i9-9900k or Ryzen 9 3900x?

[Sam Joseph]

I currently have the money for a much needed CPU upgrade, and the new Ryzen 9 3900x came out today with rather good reviews. But my intentions are focused on playing games with my rig, where the i9-9900k (and i7-8700k) is beating out the 3900x consistently (minimally). I haven't even touched an AMD processor let alone looked at one, so the intel processor only looks more fitting for the purchase (which will also have to include a new mobo and ram since I currently have a dusty i5-4690k). Any feedback or advice is greatly appreciated, sorry if I respond late and thank you in advance if I personally forget to do so!

[LukeLinusFanFic]

Seems to me that your response, a little like mine is based on knowing Intel and not knowing AMD. A bit of a bias, if you will.

 

If Intel beats AMD with few fps, it's nothing compared to so much more additional cores. Like Linus just said, if you do anything else with your PC...

 

Not to talk about the fact that getting a 3900x or a 9900k won't benefit you in games vs. the step down model.

[Sam Joseph]

4 minutes ago, LukeLinusFanFic said:

If Intel beats AMD with few fps, it's nothing compared to so much more additional cores. Like Linus just said, if you do anything else with your PC...

That's what ThinkComputers said in his review basically, may just have to buy it if the cores really make up for it. Thanks for the response! 

[LukeLinusFanFic]

No problems, we are on the same boat here

Make sure your monitor and GPU are bottlenecking you though.

[MeatFeastMan]

If you're a gamer...then the comparison is wrong. The 9900k competes against the 3700x. Look at the prices of those two, and you'll realise which one to buy. $329 for 5% less performance? YES PLEASE. The Intel fanboys can still say Intel is ahead, but can they justify paying $170 more for it? NO is the answer to that question. Buy the 3700x and save yourself nearly half the money, and put that $170 into something else.

 

 

[mayonnaiseblackhole]

without a doubt the 3700X

[Unidoubt]

I'm also more familiar with Intel than AMD platform, but if it out performs at half the price.
And knowing the state the companies are in, shortages etc. What's keeping me not to take the plunge in AMD this time?

Last night I posted, how I saw the 3700x & 3600 not only beat 9900k at single thread performance but actually top the chart!
check it here >

 

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Unidoubt said:

What's keeping me not to take the plunge in AMD this time?

currently there is nothing other than a possible small sqedualler bug with win 10, tho only on the dual-die (three total) models. 

[Unidoubt]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

currently there is nothing other than a possible small sqedualler bug with win 10, tho only on the dual-die (three total) models. 

Didn't know that. Thanks.
Do you happen to know which models it applies to?

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Unidoubt said:

Didn't know that. Thanks.

nothing to worry about. still needs to be investigated by level1tech

[Princess Luna]

The differences are minimal as you point out and unless you want 1080p240hz (you shouldn't since it's gimmick) the obvious choice is the Ryzen 7 3700X or 3800X.

 

They will age superiorly than the 9900K if anything.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Princess Luna said:

They will age superiorly than the 9900K if anything.

and you dont really have to worry about cooling the darn things. 

 

nor overclock it to get the most from it. 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

and you dont really have to worry about cooling the darn things. 

 

nor overclock it to get the most from it. 

Yeah you can even use the stock cooler which is sufficient for the 3700X and silent enough, that is further savings making the build cheaper even if you went with the older 'cheaper' i7 8700K

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Yeah you can even use the stock cooler which is sufficient for the 3700X and silent enough, that is further savings making the build cheaper even if you went with the older 'cheaper' i7 8700K

3900x + B450 Tomahawk is a real piece of kit right now. 

 

Combo with a 16GB kit of 3000mhz cl16 and you have a amazing workstation for 670$ ish.

 

MSI really hit the nail on the head investing in Biosflashback on most of their B450 boards. 

[GreenPrint]

3900x will be a relevant CPU longer than 9900k, so you won't have to upgrade it for some time over the 9900k. With the next generation consoles confirmed to be 8 core 16 thread machines, both cpus will good for gaming for the next 4-5 years and games will be optimized for 8 core 16 thread machines, but will the PS6 and xbox3 be 12 core machines? So for gaming you can keep the 3900 for 8 to 9 years, but the 9900k for the 4-5 years. So for future compatibility, if you have the money, the answer is clear, get the 3900x? Not to mention while there's not much use for PCIE 4.0 at the moment, in the future there likely will be?

[another_member]

1 hour ago, LukeLinusFanFic said:

Make sure your monitor and GPU are bottlenecking you though.

Wait what

 

I thought I should make sure that they are not bottlenecking me.

