Skip to content

5900x vs 10900k

This is a CPU war that started in the 1980s and nobody knew about it, not even Intel.

AMD began creating a licensed clone of the Intel CPU, slowly moving forward in its operations, and released its first flagship Ryzen CPU in 2016, which will challenge Intel's monopoly on the market.

Fast forward to today in 2020. Both companies have released new CPUs aimed at taking PC gaming to new heights, and the battle continues. So, in order to fully understand which one is the best for your gaming life, we will take a look at these two tech giants in detail.

We will verify its original specifications to get a general understanding of its functions, and then we will look at the components. After that, we will see their true composition and let them compete with each other in terms of pure performance.

Finally, we will consider the result and evaluate its value for money. Are you ready to enter the war zone?

Speaking of pure core muscles, the Ryzen 9 5900X is dominated by 12 multi-threaded cores. Although the i9 10900K also has a multi-threaded core architecture, it only has 10 cores in total.

Generally speaking, the more cores and threads a CPU has, the greater its processing power for parallel workflows. So yes, Ryzen 9 is among the best here, but what we find difficult is that Intel CPUs show more progress than Ryzen.

Intel's latest i9 9900K CPU series has only 8 cores, so the 10900K has been vastly improved. Ryzen has been releasing 12-core CPUs for many years. This may be because AMD wants to separate the market hierarchy. The 12-core may be what they are willing to go for at this price.

After that, you will pay a high price for an incredible expansion design-for example, the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X has 64 multi-threaded cores.

Here, we begin to understand exactly how these CPUs are better than their larger siblings. The basic clock speed of i9 10900K is 3.7GHz, which is 100MHz faster than 9900K. Interestingly, the 5900X has the same base frequency of 3.7GHz, but it is 100MHz lower than the Ryzen 3900X.

increased the clock to the maximum frequency, AMD CPU reached a considerable 4.8GHz, 200MHz faster than Ryzen 9 3900X.

But this is bad news for AMD, because the i9 10900K absolutely crushes its predecessor and 5900X, with a maximum speed increase of 5.3GHz. For this, we have a proprietary Intel Thermal Velocity Boost.

Neither CPU is locked, which means that they can be overclocked to take full advantage of the performance of these chips. You should be able to adjust the basic clock speed of Ryzen 9 to 4.7GHz with a voltage of 1.39V per core. 10900K can be overclocked to around 5.1GHz, so there is a lot of room for both, but Intel stands out here.

Intel has lagged behind AMD in memory systems in the past, but let's see if they manage to improve this time.

Ryzen 9 has a typical three-level cache system. The capacity division is performed as follows: L1 = 768Kb, L2 = 6MB, L3 = 64MB. This is an impressive cache setting, but it is exactly the same as the previous iteration of the 3000X series. It even supports the same 3200Mhz DDR4 memory system.

continues to use i9 10900K, we have carried out a large-scale upgrade to its latest series, but unfortunately, Intel has not done enough to replace Ryzen. You can expect the DDR42933 memory system to support a single 20MB Intel Smart Cache. The

specification attracted a lot of attention when the new CPU was released. This is a concise way for companies to advertise what the product is and what has changed since the last effort.

is also a good way to give consumers a general understanding of its features, but it should be noted that specifications are not everything. With this in mind, let us continue.

Although gamers have respect for Ryzen CPUs, it is no secret that Intel CPUs are faster in heavy single-core applications. This is mainly due to the CCD format of the AMD core. The

CCD stands for the core chip chip. In the past, AMD used a separately assembled CCX to make their CCD, but because it is not an integral component, the tiny pitch causes a small increase in delay, thereby reducing performance. game.

Fortunately, this is no longer the case for the 5000 series and its Zen 3 architecture. Their CCD is designed as a complete package and can directly access the L3 cache, which greatly reduces the delay during the game.

Ryzen 9 put the i9 10900K on the back of the head in this regard, because AMD still has the exclusive rights to PCI 4.0 technology, just like Intel has exclusive rights to its Thunderbolt interface. For many players, this is a source of trouble, because ideally, we want the system to have two installations.

Intel pays for PCI Express 3.0 again. It has the same channel as 4.0, but the data transfer speed between your computer and external hardware is only half of 4.0.

Many motherboards are oriented towards PCIE 4.0, but it is not so common at present. If you are single-minded about Ryzen, but you don't have a fully supported motherboard, don't worry. 0.4 will work on port 0.3, but the motherboard has parameters set, so your 0.4 will work at PCIE 0.3 speed.

