Skip to content

Best laptop mouse

This is a CPU war that began in the 1980s, and no one, including Intel, knew it.

AMD started by creating a licensed clone of Intel CPU, slowly advancing its operations, and in 2016 announced their first flagship Ryzen CPU, which will challenge Intel’s monopoly in the market.

Fast forward to today in 2020. Both companies have released new CPUs designed to take PC gaming to new heights, and the battle continues. Therefore, in order to let you know which one might be more suitable for your gaming life, we will learn more about these two technological giants.

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 yeah, Ryzen 9 is among the best here, but what's tricky for us is that Intel's 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 due to AMD's desire to separate the market tier. At this price, 12 cores can be anything you want. After

, you will pay a lot of money for surprisingly widespread designs. For example, the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X has 64 multi-threaded cores.

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

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

is bad news for AMD in this regard, because the i9 10900K completely breaks its predecessor and 5900X, with a maximum speed increase of 5.3GHz. To this end, we have the patented Intel Thermal Velocity Boost. Both

CPUs are unlocked, which means they can be overclocked to maximize the performance of these chips. You should be able to adjust the Ryzen 9's base clock speed to 4.7GHz with a voltage of 1.39V per core. 10900K can be overclocked to around 5.1GHz, so there's plenty of room for both, but Intel is among the best here.

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

Ryzen 9 has a typical level 3 cache system. The capacity split runs as follows: L1 = 768Kb, L2 = 6MB, L3 = 64MB. This is a great cache setup, but it's 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 made a big improvement on its previous 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. When the new CPU was released, the

specification attracted a lot of attention. This is a concise way for the company to promote what the product is and what has changed since the last effort.

This is also a great way to give consumers a general idea of its features, but it's important to note that specs aren't everything. With this in mind, let's continue.

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

CCD means the central small chip chip. In the past, AMD used separate CCXs to mount together to make their CCDs, but because they are not integral components, the small gap causes a small increase in latency, reducing game performance.

Fortunately, this is no longer the case for the 5000 series and its Zen 3 architecture. Their CCDs are 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 once again settled for PCI Express 3.0. 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 geared towards PCIE 4.0, but they are not that common these days. If you're determined to Ryzen but don't have a fully supported motherboard, don't worry. 0.4 will work on port 0.3, but the motherboard is parameterized so your 0.4 will work at PCIE 0.3 speed.

For those who do not plan to upgrade the motherboard to accommodate the new CPU, this may be bad news, because Intel has released the 10th generation chip using the new LGA 1200 socket. Chapter

Under the X470 and B540 boards.

So, as Intel looks to the future, AMD's agenda seems to be focused on inclusiveness. 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 capabilities with 4K support.

So what did you get with Ryzen 9? Nothing, nothing, nothing, this is definitely something to consider when choosing between these two CPUs, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

All of your enhanced button crushers may want to replace or run something alongside Intel's graphics tools anyway, so you'll 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. We know you 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 anchor, 24 threads will greatly help to make games and videos run smoothly.

But 10900K did not look back and accepted the failure here. DirectX support is a feature of the 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 good touch.

Speaking of core running points, Ryzen 9 5900X completely kills i9 10900K. Even with faster clock speeds and Intel’s famous single-core performance, Ryzen still cannot run 10900K normally.

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

10900K has regained some dignity in the dual-thread Cinebench benchmark test, but it still cannot compete with the additional cores of the 5900X. The

5900X even almost beat the 16-core Ryzen 3950X, which is the essence of its latest product.

Ryzens also beat 10900K in the Adobe Premiere Pro benchmark test, although the difference is not that shocking.

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

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

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 24% of 105 watts hits 25.2, which means if AMD's efficiency claims are correct, your TDP works. at 130.2 watts. Add in its excellent core count and you have a CPU that can finally beat Intel for the first time in over 15 years. Let's find out!

runs these CPUs at 1080p for games like Metro Exodus and Total War: Three Kingdoms. This is a very fierce game, and each of them has won a trivial victory based on the game. It's obvious that AMD has solved the lag problem once and for all.

For games like Horizon Zero Dawn, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Blood of the Youth of the German Headquarters, we see that the 5900X is way ahead of Intel's competitors. When these two were used to run Death Stranding, he also achieved an impressive 12% lead.

has many games that 10900K excels at, 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 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 will be happy that Ryzen 9 does not have all the bells and whistles like a cooling system or a graphics card, thus reducing the price. The price of

AMD CPU is much better than Intel's flagship CPU.

