Skip to content

3900x vs 9900k

It has been more than two years since Intel released the superb i9 9900K CPU, and it has been more than a year since the AMD 3000 series, but the war between these two beloved processors is far from over. Millions of players have yet to decide which one to use in the next version.

Since both companies have released more powerful flagship design versions, prices are now falling, and now is the best time to consider which processor is right for you and your system.

Add fuel to the fire and make this a protracted battle. We want these two giants to face each other head-on. They will contend with rough specifications, collide swords for components, compete in performance, and show off to prove their value. Let us prepare for ruuuuumble!

Before letting these two gladiators engage in a bloody electric warfare, let's take a look at the announced SKU.

war blue shorts have a total of 8 cores, we have 9900K. Struggling with the red shorts, with 12 impressive cores, we have the 3900X. Ding Ding Ding!

Ryzen was among the best in the first round in terms of dry SKU. Generally speaking, the more cores a processor contains, the more complex the commands it can execute, resulting in faster and smoother overall performance, especially in parallel workflows.

core count is not everything, but many modern software aims to distribute tasks to as many cores as possible, which means that if the number is insufficient, the functionality of the software will be affected.

These two render boxers are equipped with multi-threaded capabilities. But the 3900X battled the 9900K against the rope in the second round and doubled the 12 cores to 24 threads. Obviously, the maximum number of threads for 9900K is 16.

Right now, in terms of fundamentals, the Ryzen 3900X has a very clear winner, but why are these two CPUs being compared and discussed so much? Well, let's start speeding up the mergers to better understand its controversial history.

With a stable base clock speed of 3.8GHz, 3900X shows us some very popular footwork, while Intel CPU has a slight lag, and the clock frequency is 3.6GHz. It looks like this is another victory for AMD, but this is where things get interesting. The maximum boost frequency of

3900X is 4.6 GHz. Push 9900K to its limit and you will reach an impressive 5 GHz maximum boost frequency.

Assume that if both CPUs have sufficient cooling capacity to boost their maximum clock speed for a long period of time, you will notice a slight improvement in the response performance of 9900K.

So we claim that Intel won in this round, but it is important to note that the performance provided by the clock speed will be partially offset by the number of cores. It can also be said that its slower maximum clock speed makes up for the number of cores in Ryzen. Both

CPUs can be overclocked, but the 9900K stands out again because the 3900X does not have that much room for overclocking.

Many modern games require considerable fast link memory to run at acceptable speeds. The cache is a group of memory located in front of the RAM that serves as these fast-access storage areas. If you are playing games with a resolution lower than 4K, it is recommended to use a good cache capacity. The

's L1 capacity is 768KB, L2 capacity is 6MB, L3 capacity is 64MB, not to mention DDR4 3200MHz memory, 3900X is here to show its talents. The

9900K has a single L3 Smart Cache with a capacity of 15 MB and a memory speed of 2666 MHz.

This is a huge win for Ryzen, but let's put the components of these two intrepid CPUs under the microscope to see which one will stand out. in game hardware.

You should never make a purchase based solely on pure specifications. You don't just buy the CPU, but the different components that make it up. Although these CPUs are often compared, they are made up of very different things.

So, let's take a look at some of the individual parts that come together to make the magic happen.

First, let's face the obvious difference between these two CPUs. The i9 9900K comes pre-installed with an integrated UHD silicon graphics card. Ryzen 9 3900X has absolutely no on-chip graphics capabilities.

On the surface, this seems like a big "W" for Intel, but considering that gamers may have outfitted their computers with high-performance graphics cards, the lack of onboard facilities in the 3900X may not have much of an influence.

Another important determinant among these CPUs is integrated cooling. Ryzen 9 is equipped with an excellent LEDladen Wraith Prism cooling solution, while the Intel i9 9900K does not have a built-in cooling method.

So, to reverse the situation here, for AMD, this looks like a big "W". I hope it's that simple. Yes, Wraith Prism is a good standard cooling system, but will it allow Ryzen 9 to reach its limits in long games? No.

If you really want to power these CPUs, you need to purchase a separate cooling system for both. The value of

AMD 9 3900X in this respect is more than that. It has a PCIE 4.0 x16, and Intel i9 9900K has its predecessor PCIE 3.0 x8. PCI Express defines how to use external hardware (such as video cards or SSD cards) to enhance the system to increase storage space. 4.0 PCIE is a cutting-edge technology, and this series of AMD CPUs is the first to introduce some of its technology products.

Basically, 4.0 x16 refers to higher

Its technology will be in the future because it will be compatible with new hardware for years to come.

Of course, cutting-edge technology is closely related to some compatibility issues, and other aspects of the tech world are catching up. To support PCI Express 4.0, you need a motherboard to run at full capacity.

