Amd 3900x vs Intel 9900k

Fishfly · Jul 9, 2019

Hi all

So with all the hype surrounding how great 3900x is over the Intel 9900k, on the international scene people are raving about the costs vs core performance of the 3900x @ 1080 resolutions.

I haven't really seen anyone talk about the 1440 or 2160 resolutions nor the ludicrous costs of the x570 motherboards.

Back here in SA, reality is 9900K is around R9300 vs rumoured 3900x priced at R9700.
board of the Intel starts from the 2k mark for the z390, while on the x570 starts around the 4k mark.

Benchmarks seems to indicate AMD outperforms Intel on multi threaded applications. While gaming the Intel still seems to hold a tiny advantage over AMD

I am considering on upgrading from my current 4790 to the newer tech, what are your guys thoughts? Should I wait a couple months and see what Intel comes up with?

I do software dev work and some gaming (minimum) now days so priority doesn't really matter - just a matter of a new tech that will keep running for the next 5-10(hopefully) years

Petester · Jul 9, 2019

Well you should get neither. Upgrade to a i7 9700K / 9700KF or Ryzen 7 3700X. Depending on your preference.

You could just get a decent B450 or X470 board if you go Ryzen 3000. B450 Tomahawk is recommended by many reviewers due to it having solid VRM's.
Plenty of nice X470 boards out there.
PCIe 4.0 is not a big deal in my opinion.
The general rule is AMD is good at everything. Intel generally better at gaming if you are not streaming .
As for future proofing . I have a feeling next gen Ryzen might very well be on a different socket so no different from the next Ice Lake Intel CPU's expected early next year.

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 9, 2019

Let's not be forgetting the 3800x
The only reason AMD didn't send it out for the first round of review is because it would have made the 3900x look bad in my opinion.

Petester · Jul 9, 2019

SCHUMI4EVER said:
Let's not be forgetting the 3800x
The only reason AMD didn't send it out for the first round of review is because it would have made the 3900x look bad in my opinion.

True but seems like it's just a better binned 3700X and is going to be R1200 more expensive here which seems a bit too much.
Not one reviewer got a 3800X so you're definitely correct on that front

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 9, 2019

Petester said:
I have a feeling next gen Ryzen might very well be on a different socket so no different from the next Ice Lake Intel CPU's expected early next year.

Futureproof doesn't refer to upgrade path but rather how long a part will kick ass.

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 9, 2019

Petester said:
True but seems like it's just a better binned 3700X and is going to be R1200 more expensive here which seems a bit too much.
Not one reviewer got a 3800X so you're definitely correct on that front

Does seem a bit too much. But higher stock clocks (and higher boost clocks) mean plenty to me so to me personally it might be worth it.
I prefer getting my increased performance from the factory rather than having to try to attain it myself.

(just like I favoured Q9550 compared to the Q6600 everyone else was rocking)

CRE4MPIE · Jul 9, 2019

AMD is shit - don't waste your money !

I bet you have an android phone and run Linux somewhere as well ...

Fishfly · Jul 9, 2019

CRE4MPIE said:
AMD is shit - don't waste your money !

I bet you have an android phone and run Linux somewhere as well ...

lol care to elobrate

Only linux I had was a CentOS vm

CRE4MPIE · Jul 9, 2019

Fishfly said:
lol care to elobrate

Only linux I had was a CentOS vm

Intel and Nvidia have been the market leaders in innovation and performance for modern desktop platforms for some years now. I have yet to see anything from AMD that blows me away and makes me say, shit - they are really setting the benchmark here.

You can find many of these tech feuds, some of which are still ongoing where some underdog comes with tech that has been available from mainline market leaders for years

Linux vs Microsoft
Android vs iOS
AMD vs Intel
AMD vs Nvidia
Trump vs Mexico

Insert your favourite names here

In the end though, it comes down to personal preferences and affordability. I'm sure we'll all be driving Ferrari's if we could afford em ( even though sometimes it makes no sense )

CP out

Petester · Jul 9, 2019

SCHUMI4EVER said:
Does seem a bit too much. But higher stock clocks (and higher boost clocks) mean plenty to me so to me personally it might be worth it.
I prefer getting my increased performance from the factory rather than having to try to attain it myself.

(just like I favoured Q9550 compared to the Q6600 everyone else was rocking)

It seems the guys are struggling to get much out of the new Ryzen CPU's anyway.
Also seems all core OC performance was unpredictable compared to stock where the CPU boosted when it was required. Might just be the new chipset and more specifically the BIOS that needs some updates.
PS: Q6600 was the easiest overclock ever . 3.0Ghz with one BIOS setting while you were struggling to keep up at 2.83Ghz

Ner0 · Jul 9, 2019

Fishfly said:
Hi all

So with all the hype surrounding how great 3900x is over the Intel 9900k, on the international scene people are raving about the costs vs core performance of the 3900x @ 1080 resolutions.