This seems to happen every iteration, and in the past, this was due to the number of cores and PCIE 4.0. This time, Ryzen is competing with Intel, and their real position is speed.

10900K is in almost every aspect of performance and to match the frame you may find it difficult to reconcile the near 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 as impressive as Ryzen's core performance, and its performance is almost in line with expectations. AMD's core build is better than Intel's in most previous iterations. The astonishing speed Ryzen displayed really surprised us.

Having said that, these two CPUs are great, and we're sure they'll all become stubborn fans. Ryzen is technically better, but for high-quality, fast-response 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 gaming performance that can win the Intel crown. 5900X is AMD's direct challenge to the gaming processor industry leader, Intel's enthusiast i910900K. Let's take a closer look at whether AMD's ambitions have been successful and which competing CPUs are worth their money.

speed 3.7 GHz / 4.8 GHz

core (wire)

12/24

socket

AM4 TDP

105W

speed 3.7 GHz / 5.3 GHz

core (wire)

10/20

socket

FCLGA1200 TDP

125W

Although the engineering processes of the two CPU manufacturers are different and the usefulness of direct comparison is limited, we can still collect some information from them. AMD CPUs have higher caches and core counts, and generally require better performance from the AMD-led workstation, but Intel has higher full-core and single-core accelerated clock speeds, which are generally what people want. look in the field of gaming-focused CPUs. 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 for the same chip size, but this is not always the case considering the difference in manufacturing technology. case.

The last thing to consider is of course the price difference. Unlike in previous years, AMD’s price of its rival processors is $50 higher than Intel’s, and the higher prices indicate that they are confident in the superior performance of their products.

As mentioned above, workstation performance has been a dominant area for AMD in the past few years. Its excellent cache and multi-core performance are Intel’s decisive factors, and Intel’s processors have always had the upper hand in terms of performance. About single clock speed and overclocking. As expected, the 5900X's performance in workstation use is much better than the Intel i910900K.

As mentioned above, workstation performance has been AMD's dominant field in recent years. Its excellent multi-core performance and cache are Intel's deciding factors. Intel processors have always had advantages in single clock speed and overclocking. Unsurprisingly, the 5900X is far better than the Intel i910900K in terms of workstation usage. The

is different from the 5950X, which costs more than $ 250. The 5950X's target customers are creatives and professionals who want a desktop computer that can handle gaming and workstation tasks; the 5900X and its predecessor, the 3900X, are primarily for enthusiasts. players. However, this is not to say that you won't be able to get some multicore CPU productivity 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 certain workstation applications, the performance of the 5900X is even better than the old 3950X, which used to be the favorite of small and medium-sized amateurs and creative professionals; all in all, although the 3950X still has more The desired advantage of the number of 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 to Intel's i910900K for workstations, the 5900X is definitely among the best. The

single clock speed is still the main factor in gaming (and some workstation tasks, like using Adobe Photoshop), and this is also an area where Intel has historically dominated. Although newer games are beginning to take advantage of multiprocessor capabilities, for the next few years at least, single-core performance remains the primary concern.

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

Let's take a look at some 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 the power of multi-processors, at least for the next few 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 the AMD Zen 3 CPU have resulted in a significant increase in the number of 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 the

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 5900X represents a great 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 get extra performance by using GPU memory more efficiently. In the games that AMD showed us, their performance ranges from 2% to an additional 13 FPS. 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 you could argue 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 really bring much of a benefit. in the past. AMD's promotion of the synergy of its CPU and GPU is now incentivizing potential customers to purchase the two components of the red team.

When comparing AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with Intel i910900K, the benchmark test speaks for itself. AMD has actually achieved impressive performance, they managed to use the same 7nm process to obtain some impressive performance, and at least Intel, which is still at 14nm, seems to be behind. Overall, the 5900X outperforms the i910900K in games and workstations. Although this difference seems small in some games, it is very significant in other games. Although the Intel i910900K is $50 cheaper, it is difficult to find a reason to recommend buying more than 5900X unless its price drops significantly in 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 a free performance add-on, and 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 the existing secondary market i910900K. 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 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 4 GHz 4 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