Intel 9900K vs Ryzen 3700X

[maizenblue]

So im getting a new processor this weekend and these are what I'm considering. The priority is gaming. I ruled out a 9700k because of no hyperthreading(stupid intel). The 9900k is 430 USD and the 3700X is 280, so its a 150 dollar price difference. I know most people will say 3700X but there's still a few reasons why im considering the 9900k. I'm not on a tight budget really. I always splurge on a processor and build everything else around it and that strategy has worked well the last two builds and saved me money in the long run. 150 spread out over 5 years is not a big consideration.

 

I already have a Noctua D15S since they were on sale and I was going 9900k. It would be perfect for the 9900k but overkill for the 3700x.

 

3700x 

Pros:

150 dollars cheaper

Lower TDP

X570 mobo should last for another gen

 

Cons:

11% less performance in gaming(my primary use).

Often doesnt seem to reach the advertised clock speeds in real world use

Doesnt seem to OC worth a damn.

 

9900K

Pros: 

Better in gaming

Already have a CPU cooler thats perfect for it

Better OCing potential

 

Cons:

150 dollars more

Higher TDP

Spectre and Zombieload issue

 

I game in 1440p but I like CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1, V. I plan to update my GPU when the Nvidia 3000 series comes out later this year. Im a little confused about benchmarks. Some videos show the 9900k beating out a 3700x in BFV by 7-9 FPs. Another one I just watched by 1. They all used a 2080 ti, so even at 1440p a 3700x slightly bottlenecks compared to a 9900k, which means a couple GPU generations from now this bottleneck will be more pronounced, so the 9900k seems more future proof(my primary CPU consideration).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by maizenblue
Added another pro and con

[Princess Luna]

I'd personally go with the i9 9900K because you really don't seem like you'll be that bothered about spending 100 bucks more and the i9 is by all means indeed a superior processor.

 

Besides X570 doesn't have any benefits, pci-e 4.0 is useless and most those boards have a pretty bad chipset fan.

 

Ideally you'd want to wait until April's release of the 10th gen for Intel where the i7 10700K will be a refreshed i9 9900K for the i7 9700K MSRP while the i9 10900K will feature 10c/20t with a wider cache for the current 9900K msrp.

[TVwazhere]

5 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

I already have a Noctua D15S since they were on sale and I was going 9900k. It would be perfect for the 9900k but overkill for the 3700x.

I'd say the NH-D15S is perfect for the 3700X, and almost not enough for the 9900K. Unless you meant the NH-D15, which has dual fans. 

[Shrekpad]

I agree, you should get the i9 9900k

[maizenblue]

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

I'd say the NH-D15S is perfect for the 3700X, and almost not enough for the 9900K. Unless you meant the NH-D15, which has dual fans. 

Nah I meant the d15s. Seemed like the performance was nearly equal to a d15 even with 1 fan, and I could always add a second which would make it equal. That should be fine for a 9900k right?

[Zando_]

Just now, maizenblue said:

Nah I meant the d15s. Seemed like the performance was nearly equal to a d15 even with 1 fan, and I could always add a second which would make it equal. That should be fine for a 9900k right?

At stock, easily. OCed, depends on the bin and what clocks/voltage you push. 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, maizenblue said:

Nah I meant the d15s. Seemed like the performance was nearly equal to a d15 even with 1 fan, and I could always add a second which would make it equal. That should be fine for a 9900k right?

Mine's running a bit toasty at 79Cº~80Cº but that's at 5ghz (AVX-1) on an inferior cooler (vanilla dark rock 4) so you should be fine.

[maizenblue]

Is the whole Zombieload and Spectre thing an issue with the 9900k? 

[Princess Luna]

28 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

Is the whole Zombieload and Spectre thing an issue with the 9900k? 

No, these only affected Kaby Lake (7000 series) and older.

 

Coffee Lake already brought hardware level fixes to these issues.

[Davemaster84]

1 hour ago, maizenblue said:

So im getting a new processor this weekend and these are what I'm considering. The priority is gaming. I ruled out a 9700k because of no hyperthreading(stupid intel). The 9900k is 430 USD and the 3700X is 280, so its a 150 dollar price difference. I know most people will say 3700X but there's still a few reasons why im considering the 9900k. I'm not on a tight budget really. I always splurge on a processor and build everything else around it and that strategy has worked well the last two builds and saved me money in the long run. 150 spread out over 5 years is not a big consideration.

 

I already have a Noctua D15S since they were on sale and I was going 9900k. It would be perfect for the 9900k but overkill for the 3700x.

 

3700x 

Pros:

150 dollars cheaper

Lower TDP

X570 mobo should last for another gen

 

Cons:

11% less performance in gaming(my primary use).

Often doesnt seem to reach the advertised clock speeds in real world use

Doesnt seem to OC worth a damn.

 

9900K

Pros: 

Better in gaming

Already have a CPU cooler thats perfect for it

Better OCing potential

 

Cons:

150 dollars more

Higher TDP

Spectre and Zombieload issue

 

I game in 1440p but I like CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1, V. I plan to update my GPU when the Nvidia 3000 series comes out later this year. Im a little confused about benchmarks. Some videos show the 9900k beating out a 3700x in BFV by 7-9 FPs. Another one I just watched by 1. They all used a 2080 ti, so even at 1440p a 3700x slightly bottlenecks compared to a 9900k, which means a couple GPU generations from now this bottleneck will be more pronounced, so the 9900k seems more future proof(my primary CPU consideration).

 

 

 

 

 

The 3700x is a great value cpu, but the 9900k is just far better, also take into account that the ryzen cpu doesn't have much room for ocy, while the 9900k can easily get to 4900 or 5000mhz, but of course the price difference is very large. 

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Davemaster84 said:

The 3700x is a great value cpu, but the 9900k is just far better, also take into account that the ryzen cpu doesn't have much room for ocy, while the 9900k can easily get to 4900 or 5000mhz, but of course the price difference is very large. 

Not to mention better core-to-core latency (especially with a cache OC) and usually lower RAM latency as well. A bit tighter/snappier overall, that plus the higher OC headroom is why it's still one of the best gaming CPUs (a 9900KS can often have higher OC headroom and thus come out better, even though it has a very slightly lower IPC). 

[maizenblue]

Im leaning toward the 3700x after seeing a couple recent 1440p benchmarks showing the two neck and neck. Im wondering if maybe some bios updates boosted 3700x benchmarks since its launch, when most benchmarks were done.

 

Plus, if I'm not happy with the 3700x performance, I could always use the same mobo and upgrade to 4th gen Ryzen, which might be able to match the 9900k in gaming when it comes out later this year. 

[Guest]

A 3700X is the more sensible option. Also the price difference will be more than $150 once you factor in cooling and motherboard. The 9900K will need a good board i.e Gigabyte Aorus and a high end air cooler if you want to overclock it to 5GHz. The 3700X will run fine on a cheaper B450 board with a $30 cooler.

[boggy77]

1% difference at stock, probably 10% difference when OC'd to the max. 

 

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/compare/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz-vs-amd-ryzen-7-3700x/ultra/ultra/-vs-

[Princess Luna]

On 2/1/2020 at 2:58 PM, maizenblue said:

Im leaning toward the 3700x after seeing a couple recent 1440p benchmarks showing the two neck and neck.

Too bad the video you linked is fake... like the greatest majority of benchmark videos with no hosts, no actual gameplay footage or anything just easy to forge graphs.

 

At least use a reputable source: