Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: GPU Scaling Benchmark
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,423 +2,256
Honestly the 2080 Ti is silly price. I'd at least use a 3600 + 2080 super now and save $500.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,423 +2,256
To differentiate GPU's impact more noticeably, the 5700XT is too close to 2070 super get a clear picture of CPU scaling, so they dropped down the food chain.
Most people who are interested already know the 9900k is slightly better in most games and a lot better in Farcry. Nearly every youtube bench has shown that. Should've threw in a HEDT Intel setup like the 9940x and compared that to the 9900k and 3900x. I'd like to see if theres a huge frame gain over the weaker cpus with a 4.8 - 5ghz OC 9940x on custom loop in gaming with quad channel memory. Especially in 1440 and 4k.
I'm at a crossroad between deciding on 9940x or waiting for 3950x. But everything I've researched has me leaning towards the 9940x being better for gaming and a great all rounder at everything else due to frequency. I suspect it's going to best the 3950x. It OCs close to 9900k speed despite way more cores. Gives sli solutions full 16x. Quad channel ram seems like it can add up to 20 fps in some games and smoothen frametimes. And the pcie lane increase allows me to go full nvme m.2 with SLI and anything else I might want. Overall only comes out to like $140 more than the cpu mobo combo I'd get if I wait for a 3950x too.
The only problem is that X299 boards have pretty crap QC and the one good one I want (Asrock OC Formula) is basically sold out everywhere in the US. Amazon and Newegg need to up their damn stock.
I'm at a crossroad between deciding on 9940x or waiting for 3950x. But everything I've researched has me leaning towards the 9940x being better for gaming and a great all rounder at everything else due to frequency. I suspect it's going to best the 3950x. It OCs close to 9900k speed despite way more cores. Gives sli solutions full 16x. Quad channel ram seems like it can add up to 20 fps in some games and smoothen frametimes. And the pcie lane increase allows me to go full nvme m.2 with SLI and anything else I might want. Overall only comes out to like $140 more than the cpu mobo combo I'd get if I wait for a 3950x too.
The only problem is that X299 boards have pretty crap QC and the one good one I want (Asrock OC Formula) is basically sold out everywhere in the US. Amazon and Newegg need to up their damn stock.
Irata
Posts: 2,290 +4,004
Yes, it is indeed silly but that is the result of there not being any competition in this GPU class.
Just wanted to point out that within a given budget, you get the choice of an entry level CPU (that is still fast enough) and a top end GPU or a top of the line CPU and an upper mid range GPU.
Also, I wanted to use the GPU featured here for an easier comparison, but if you opt for a 2080 super, you will save another $300.
Of course, this is a limited comparison as it does not include PSU, mainboard, case fans.... but still something I feel that is often not considered when looking at benchmarks - the fact that saving on component A will allow you to get a better component B with sometimes unexpected results like having an entry level CPU + high(er) end GPU will result in a more capable gaming system than choosing a high end CPU + mid range GPU.
The fact that cheaper entry level CPU can keep up quite well is an achievement by itself.
This of all course, assuming that one is based on a budget.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
So now the dust has settled on the 7nm Ryzen 2 launch I’m still shocked to see it losing to Intel’s 14nm stuff at gaming.
thews86
Posts: 52 +61
I guess you could say Ryzen still loses in gaming. I personally wouldn't care being 1-10 fps slower in games, the Ryzen CPUs are better in non-gaming tasks almost every time. I like that 3900x, getting 4 more cores for the same price as a 9900k seems like a good deal to me. My gaming rig is also where I work everyday so I have a different perspective on CPUs, I know most of you just gamers so I can understand that.
I have one gargantuan problem with the testing methodology in this article, and it shows a complete lack of competence on the part of everyone involved in this article: why in the hell are you pitting the likes of the 2080 Ti and 2070 Super against the 5700? What ***** decided that the 5700XT wasn't the best comparison for scaling? Or were you guys paid by Nvidia to use the non-XT variant in order to show Nvidia in as good a light as possible? Either way, shame on you. I can understand the 580, it's the best of the last generation. The choice of the 5700 though... horrible.
Shknawe
Posts: 14 +8
Would have liked the 5700xt thrown in the mix. For $400 the perfect match for the right gpu for the right cpu might have been found. Instead of the 5800 the 5700xt makes more sense to me for comparison. Why show high low Nvidia gpu comparison, with one low Amd gpu,and then make a recommendation on "thee" cpu to game with without a high low Amd comparison? This benchmarking left me with more questions than answers. You have done better.
Shknawe
Posts: 14 +8
Until you start using ray tracing then you find out how bad the mix is.
amstech
Posts: 2,688 +1,860
After looking over the article/charts again...wow, that little 3600 is very impressive.
Hard to argue anything against it other then its clockspeed, which doesn't really seem to be much of a hindrance.
As far as the 5700 complaints, I don't get that, however I would have really liked to have seen these 3 CPU's pushing the Radeon VII.
Hard to argue anything against it other then its clockspeed, which doesn't really seem to be much of a hindrance.
As far as the 5700 complaints, I don't get that, however I would have really liked to have seen these 3 CPU's pushing the Radeon VII.
Shknawe
Posts: 14 +8
This article isn't about pitting GPUs against each other, it's comparing different GPUs against 3 different CPUs. The point is to use as different GPUs as possible that might reasonably be used with those CPUs to see where you should spend your money.
Seeing as the 5700 is the next best price/performance option above the RX 580's price point, it's a perfect choice. The 2070 Super splits the difference between the 5700 and the 2080Ti pretty well and allows a Nvidia card in (yes, at the expense of the 5700XT) so that also makes sense. And you need the 2080Ti at the top for reference.
IMO perfect choices.
This article is ridiculous. So much effort and you didn't even bother raising the frequency of RAM! Simply overclocking the memory to 3600 MHz can get you another +7 % and you're above Intel without touching anything else! It's common knowledge that Ryzens scale with memory frequency.
It's power hungry and underperforming for its price. 3900X matches it in gaming and easily outperforms it in productive tasks with half the power consumption. And it's cheaper, too.
Keep reading, this has already been addressed elsewhere on the site.
Nice almost, The test was a simple choice one res 1440p Med High Max 5700 5700X 2060S 2070S with 3600 vs 3900X 9900K this would have given more time for more than 4 games. Def 1080p was never to be included and created misleading data points. A couple of wide monitor 1440p charts or 3 monitor using 1080p or 1440p would be good and not often covered. Choosing one game and enabling PBO an MCE would be nice
Last edited:
I see some people say "if you are gaming then go for Intel" why? Because it has 1 to 5% more fps I some games?
Dont forget these benchmarks runs were tested without any background apps. Imagine if you record and stream and also run steam/origin and a voice chat app in the background. Low thread CPUs like 9600K / 9700K will be slow down like hell. Even 3600 will perform better during those scenarios.
And if you want to be futureproof, and if you have $500, always go for 3900X. That extra unused 40% raw power will be handy in real world uses. And future games will be optimistized for higher threaded CPUs.
It's stupid to buy a 9900K over a 3900X just because it perform a hair faster ONLY in gaming. It's like you are buying a Custom 10 second drag car instead buying a Corvette.
Dont forget these benchmarks runs were tested without any background apps. Imagine if you record and stream and also run steam/origin and a voice chat app in the background. Low thread CPUs like 9600K / 9700K will be slow down like hell. Even 3600 will perform better during those scenarios.
And if you want to be futureproof, and if you have $500, always go for 3900X. That extra unused 40% raw power will be handy in real world uses. And future games will be optimistized for higher threaded CPUs.
It's stupid to buy a 9900K over a 3900X just because it perform a hair faster ONLY in gaming. It's like you are buying a Custom 10 second drag car instead buying a Corvette.
QuantumPhysics
Posts: 6,307 +7,263
amstech
Posts: 2,688 +1,860
But its not stupid to save $150 and buy a 9700K, which is just as fast as the 9900K/3900X in gaming, if not faster, and put that money towards a GPU.
Also, by the time games use more then 6-8 threads, the 3900X will be old news.
That all being said, the 3600 is a better buy then all of them, what a bear that little bastard is.
Some people only care to go fast in a straight line.
Last edited:
I (like) swear that I haven't seen this benchmark before I wrote my so far only post! But it's exactly what I meant, this test is better (like) 10x than typical 15 games on maxed CPU or GPU showing nothing. Seriously, far better done job - though pain for testers, than 95% what rest testing sites do...
Most powerful cpu or fastest gaming cpu? Two years ago the 7600k was a faster gaming cpu but the R5 1600 was a more powerful cpu. The R5 1600 could now be considered the faster gaming cpu too. Right now the 9900K is a faster gaming cpu but the 3900x is a more powerful cpu. I think the 9900k also wins by a smaller margin than the 7600k over the R5 1600 two years ago (correct me if I'm wrong here). If you are worried about the performance a few years in the future as graphics cards get more powerful, perhaps you should also consider the 3900x as it might age better than the 9900k. I say might because the line is definitely pushed back a bit with 8 cores over 4, but still...with an average loss in the single-digits when averaged over many games..the 3900X doesn't have a lot to makeup if games start really working the threads. Never mind the 30-40% more multithreaded power to work with in the meantime, and the possible 16-core 4950x upgrade possibility in the future.
Last edited:
Sure
But I think we can all agree the combination of fastest single thread performance plus 8 cores of the intel will further stretch the legs of something like a 3080ti or 4080 right?
If we were betting, Id bet Intel maintains higher frames into the future, especially since the next gen consoles with be 8 core too.
Intel really just shafts us with their socket changes, that crap sucks
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,160
It depends. If the core counts keep getting pushed up then no, 8 core CPUs like the 9900K won't be top of the line for games a few years from now. Given that Intel is releasing a 10 core mainstream CPU and AMD a 16 core, games will be targeting that 10 core for high end specs. The consoles don't have much influence on the PC, the days of ports are long gone. If consoles did in fact have a large impact on PC games you'd see far more performing well on AMD hardware as they have been AMD only for the last 2 generations. We don't see that as the majority of PC Games are optimized for Intel / Nvidia.
I think if they were released now, the Intel still wins. If I was to speculate, I'd guess the 3900x starts pulling ahead in most games in about 3 years.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
MIT brain scans suggest that using GenAI tools reduces cognitive activity- TristanVanPoll replied
-
Doom: The Dark Ages, 36 GPU Benchmark- Zsoltblabla replied