vs 3700X. vs i9-9900K. We saw similar margins for the stock and overclocked results.In World of Tanks we see the 3900X performing 8% slower when looking at the average frame rate. Performance was perfectly acceptable but for maximum performance the 9900K does deliver the best results.Next up we have Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and this is another title where Intel is a little faster on average but you’ll never notice the ~4% reduction in average frame rates when using the 3900X. But no longer.That said, AMD’s 3900X is the cheaper of the two chips at this time at $434, while the 9900K sells for around $525.
The 9900K was faster overall but the 3900X was only 4% slower on average, so not a bad result for AMD.All testing took place at 1080p using an MSI RTX 2080 Ti graphics card to remove GPU bottlenecks. Both CPUs pushed frame rates up over 200fps nonetheless.Far Cry New Dawn isn’t a great title for AMD CPUs, though it’s not that bad either. But no PC purely games.
Then at extreme high frame rates, a 5% increase is going from 200 to 210 fps, which is not a margin worth getting too excited over.The third and final battle royale game we tested is PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. Ryzen does offer other advantages, but before we discuss that let’s look at the performance breakdown across all 36 games tested.StarCraft II was heavily requested for this comparison and we have to admit this is the first time we’ve benchmarked a worst case scenario in this title. Depends what you're doing, the 3900x dominates in heavy applications but the 9900k still has a slight gaming and linux advantage. In retaliation, it’s reduced prices to help stay competitive.The 3900X has seen a major increase in instructions per clock over its second-generation predecessors, so it’s more powerful than the 9900K clock for clock. Likewise, you’d go Intel if you needed every last frame possible, but short of that the 3900X is the better choice.Overall the Core i9-9900K is the faster gaming CPU as we had come to expect, though the margins are close in many titles. Here the 3900X was just 5% slower on average, so pushing the 9900K up to 5 GHz doesn’t give it an advantage.Despite offering silky smooth frame rates in Battlefield V, the 3900X was still quite a bit down on the 9900K, trailing by an 8% margin for the average frame rate and 11% for the 1% low. Needless to say, the gaming experience was indistinguishable between the two CPUs and both allowed the RTX 2080 Ti to render over 160 fps at all times.The second battle royale title we tested is Fortnite and while the 3900X was plenty fast, it still lagged behind. 9900K has the best single-core performance, therefore it is the best CPU for these kinds of games. More comparisons. Also no.It's not a bad buy but it's not good. Compare AMD Ryzen 9 3900 with... Other Ryzen 9 CPU: Any CPU: … Using the Corona benchmark, this time the 3900X was 3% faster than the 3700X. But picking between the top two options isn't easy. If you just want max speed, a 9700K may be enough.also, just in case you don't get a cpu soon the 3950x will come out in late september.Have you considered a 9900KF instead?I think it’s still a good buy if you’re going intel. vs 3950X. More and more games are making use of these newly available resources (aka more cores). 9900K for purely gaming. And it still cleaned up.In Geekbench and Cinebench, the 3900X decimated the 9900K in multithreaded performance, though its reduced clock speed meant it fell just shy of the Intel competition in single-threaded tasks. Core i9-9900K: Gaming Performance Scaling A quote from the article: We ran a full suite of gaming benchmarks on the top ten current graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia using Core i9-9900K and Ryzen 9 3900X to show just how much CPU you need to … We’ll look at the margins for all 36 games towards the end of the review, but first we'll go over and briefly discuss the findings for about a dozen of the titles tested.At launch we saw AMD claiming -- using their own benchmarks -- that the 3900X was faster than the 9900K in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and we have to admit we didn’t believe them. The margin did grow slightly once both CPUs were overclocked, now the 3900X is seen to be 10% slower.The only reason we’d invest in the 9900K right now would be if we played games such as StarCraft II full time. By comparison, Intel’s 8-core, 16 thread i9-9900K is available for $479 USD (and requires a cooler: $30+ USD). The new-generation battle for the most powerful processors is afoot. Overall the experience was much the same using either CPU.Another title where Ryzen seems to struggle is Shadow of the Tomb Raider and do note we’re not using the built-in benchmark which we believe would help out Ryzen's case. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen AMD Ryzen 9 3900X und Intel Core i9-9900K?
All this, plus a Wraith Prism cooler, at a very reasonable launch price of $499 USD. It does so at a lower TDP too, meaning it draws less power and requires less cooling for its highest performance.Copyright ©2020 Designtechnica Corporation. And it was never very good value. That’s where the somewhat marketing-driven TDP figure comes from.The 3900X can boost to 4.6GHz on a single core, but will be closer to 4.1GHz if using all cores and threads at the same time. So what we have here is a worst-case scenario and unfortunately for AMD, the Core i9 is up to 19% faster out of the box when comparing the average frame rate.Moving on to F1 2019, the 3900X was 7% slower out of the box, but once overclocked that margin was reduced to 3% as both processors enabled a similar level of performance.