?
The 9700K is about as fast or faster then the 9900K in games and costs $350 but I used the 9900K to show the comparison of an 8/16 vs an 8/16.

There's a 15-20FPS difference, and sometimes more, in many games...this is just 7 examples and most importantly, this is Intel @ stock clocks. Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Yes if you spend five hundred dollars on their 12/24 flagship CPU, its not a 10-30% difference across the board. However, the outmatched and less expensive 8/16 9900K is still faster in games, and in Steve's review the 9900K showed to have a 10% advantage over the more expensive 3900X in several titles.
Stick to your average if it makes you feel better, I never argued against their flagship anyways.
What I am saying about the 8/16's in factual inarguable data directly from site, and I just posted it again for you to see. It's pretty damn clear Eve.
And while we are on the subject, it would have been nice to see how the 9900X did, and that's still a 10/20 with less cores then the flagship 3900X.

 

[Targonis]

It should also be noted that these results are based on launch performance, with BIOS and Windows scheduler changes that will probably improve performance over the next few months.

I agree with those who don't like seeing the 9900k limited to 4.0GHz, but on the flip side, these Ryzen chips can run at 4.3GHz on all cores without a problem, so at the least, doing a 4.3GHz to 4.3GHz comparison would have made some sense. RAM is a big factor, and DDR4-3200CL14(I am guessing that is the version of the FlareX used) should be seen as a starting point. Going to 3433 and 3600 RAM could change these results significantly, with a much larger jump in performance due to Infinity Fabric being linked to RAM speeds.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Nope, its real.

I was referring to the 8700K @ 5.2GHz roasting the 3700X by 10-30% across the board, and I'm right.
The 9900K also blitzes the 3900X by 10-15% in many games, as shown. That being said I never argued against the totals/average of the 3900X and 9900K, you brought that up when you got butthurt over the data of the 8/16's and 6/12's I've provided, directly from Techspots article.


Having to use their more expensive $500 flagship CPU to counter my point about the 8/16 chips is quite dramatic.
Its 10-30% across the board when the Intel is overclocked using the 8/16 chips to compare as I stated and you have failed to counter, because you can't. Why not give props instead of bitching about it?
The 9700K is about as fast or faster then the 9900K in games and costs $350 but I used the 9900K to show the comparison of an 8/16 vs an 8/16.

There's a 15-20FPS difference, and sometimes more, in many games...this is just 7 examples and most importantly, this is Intel @ stock clocks. Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Yes if you spend five hundred dollars on their 12/24 flagship CPU, its not a 10-30% difference across the board. However, the outmatched and less expensive 8/16 9900K is still faster in games, and in Steve's review the 9900K showed to have a 10% advantage over the more expensive 3900X in several titles.
Stick to your average if it makes you feel better, I never argued against their flagship anyways.
What I am saying about the 8/16's in factual inarguable data directly from site, and I just posted it again for you to see. It's pretty damn clear Eve.
And while we are on the subject, it would have been nice to see how the 9900X did, and that's still a 10/20 with less cores then the flagship 3900X.

In this entire longwinded post you fail to provide anything other than a few numbers. You could easily have just fabricated them. Because I don't know how you got them.

What you need to do if I am to believe anything you post, is provide the test conditions. I'm assuming those conditions are from a video you linked to earlier (but I can't be sure):

Using a 2080Ti at 720p using low quality settings.

For the <1% of gamers using these utter potato settings then Intel is the absolute king, no argument. Enjoy those settings and FPS, 1%ers.

For the rest of the 99% of people out there who use their $400-1000 GPUs at useful settings like 1440p High or better, the difference in FPS will be less than run to run variation. Steve has an HUB video out today saying just this.

You can cherrypick all your data to favor your CPU all you want and yes, it's better in those rare use cases. But for most people, the CPUs will be identical in games and the AMD CPUs are faster in almost all productivity workloads.

 

[Evernessince]

Nope, its real.

I was referring to the 8700K @ 5.2GHz roasting the 3700X by 10-30% across the board, and I'm right.
The 9900K also blitzes the 3900X by 10-15% in many games, as shown. That being said I never argued against the totals/average of the 3900X and 9900K, you brought that up when you got butthurt over the data of the 8/16's and 6/12's I've provided, directly from Techspots article.


Having to use their more expensive $500 flagship CPU to counter my point about the 8/16 chips is quite dramatic.
Its 10-30% across the board when the Intel is overclocked using the 8/16 chips to compare as I stated and you have failed to counter, because you can't. Why not give props instead of bitching about it?
The 9700K is about as fast or faster then the 9900K in games and costs $350 but I used the 9900K to show the comparison of an 8/16 vs an 8/16.