[OnionFromOrion]

I'm on a dusty i5-4690k as well. I went with the 3900X just for the extra cores. I tend have a bunch of other things running in the background when I game so I'm hoping more cores will help out in that regard. Although for your case I think the 3700x might be a better fit as suggested by others. The cost difference can go to GPU, which will do a lot more good there.

[LukeLinusFanFic]

14 minutes ago, Catchears said:

Wait what

 

I thought I should make sure that they are not bottlenecking me.

Aren't. Lmao. Sorry.

[Grimm6Jack]

Sorry, but this is an absolute no brainer. If you are undecided between these two chips then I believe you do have a 500$ CPU budget!? Right?

-If you do game most of the time, then don't bother with either. Go with the 3700x. Why? Because it's basically as good as a 9900k for everything other than gaming and even in games it's on average just about 7-8% slower than the 9900k and pretty much on par with the 3900x. Oh, and the best part of it? It costs 160$ less... Some money that you can lay down on a better GPU in the future. Oh... And I forgot about another very good feature... It has way less power consumption than the 9900k at full load, something a lot of people overlook.

-If you do a mix of both gaming and productivity, then a 3700x is still a good choice because of how cheap it is. But if you do have the budget then for all means just go with the monster 3900x.

-If you do productivity most of the time... 3900x it is.


Intel is basically obsolete now unless they drastically drop their prices... Really, this was such a turn of events that none of us were expecting, and this is just the beggining, just wait until optimization for these chips start to kick in and the gap grows even larger in AMD's favour.

[Unidoubt]

This review today, shows 3900x surpassed the 9900k on all accounts.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-review/

[Sam Joseph]

7 hours ago, GreenPrint said:

3900x will be a relevant CPU longer than 9900k, so you won't have to upgrade it for some time over the 9900k. With the next generation consoles confirmed to be 8 core 16 thread machines, both cpus will good for gaming for the next 4-5 years and games will be optimized for 8 core 16 thread machines, but will the PS6 and xbox3 be 12 core machines? So for gaming you can keep the 3900 for 8 to 9 years, but the 9900k for the 4-5 years. So for future compatibility, if you have the money, the answer is clear, get the 3900x? Not to mention while there's not much use for PCIE 4.0 at the moment, in the future there likely will be?

Question is though is how much better will the 3950x be when it launches in 2 or so months and then ITS longevity. 

[xg32]

42 minutes ago, Sam Joseph said:

Question is though is how much better will the 3950x be when it launches in 2 or so months and then ITS longevity. 

for gaming only i'd go with the 3700x

[TOTO84]

20 hours ago, Grimm6Jack said:

Sorry, but this is an absolute no brainer. If you are undecided between these two chips then I believe you do have a 500$ CPU budget!? Right?

-If you do game most of the time, then don't bother with either. Go with the 3700x. Why? Because it's basically as good as a 9900k for everything other than gaming and even in games it's on average just about 7-8% slower than the 9900k and pretty much on par with the 3900x. Oh, and the best part of it? It costs 160$ less... Some money that you can lay down on a better GPU in the future. Oh... And I forgot about another very good feature... It has way less power consumption than the 9900k at full load, something a lot of people overlook.

-If you do a mix of both gaming and productivity, then a 3700x is still a good choice because of how cheap it is. But if you do have the budget then for all means just go with the monster 3900x.

-If you do productivity most of the time... 3900x it is.


Intel is basically obsolete now unless they drastically drop their prices... Really, this was such a turn of events that none of us were expecting, and this is just the beggining, just wait until optimization for these chips start to kick in and the gap grows even larger in AMD's favour.

I just did a price comparison excersise on the 9900k and 3700x for mb and cpu the difference was negligible (within £10), seems suppliers are already reacting and slashing the price of the intel chips.

At the same price point then, does AMD's PCIE 4.0 support overrule the marginal performance gains of the 9900k ?

Edited July 8, 2019 by TOTO84
Grammar

[mathijs727]

20 minutes ago, TOTO84 said:

I just did a price comparison excersise on the 9900k and 3700x for mb and cpu the difference was negligible (within £10), seems suppliers are already reacting and slashing the price of the intel chips.

At the same price point then, does AMD's PCIE 4.0 support overrule the marginal performance gains of the 9900k ?

Did you compare the prices in combination with a X570 motherboard or a B450/X470 mobo?

 

Buying a 3700X with a X570 makes little sense (cheap CPU with expensive mobo) unless you really need the added features (PCI-E 4).

Look into B450/X470 motherboards that support flashing the bios without a CPU (none of the current stock of motherbaords will have an up-to-date bios), should be much cheaper than a 9900K.

 

[Casual Cube]

9700k if only gaming