If you can't afford or don't want to replace your current motherboard, the game is not over yet. PCI Express 4.0 will continue to work, but it will not work as designed for 4.0.

When you use the most advanced PCI Express in the old port, the motherboard defines the performance parameters; therefore even though it is a 4.0 bit cog, it works like 3.0.

Intel is back in the battle for connectivity. Its proprietary Thunderbolt 3 interface is compatible with a large number of your motherboards and can support other hardware at blazing-fast speeds of up to 40GBps. This means that you will be able to sync the 11th Gen Intel CPU that supports 4.0.

AMD, in fact, many technology companies do not want to pay Intel to obtain the right to use Thunderbolt 3 (and even now 4) technology in their systems. This is a huge downside to the AMD setup, especially if you're interested in connecting hardware that requires very low latency, like a music interface.

But these chilled specifications and components are sufficient. How does everyone come together to affect your gaming experience? let's start!

With an impressive base clock speed, if you still play a lot of older games, especially if you have a large graphics card, 9900K may be better. The faster rate also means that it is more suitable for so-called burst workflows.

Bursty describes the process of receiving information in the form of regular or irregular square waves.

i9 9900K is not only good at old games. When tested against each other while running countless different games, 9900K is better than 3900X in promoting frames per second almost every time it runs at standard clock speed and overclocking speed. In

, the gap in some games is very small, and it is not obvious to sit down and play. World War Z showed Intel CPU running 2 ster, stock and overclocking.

racing games like Forza Horizon 4 doubled the i9's lead to 4%, but there is still nothing to fuss about, especially the 3900X managed to cut the difference in half when overclocked.

Unfortunately for AMD, in other games, the 3900X ate the dust of the i9 9900K. Games such as Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Apex Legends, and Fortnight saw 9900K drifting, while 3900X dropped frames around.

When playing massively multiplayer strategy games, the gap between these two CPUs is the biggest. StarCraft is one of our personal favorites, so we checked the frame rate performance of a complete 14-player team multiplayer game and found that the i9 9900K runs 19 times faster than the 3900X under factory settings. Overclocking reduces the gap to 12%. For AMD,

is not all doom and pessimism, because the 3900X performs slightly better than 9900K in some games (such as Monster Hunter and CounterStrike Global Offense).

It is also important to note that although the 3900X lost most of these conflicts, the difference in frame rate is so small that you won't even notice it after a million years.

So Ryzen has a loss here, but only if you run the game at 1080p. In 4K, the performance is pretty good. What impressed us was the so-called small overclocking capability of the 3900X. Even if its CPU speed is slightly slower, unless you are a hardcore professional gamer, you really don’t need extra frames per second.

If you pass these two CPUs through the Cinebench R15 test that evaluates the main workflow, you will find something very interesting. In terms of multi-core performance, the 3900X performed very well, which makes sense. It has more cores. When

is challenging a single core, 9900K really stands out here. What's impressive is that it has nothing to do with gameplay. The 3900X has more resources for running demanding software.

Due to these additional cores and threads, the seamless rendering capabilities of the 3900X will be stronger. So, if you use your gaming computer for other demanding software, like complex video editors or 3D animation programs, then Ryzen is yours. The best option, under both hands. This is not even a problem.

If you like streaming games on Twitch, or watching the stream while gaming, then the multi-threaded 12-core 3900X is by far the most powerful CPU. It will handle all the multitasking related encoding tasks while keeping your frame rate at a reproducible level.

Although 9900K is a faster CPU in most cases, the FPS drops drastically when running games and video functions at the same time.

Now that we've delved into the gameplay, let's see how much you can pay for one of these bad boys.

When these CPUs were first released, they were priced at around $ 500. Unsurprisingly, based on the release of the new version, both CPUs have lost some share value, but what's interesting is that the 3900X market price is still higher than 9900K. The price of

between them is less than $ 100, but considering the price of the original Intel i9, this is a considerable price reduction. So it seems that Intel is a company with a limited budget, but you have to wonder why it is not as valuable as AMD CPUs.

may be due to future-oriented architecture

Also included in your decision. Now each CPU has some compatible motherboards, the price is between 150-400 US dollars.

If you intend to really power these CPUs, you might as well consider using a liquid cooling system. This will return you $ 300 or more.

This is a tough debate, but if we're really honest about value, relevance, and overall performance, even if it's more expensive, Ryzen 9 is the best choice for a cheap CPU. But this does not mean that it is suitable for you.

If you are looking for pure single-core speed, the i9 9900K is definitely your best choice. The Thunderbolt connection of the supported motherboard provides some incredible zero-latency peripheral connections.

Having said that, with 12 cores and 8 multi-tasking capabilities, if your game supports multi-threading, Ryzen 9 3900X is a better choice.

Previous article Flight simulator intro games hardware

Leave a comment

Comments must be approved before appearing

* Required fields