This may be bad news for those who have no plans to upgrade their motherboards to adapt to the new CPU, because Intel has released the 10th generation chip using the new LGA 1200 socket.

Although this is for a

Under the X470 and B540 boards.

Therefore, AMD’s agenda seems to focus on inclusiveness, while Intel’s focus is on the future. Either way, this could be a tough deal breaker for you. It would be great to save money on the motherboard, but did you postpone the inevitable? Meeting future needs now may be preferable to waiting until your system is completely obsolete.

As you have noticed in the past, Intel generally equips its high-end CPUs with integrated graphics, and the 10900K is no exception. Included in the price, you can expect 350Mhz baseband Intel UHD 360 graphics with 4K support.

So what can Ryzen 9 get you? Nothing, nothing, nothing. When choosing between these two CPUs, this is definitely something to consider, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker.

In any case, all of your enhanced button crushers may want to replace or run something alongside Intel's graphics tools, so you need additional support either way.

In the past, AMD included a cooling system in its CPU. For example, the 3900X is equipped with Wraith Prism fans. It serves as a trade-off for not having built-in graphics capabilities.

Unfortunately, they gave up the fan this time, and we know they might replace it with a more efficient fan or fluid system anyway, but they don’t seem to bring much benefit here. In other words, it may be the best when considering cost, but we will talk about it later. AMD

has a core surplus, making 5900X a more suitable CPU for multitasking. For example, if you are an avid presenter, 24 threads will greatly help you make games and videos run smoothly.

But 10900K did not stop here to accept defeat. DirectX support is a feature of your integrated graphics system that supports the use of multimedia. To be honest it still won't compete with 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads, but this is a nice touch.

-core test, Ryzen 9 5900X completely wiped out the i9 10900K. Even with faster clock speeds and Intel's famously powerful single-core performance, Ryzen still runs 10900K.

is not only the second-tier Ryzen that dominates the single-threaded Cinebench test, but even the Ryzen 7 5800X also reduces the performance of the i9 10900K by about 20%. The

10900K managed to restore some dignity in the dual-threaded Cinebench test, but it still can't compete with the extra cores in the 5900X. The

5900X almost even beat the 16-core Ryzen 3950X, which was the best in its latest batch of products.

Ryzens also beat 10900K in the Adobe Premiere Pro benchmark test, although the difference isn't all that surprising.

In the HandBrake 4K video encoding test, Ryzen beat the i9 10900K at a normal speed by just over 20 points, and the overclocking was only under 20 points.

7Zip is a compression performance test. Ryzen 9 5900X conquered i9 10900K at 37% speed.

Even with the number of stacked cores, the energy efficiency of Ryzen 9 5900X is much higher than 10900K, reducing 30 watts on average under the same load.

A note on TDP: Before we delve into the actual FPS benchmark, let us consider the TDP of these CPUs. TDP (Thermal Design Power), in watts, refers to the maximum energy that a single application can consume and the maximum heat that the cooling system can protect. The

5900X and its predecessor have a TDP rating of 105 watts, but by increasing their chip efficiency by 24%, the power per watt will be higher.

Intel’s i9 10900K has a seemingly better TDP rating of 125 watts, but Ryzen 9’s 105 watts has 24% reaching 25.2, which means that if AMD’s efficiency statement is correct, its TDP relative operating power is about 130.2 watt. Coupled with its excellent number of cores, you have a CPU that surpasses Intel in speed for the first time in 15 years. Let us find out!

runs these CPUs at 1080p for games such as Metro Exodus and Total War: Three Kingdoms. This is an incredibly fierce competition, and everyone gets the smallest victory based on the game. It is obvious that AMD has solved the delay problem once and for all.

For games such as Horizon Zero Dawn, Tomb Raider: Shadow and Wolfenstein: Blood of Youth, we see that the 5900X has an advantage over Intel's competitors. When these two were used to run Death Stranding, it also achieved an impressive 12% lead.

10900K is good in many games, such as F1 2020, Watch Dogs: Legion, and Borderlands 3, but the gap has never been large enough to declare its overwhelming victory. Intel scored big wins here and there, beating out the 5900X in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege and Far Cry New Dawn.