There's a 15-20FPS difference, and sometimes more, in many games...this is just 7 examples and most importantly, this is Intel @ stock clocks. Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Yes if you spend five hundred dollars on their 12/24 flagship CPU, its not a 10-30% difference across the board. However, the outmatched and less expensive 8/16 9900K is still faster in games, and in Steve's review the 9900K showed to have a 10% advantage over the more expensive 3900X in several titles.
Stick to your average if it makes you feel better, I never argued against their flagship anyways.
What I am saying about the 8/16's in factual inarguable data directly from site, and I just posted it again for you to see. It's pretty damn clear Eve.
And while we are on the subject, it would have been nice to see how the 9900X did, and that's still a 10/20 with less cores then the flagship 3900X.

Stop cherry picking, here's that video providing the averages again:

Counter to what you claim, averagse do in fact show the whole picture and are certainly better then picking numbers. Also, you failed to list resolution, system specs, ect. You didn't provide a single link to where you got those numbers. But yes, linking the source would disprove your own point so you can't do that. Don't want people seeing you cherry picked best case scenario.

Stick to your average if it makes you feel better, I never argued against their flagship anyways.
What I am saying about the 8/16's in factual inarguable data directly from site, and I just posted it again for you to see. It's pretty damn clear Eve.
And while we are on the subject, it would have been nice to see how the 9900X did, and that's still a 10/20 with less cores then the flagship 3900X.

You posted a handful of games without a source, resolution, or anything else. Not only is the data cherry picked, it's incomplete and misleading. Where did you get those numbers from?

Averages are the industry standard for summarizing performance of computer parts. It's not a personal preference of mine, everyone but you acknowledges the importance of averages. Why you insist otherwise is mind boggling.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Come on guys. Seriously what is there to debate? The article speaks for itself. AMD is finally on even ground with Intel. Sure there are a few things separating them. But on average they are on par with each other. Where we go now is anyone's guess.

 

[amstech]

You posted a handful of games without a source, resolution, or anything else. Not only is the data cherry picked, it's incomplete and misleading. Where did you get those numbers from?

You've been had Eve, but it was a good discussion.
These are not cherry picked results, this is 7 games, I would love to show you 40, it would just re-enforce my point.
The 9700K is about as fast or faster then the 9900K in games and costs $350 but I used the 9900K to show the comparison of an 8/16 vs an 8/16.

There's a 15-20FPS difference, and sometimes more, in many games...this is just 7 examples and most importantly, this is Intel @ stock clocks. Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked. I will continue to post this until you zip it, you've lost this argument.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

I love your passion for AMD, but the results of the 8/16's are what they are, doesn't matter how you or I try to spin it.

 

[Tristann]

I love your passion for AMD, but the results of the 8/16's are what they are, doesn't matter how you or I try to spin it.

Taking into account your earlier statements, 9900K is much more expensive than 3700X and falls out of this comparison. The market competitor for 9900K is 3900X, the price difference in my country is less than $5. 3900X has better results in games than 3700X. But these few percent of more frames (even 15FPS when the game has 130-150FPS does not differ) in some games, nothing proves. Other tests, even when loading websites, show that a computer with a new rebate is used faster, and even avid gamers use different applications besides games. So it really does not make sense to put these few game results for the hundredth time in comparison to the much cheaper processor.

"Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked." - this is already explained and proved to you above that this is nonsense. So do not paste it anymore.

 

[amstech]

The market competitor for 9900K is 3900X

And the 9900K is 6% faster overall in gaming, but I never brought up $500 flagship CPU's, someone else did when I buried them with data on the 9700K vs the 3700X, both $350 CPUs.

. 3900X has better results in games than 3700X.

The market competitor for 3700X is the 9700K, and the 9700K has MUCH better results in games, 10-20% overall in gaming, before overclocked.

"Add another 10-20FPS when its overclocked." - this is already explained and proved to you above that this is nonsense. So do not paste it anymore.

It's 100% accurate and its easily accessible data, Youtube any 9700K at stock clocks vs a 9700K @ 5.2 or 5.3GHz, its a simple find. All you can do is complain about it and its getting tiresome and honestly, lame and boring..., but nothing said will combat it, because, well, its the truth. Were done here.

 

[Tristann]

And the 9900K is 6% faster overall in gaming, but I never brought up $500 flagship CPU's, someone else did when I buried them with data on the 9700K vs the 3700X, both $350 CPUs.


The market competitor for 3700X is the 9700K, and the 9700K has MUCH better results in games, 10-20% overall in gaming, before overclocked.


It's 100% accurate and its easily accessible data, Youtube any 9700K at stock clocks vs a 9700K @ 5.2 or 5.3GHz, its a simple find. All you can do is complain about it and its getting tiresome and honestly, lame and boring..., but nothing said will combat it, because, well, its the truth. Were done here.

Okay, okay, you're gonna buy yourself a Ryzena soon anyway.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Okay, okay, you're gonna buy yourself a Ryzena soon anyway.

I wouldn't bet money on that if I were you.