I haven't really seen anyone talk about the 1440 or 2160 resolutions nor the ludicrous costs of the x570 motherboards.

Back here in SA, reality is 9900K is around R9300 vs rumoured 3900x priced at R9700.
board of the Intel starts from the 2k mark for the z390, while on the x570 starts around the 4k mark.

Benchmarks seems to indicate AMD outperforms Intel on multi threaded applications. While gaming the Intel still seems to hold a tiny advantage over AMD

I am considering on upgrading from my current 4790 to the newer tech, what are your guys thoughts? Should I wait a couple months and see what Intel comes up with?

I do software dev work and some gaming (minimum) now days so priority doesn't really matter - just a matter of a new tech that will keep running for the next 5-10(hopefully) years

I would go for a nice second hand 2700x and x470 for 1440p gaming, the 2700x and x470 prices will drop soon on the secondhand market most will still have enough warranty should you run in to issues in the future the supplier will replace it with new stuff anyways if there is no more x470 and 2700x's available.

I am Currently on 2700x,x470,1080ti perfect for 1440p gaming, dont see the need for myself to gain 3 to 10 fps on some games as most games are running way past 60fps anyhow.

But it all comes down to personal preference i have had R 7 1700,R7 1800x,8600k,9600k,9700k and they all felt the same on 1440p except for the first gen ryzen there was some oc issues and stuttering issues but this was on launch so dont know how much it has improved with newer bios updates and so.

If you only plan on gaming get an i5 9600k or i7 9700k, if you plan to game and multi task on a second monitor get a 2700 or 2700x

I really want the 3900x myself just purely for the 12 cores and firestrike score(but i know its not worth the money now) But i still might end up getting it amd has a great future ahead, new consoles will be using the new amd tech so lekker market shares for them, should the consoles get gddr6 that will automatically help with gaming development on pc with the new rx 5700 cards.

PCI 4.0 sure does not help much for Gpu's performance at this stage but more and faster nvme drives will come that support it.

So ultimately to end Why buy old gen tech when you can get latest gen for the same price give or take?

I am not a fan boy of either amd or intel if your a fan boy well then no need to take anyone's advice

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 9, 2019

Petester said:
PS: Q6600 was the easiest overclock ever . 3.0Ghz with one BIOS setting while you were struggling to keep up at 2.83Ghz

True. But I could just as easily get to 3.2Ghz.

I think I even had 3.6Ghz stable at one point but backed it off cuz my cooler was ass and the chip was hitting in the very high 70s.
Back then I still cared about overclocking. Over time though I backed it off and got over it and when it came to hunt for the next chip I decided I wasn't gonna bother with overclocking again.

Fishfly · Jul 9, 2019

Nerozki said:
I would go for a nice second hand 2700x and x470 for 1440p gaming, the 2700x and x470 prices will drop soon on the secondhand market most will still have enough warranty should you run in to issues in the future the supplier will replace it with new stuff anyways if there is no more x470 and 2700x's available.

I am Currently on 2700x,x470,1080ti perfect for 1440p gaming, dont see the need for myself to gain 3 to 10 fps on some games as most games are running way past 60fps anyhow.

But it all comes down to personal preference i have had R 7 1700,R7 1800x,8600k,9600k,9700k and they all felt the same on 1440p except for the first gen ryzen there was some oc issues and stuttering issues but this was on launch so dont know how much it has improved with newer bios updates and so.

If you only plan on gaming get an i5 9600k or i7 9700k, if you plan to game and multi task on a second monitor get a 2700 or 2700x

I really want the 3900x myself just purely for the 12 cores and firestrike score(but i know its not worth the money now) But i still might end up getting it amd has a great future ahead, new consoles will be using the new amd tech so lekker market shares for them, should the consoles get gddr6 that will automatically help with gaming development on pc with the new rx 5700 cards.

PCI 4.0 sure does not help much for Gpu's performance at this stage but more and faster nvme drives will come that support it.

So ultimately to end Why buy old gen tech when you can get latest gen for the same price give or take?