In short, I think AMD is indisputable to rival Intel in games. The 5900X and 10900K average speed is around 214FPS (depending on the game played), so Intel may have lost its last bastion of performance.

Here you'll be very happy that Ryzen 9 doesn't have all the bells and whistles like a cooling system or graphics card, which brings the price down slightly. The price of the AMD

CPU is much better than Intel's flagship CPU.

This seems to happen with every iteration. In the past it was due to the number of cores and PCIE 4.0. This time around, Ryzen is racing Intel where they really live, their speed.

10900K is in almost every aspect of performance and combined frame by frame, you may find it difficult to reconcile the almost constant format with the high price. On the other hand, Intel

underperformed, but its significant improvements to the 9000K series are countless and impressive. Both

CPUs were recently released so the price will be very high. If you're a bargain hunter, you won't find it on these two CPUs for at least a few years, especially the 5900X.

is just as impressive as Ryzen's core performance, and its performance almost meets expectations. AMD's core build is better than Intel's in most previous iterations. The astonishing speed displayed by Ryzen really surprised us.

With that said, these two CPUs are great, and we're sure they will both develop a stubborn following. Ryzen is technically better, but for fast-response, high-quality games, neither can go wrong.

Update - See our Where to Buy page for more information on these CPUs:

For years, Intel has been the king of high-end gaming CPUs. AMD has always been a leader in building workstations that require higher memory cache and multi-core performance, and Intel's higher single-threaded performance means it performs better than historically in gaming. However, with the new release of the Ryzen 9 5000 CPU, AMD's goal is to combine the advantages of its workstation with the gaming performance that can win the crown from Intel. 5900X is AMD’s direct challenge to the enthusiast-level Intel i910900K, the leader in the gaming processor industry. Let's take a closer look at whether AMD's ambitions have been successful and which competing CPUs are worth the money.

Speed

3.7 GHz / 4.8 GHz

Core (cable)

12/24

Plug

AM4

TDP

105 W

Speed

3.7 4 GHz 4 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 GHz Plug 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz Plug FCLGA1200

TDP

125 W

Although the engineering processes of the two CPU manufacturers are quite different and the utility of direct comparison is limited, we can still get some information from them. AMD CPUs have a larger number of caches and cores, which are usually necessary for the best performance of AMD’s dominant workstations, but Intel has a higher single-core and accelerated clock speed of all cores, usually people in games The area to look for-focus on CPU. The process size of each CPU is also different. Intel's products are still based on the previous 14nm format, while AMD's processors are 7nm. Generally speaking, the smaller the process size, the more transistors that can be placed in the CPU, and the higher the performance that can be designed under the same chip size and different manufacturing processes; however, this is not always the case.

The last thing to consider is of course the price difference. Different from previous years, AMD charged a price higher than Intel by US$50 for its competitors' processors. The higher price shows that they are confident in the superior performance of their products.

As mentioned earlier, workstation performance has been dominated by AMD in the past few years. Its excellent cache and multi-core performance are Intel’s decisive factors. Intel’s processors have always had advantages in single clock speed and overclocking. As expected, the 5900X is much better than the Intel i910900K in terms of workstation usage.

As mentioned earlier, workstation performance has been dominated by AMD in the past few years. Its excellent cache and multi-core performance are Intel’s decisive factors. Intel’s processors have always had advantages in single clock speed and overclocking. As expected, the 5900X is much better than the Intel i910900K in terms of workstation usage.

is different from the more expensive $250 5950X. The target customers of the 5950X are creatives and professionals who want desktop computers to handle workstation tasks in addition to games; the 5900X and its predecessor, the 3900X, are mainly for enthusiast gamers. However, this is not to say that you will not be able to gain some of the productivity of a multi-core CPU on these tasks. As can be seen from the above benchmark test, the rendering speed and multi-core performance of the new 5900X are still very competitive. Surprisingly, in some areas of workstation use, the performance of the 5900X even surpasses the old 3950X, which used to be the favorite of small and medium-sized amateurs and creative professionals; overall, although the 3950X still has you Expected advantages for more cores and threads.

If you are looking for suitable workstation equipment, we recommend that you look for a 16-core 5950X, or, if your budget is limited, please consider using a second-hand 3950X. The exception is if you are only interested in the performance of software such as Adobe Photoshop, which mainly relies on single-core speed rather than multi-core use. For most other visual effects and editing software and streaming media use, 5950X is your best choice. However, when comparing the 5900X with Intel's i910900K for workstations, the 5900X definitely stands out.

single clock speed is still the main factor in gaming (and a few workstation tasks using Adobe Photoshop), and this is an area where Intel has historically dominated. Although newer games are beginning to use multi-processor capabilities, at least for the next two years, single-core performance remains the main concern.

As mentioned earlier, the clock speed of 5900X is lower than i910900K. Although the base frequency of both is 3.7Ghz, in fact the base frequency only represents a theoretical idle frequency. Most CPUs rarely drop to this level, and certainly not in games. In terms of single core boost clock, the Intel processor is 0.5Ghz higher than 5900X, but the clock speed is only part

Let's take a look at some of the benchmarks below to see how these two processors compare.

single clock speed is still the main factor in gaming (and a few workstation tasks using Adobe Photoshop), and this is an area where Intel has historically dominated. Although newer games are beginning to use multi-processor capabilities, at least for the next two years, single-core performance remains the main concern.

As mentioned earlier, the clock speed of 5900X is lower than i910900K. Although the base frequency of both is 3.7Ghz, the actual base frequency only represents the theoretical idle frequency. Most CPUs rarely drop to this level, and certainly not in games. In terms of single-core accelerated clock, the Intel processor is 0.5Ghz higher than the 5900X, but the clock speed is only part of the performance story. The architectural improvements of AMD Zen 3 CPU have brought about a substantial increase in instructions per clock (IPC), so the total number of instructions that the 5900X can execute at any given time is actually slightly higher than that of the i910900K, even at the lowest clock speed. The actual FPS performance of

will of course vary from game to game, so let's take a look at some benchmarks below to see a comparison of the two processors.

Although the results of Microsoft Flight Sim are only slightly better than i910900K, in "Tomb Raider: Shadow", we saw an average FPS increase of 10%, while Counter-Strike: Global Offensive increased by 26%. Other benchmark tests may show changes in FPS results, but based on these numbers, we believe that the 5900X has a high value. This is especially true if you are considering purchasing a new Radeon 6000 series graphics card, which we will introduce below.

The last thing to consider when weighing whether to choose the 5900X or i910900K (if the above is not enough) is whether you plan to buy a new Radeon 6000 series graphics card from AMD. As we explain in more depth here, the Smart Access Memory (SAM) feature enables Ryzen 5000 series CPUs to gain extra performance by using GPU memory more efficiently. In the games that AMD showed us, its performance The range is between 2% and 13 times After the launch of the new Radeon 6000 series graphics card, we will better understand its authenticity, but so far, AMD data is accurate after independent testing.

Although it could be argued that until recently, the Intel i910900K was the only CPU that could take full advantage of higher-end Nvidia cards (like RTX 3090), but pairing a specific manufacturer's CPU with a GPU didn't actually report many benefits. in the past. AMD's push for its CPU and GPU synergy now gives potential customers an incentive to buy these two components from the red team.

When comparing AMD Ryzen 9 5900X to Intel i910900K, the benchmark test speaks for itself. In fact, AMD has achieved impressive results with the performance they managed to get from the same 7nm process, and at least Intel, which is still at 14nm, seems to be behind them. Overall, the 5900X outperforms the i910900K in gaming and workstation use. Although this difference may seem small in some games, it is very significant in other games. Although the Intel i910900K is $ 50 cheaper, it's hard to find a reason to recommend buying more than the 5900X unless its price drops significantly on the second-hand market.

This is especially true when you consider the FPS gain between the 5900X and Intel i910900K shown in the benchmark chart above, without even considering the smart access memory that has not been tested. If you plan to buy Radeon 6000 series graphics cards anyway, SAM is essentially an extra free performance, if you pair Radeon GPUs with new Intel processors, you will really miss it.

If you already own an i910900K, the difference in FPS improvement (which is impressive in some games) may not be worth buying a 5900X unless you can get a good resale price for your existing i910900K from the second-hand market. However, if you can get a good price and want to buy a Radeon 6000 graphics card, then going to the red team to buy a CPU is also a powerful machine.

Speed

3.7 GHz / 4.8 GHz

Core (cable)

12/24

Plug

AM4

TDP

105 W

Speed

3.7 4 GHz 4 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 GHz Plug 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz Plug FCLGA1200

TDP

125 W

Previous article Flight simulator intro games hardware

Leave a comment

Comments must be approved before appearing

* Required fields