I am not a fan boy of either amd or intel if your a fan boy well then no need to take anyone's advice

No no fanboy-ism here, just looking to upgrade very old tech on DDR3 - my machine has been running for the last 5 years and I can feel it's taking some strain (masked by my nvme ssd)

I'm leaning towards the 9900k at this point in time as I need a MATA board (only 1 x570 variant by ASROCK which isn't even on the market yet). Also looking to get a monoblock to cover the CPU and VRM to reduce the temps. Whereas with AMD I'll have to wait a while before all the parts are available

SILTECH786 · Jul 9, 2019

9700k/9900k should be your aim team red is doing impressive things but they are not intel fortunately leaders in this game decades over

Mister Wobbles · Jul 9, 2019

SILTECH786 said:
9700k/9900k should be your aim team red is doing impressive things but they are not intel fortunately leaders in this game decades over

Looking at the benchmarks of the Ryzen 3000 series it doesn't seem like that is true any more. Intel still holds the lead in gaming for single threaded games and is on par or worse for games which can take advantage of many threads.

Intel for pure gaming, AMD for anything else.

WernerC · Jul 9, 2019

You say that you only game occasionally and do mostly dev work so go check the GNU code compiler benchmarks that GN ran. The 3900x were miles faster than the 9900k. Even the 3600 beat the 9900k. Don't know if this is relevant to the type of coding you do though.

WernerC · Jul 9, 2019

SILTECH786 said:
9700k/9900k should be your aim team red is doing impressive things but they are not intel fortunately leaders in this game decades over

Decades? Do you remember the POS the Pentium 4 were compared to the Athlon 64? I think each company has had its ups and downs. AMD more so though. But at the moment, AMD is kicking ass and just choosing a CPU, because Intel....eish

Fishfly · Jul 10, 2019

WernerC said:
You say that you only game occasionally and do mostly dev work so go check the GNU code compiler benchmarks that GN ran. The 3900x were miles faster than the 9900k. Even the 3600 beat the 9900k. Don't know if this is relevant to the type of coding you do though.

Ye I have been keeping my eye on this:

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Ryzen 9 3900X Offer Incredible Linux Performance But With A Big Caveat Review - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Review

The flagship of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is a 12-core, 24-thread monster. Never before have we seen such power on a desktop platform. Priced at $500, this processor is very strong competition for Intel's Core i9-9900, which only has eight cores.

www.techpowerup.com

The second article covers a lot of base applications I use, VMWare, Compilers in Java, JS, C++ etc.

So essentially for me what it boils down to is the following within the next 2 months:
1. Components availability (CPU, mobo, Waterblock)
2. Temps
3. Performance

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 10, 2019

WernerC said:
Decades? Do you remember the POS the Pentium 4 were compared to the Athlon 64? I think each company has had its ups and downs. AMD more so though. But at the moment, AMD is kicking ass and just choosing a CPU, because Intel....eish

Ok. Not decades, not yet. It's been one and a half decades, but it kinda feels like 3.

WernerC · Jul 10, 2019

SCHUMI4EVER said:
Ok. Not decades, not yet. It's been one and a half decades, but it kinda feels like 3.

1.3 Decades and that includes the last two years for Intel which some would argue is not completely true

Areola Grande · Jul 10, 2019

I think that it depends on a few things. Are you streaming? The AMD holds up better when streaming and playing at high resolutions.

I also think the initial OCs aren't indicative of all that's possible. Once we have some BIOS revisions I think things will improve on that front.

I'd go AMD purely out of principle anyway - Intel sat on their laurels for years due to no real competition. AMD, with more money for R&D etc, could bring a harder fight to Intel, in turn making Intel work harder and thus we as consumers benefit.

SCHUMI4EVER · Jul 10, 2019

WernerC said:
1.3 Decades and that includes the last two years for Intel which some would argue is not completely true

Gaming performance since just about 2005 thank you very much. And still not beaten so well on the way to 2 decades.

And yes, I had a Athlon64.

JollyJamma · Jul 11, 2019

Fishfly said:
Hi all

So with all the hype surrounding how great 3900x is over the Intel 9900k, on the international scene people are raving about the costs vs core performance of the 3900x @ 1080 resolutions.

I haven't really seen anyone talk about the 1440 or 2160 resolutions nor the ludicrous costs of the x570 motherboards.

Back here in SA, reality is 9900K is around R9300 vs rumoured 3900x priced at R9700.
board of the Intel starts from the 2k mark for the z390, while on the x570 starts around the 4k mark.

Benchmarks seems to indicate AMD outperforms Intel on multi threaded applications. While gaming the Intel still seems to hold a tiny advantage over AMD

I am considering on upgrading from my current 4790 to the newer tech, what are your guys thoughts? Should I wait a couple months and see what Intel comes up with?

I do software dev work and some gaming (minimum) now days so priority doesn't really matter - just a matter of a new tech that will keep running for the next 5-10(hopefully) years

1) Both will work well
2) AMD offers better value since you can use a B450 board and it'll be fine and you'll need to get a R950 cooler for the Intel option
3) Single thread performance is still better on the 9900K which means gaming is better (slightly)
4) AMD is still updating drivers and BIOS so it will continue to improve in games over the current reviews
5) This is the last gen for AM4 and the last socket for 1151 - There are new 10th gen Intel processors coming with more cores and higher clocks
6) I'd get a 3700X and a B450 Tomahawk if I was you, it's what I would get if I was most people.
7) At 1440P, there's little difference between the 2 processors in gaming performance but AMD smashes Intel in multitasking workloads.
8) Cheaper AMD motherboards will come out, just like the B450 boards did after the X470.

If you do software Dev work, either will work. I just think AMD could work really well for you and be cheaper.

Fishfly · Jul 11, 2019

JollyJamma said:
1) Both will work well
2) AMD offers better value since you can use a B450 board and it'll be fine and you'll need to get a R950 cooler for the Intel option
3) Single thread performance is still better on the 9900K which means gaming is better (slightly)
4) AMD is still updating drivers and BIOS so it will continue to improve in games over the current reviews
5) This is the last gen for AM4 and the last socket for 1151 - There are new 10th gen Intel processors coming with more cores and higher clocks
6) I'd get a 3700X and a B450 Tomahawk if I was you, it's what I would get if I was most people.
7) At 1440P, there's little difference between the 2 processors in gaming performance but AMD smashes Intel in multitasking workloads.
8) Cheaper AMD motherboards will come out, just like the B450 boards did after the X470.

If you do software Dev work, either will work. I just think AMD could work really well for you and be cheaper.

Thanks for that, at the moment I'm not looking at anything other than 3900x and 9900k and mobo wise x570m vs the z390m (have a bitfenix case atm - I do not want to change)

JollyJamma · Jul 11, 2019

Fishfly said:
Thanks for that, at the moment I'm not looking at anything other than 3900x and 9900k and mobo wise x570m vs the z390m (have a bitfenix case atm - I do not want to change)

Both would work very nicely, the one thing that might swing things AMD is the security patches required for the new vulnerabilities in Intels Processors.

Zen 2 is, apparently, not affected..

New Intel security flaw affects CPUs as far back as 2008

Researchers say the new MDS attacks are 'worse than Spectre.'

www.pcgamer.com

Morne Jordaan · Jul 11, 2019

Hi there man well I upgraded from a 3570non K to a 9900K and I absolutely love it , honestly if it brings a smile to your face why not.

And me personally I would much rather go for a Z390 mobo then a B450 just my verdict hence you got a beasty cpu you want a lekker looking mobo as well.

And from my personal exprience with a 8700K vs a 2600 non X if you add in a RTX 2080ti in there you cant see a difference

Your choice at the end of the day but as long as it makes you happy.

Fishfly · Jul 11, 2019

UrBaN said:
I think that it depends on a few things. Are you streaming? The AMD holds up better when streaming and playing at high resolutions.

I also think the initial OCs aren't indicative of all that's possible. Once we have some BIOS revisions I think things will improve on that front.

I'd go AMD purely out of principle anyway - Intel sat on their laurels for years due to no real competition. AMD, with more money for R&D etc, could bring a harder fight to Intel, in turn making Intel work harder and thus we as consumers benefit.

I hear you, it's ridiculous way back 4k for a CPU was crazy expensive... now 9k for a cpu... no one bats and eye

JollyJamma · Jul 11, 2019

Fishfly said:
I hear you, it's ridiculous way back 4k for a CPU was crazy expensive... now 9k for a cpu... no one bats and eye

If it's worth anything, I think about spending R6 000 on a CPU and my brain starts to hurt. Maybe it's just because I've had an extremely expensive time with selling my property, which has made me realise the value of a rand.

Also, the process of emigrating has made me realise how expensive shit is here. We earn less yet an AMD 3700X is R1000 more here than in the UK.

Ginseng · Jul 11, 2019

Amd🤮🤮🤮

Valheru · Jul 11, 2019

Ginseng said:
Amd🤮🤮🤮

Oh look, a wild fanboy appears

Amd 3900x vs Intel 9900k

Epic Member

Very Unimportant Person

Peripheral Phanatic

Very Unimportant Person

Peripheral Phanatic

Peripheral Phanatic

Resident Forum Troll

Epic Member

Resident Forum Troll

Very Unimportant Person

VIP

Peripheral Phanatic

Epic Member

Banned

Wobbly Member

VIP

VIP

Epic Member

Peripheral Phanatic

VIP

Trekker Afficionado

Peripheral Phanatic

What's my age again?

Epic Member

What's my age again?

Epic Member

Epic Member

What's my age again?

Potent Antioxidant

Coin Pouch Tester

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads

Top Donors

Share this page