Ryzen 9 3900X Vs Core i9-9900K

With the arrival of the primary Ryzen 9 processors this year, AMD expanded its ability to challenge the performance of computing chips from Intel. If you're looking in the market for the ultimate high performance, and high grade desktop CPU, the Ryzen 9 and Core i9 are both best compelling options.
You still need have to choose one or the other, of course. Even if you could swap them in and out from your desktop PC (and of course, you can't; because they use a wholly different sockets and therefore motherboards), at $500 each for the flagship versions—the Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9-9900K—buying both would be prohibitively expensive. So let's take a look at which of these chips comes out on top, depending on how you plan to use your PC.
Comparing Key Specs
The Ryzen 9 3900X has 12 cores to the Core i9-9900K's eight, so it gains the prevalence right from the beginning , a minimum of as far as raw specs are concerned. All else being equal, the more cores a chip has, the upper it's able to handle complex workflows from modern software applications, many of which are designed to assign tasks to as many CPU cores as they'll find.
Both chips have multithreading support, which suggests that each single core can handle two instruction threads from software simultaneously. therefore the Ryzen 9 3900X can handle 24 instruction threads, while the Core i9-9900K can handle 16. Again, if your software of choice is optimized to distribute tasks to as many processing threads as it can, more is better here

The Ryzen nine 3900X has twelve cores to the Core i9-9900K's eight, therefore it gains the superiority right from the start, a minimum of as way as raw specs area unit involved. All else being equal, the a lot of cores a chip has, the higher it's able to handle advanced workflows from fashionable software package applications, several of that area unit designed to assign tasks to as several hardware cores as they will realize. Both chips have multithreading support, which suggests that every core will handle 2 instruction threads from software package at the same time. So the Ryzen nine 3900X will handle twenty four instruction threads, whereas the Core i9-9900K will handle sixteen. Again, if your software package of selection is optimized to dole out tasks to as several

Here, a minimum of on pure specs, the Ryzen 9 3900X wins handily . It comes with a DDR4 support for 3,200MHz  memory and a whopping 70MB L3 cache on the die. The Core i9-9900K has lower peak official memory-speed support (2,666MHz) and a way smaller 16MB of L3 cache. But there's more to this argument than just spec numbers.
Translating Specs to Real-World Performance: CPU
While a comparison of specs suggests that the Ryzen 9 3900X comes out on top during a bunch of seminal areas, real-world performance doesn't always reflect this.
On our Cinebench R15 test, which has both single-core and multi-core workflows, the Ryzen 9 far outpaces the Core i9 when it's using all of its cores and threads. That's a superbly natural outcome, since the Ryzen 9 has more of them. (Again, that's 12 cores/24 threads for the Ryzen 9, versus eight cores/16 threads for the Core i9.) But the AMD chip is really slightly behind its Intel competitor when it comes to single-core performance.

When it involves encoding a 12-minute 4K video to 1080p using the open-source Handbrake app, the difference between the Core i9-9900K and also the Ryzen 9 3900X is not any small difference, either...

The Ryzen comes out about 25 percent ahead. Beyond this head to head chart, its even more important on this test are the relative differences in performance as you are climbing the merchandise ladders of AMD's and Intel's mainstream chip lines. The Ryzen 9 3900X is predictably faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and far faster than the previous-generation Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 5 2600X.
The same relative performance is borne call at our POV-Ray test, another CPU-burner that has both single-core and multicore aspects...

Once again, the Core i9 prevails on the single-core task but falls a small amount behind on the multicore one (though by a touch less time, proportionally, than on Handbrake and Cinebench).
Finally, a fast real-world task: a workout in 7-Zip, a commonly used file compression/decompression program...

Again, a few 25 percent advantage for the Ryzen 9. When the software package in question is increasing the employment of cores and threads, the Ryzen nine typically can prevail.

Translating Specs to Real-World Performance: Graphics
The performance picture is more nuanced when it involves playing demanding 3D games united with these two killer CPUs. We tested those two chips with an Nvdia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti video card installed in our respective testbeds. The RTX 2080 Ti is that the highest-end consumer video card available at this writing, used here to eliminate, as far as possible, the graphics card as a performance bottleneck.
One key issue to boost here. The Ryzen 9 3900X has no onchip graphics and demands a companion video card, full stop. The Core i9-9900K, in contrast, incorporates the Intel's light hitting UHD Graphics integrated silicon, though, for gamers, will definitely be paired with a dedicated video card. But if you merely want raw CPU muscle and don't have or desire a video card, the Core i9-9900K is your chip between these two. (Note: Intel also sells a rather cheaper variant of this chip, the Core i9-9900KF, that's identical but has the integrated graphics disabled.)
One of the concerns with earlier generations of AMD Ryzen CPU is that with certain combinations of monitor resolution and video card the Ryzens dealt lower frame rates versus employing a similar cards and settings with parallel Intel Core CPUs. This situation has been improved with the second generation Ryzen chips and is showing further narrowing with generation three.
Here's a peek at the results we saw with the Ryzen 9 3900X versus the Core i9-9900K (as well as two other chips in their class) with a number of games on the RTX 2080 Ti and an artificial benchmark...
As you'll be able to see, the results at 4K resolution on the games are largely identical across the CPU's. With the games at 1080p, on the opposite hand, it's more of a mixture . That said, during this specific test set, the Core i9-9900K holds a commanding frame-rate lead in just many situations. For example, on the recent AAA title Far Cry 5, the Ryzen 9 3900X scored 18 frames per second (fps) not up to the Core i9-9900K did, a difference of about 13 percent. We saw smaller deficits on older games like Bio shock Infinite and Hitman: Absolution. Meanwhile, on one classic, less demanding esports favorite as Counter Strike: Global Offensive, the Ryzen 9 3900X outperformed its main Intel competitor successfully
In most cases, these small performance differences won't matter and can be edge cases. Both the Ryzen and Intel chips, paired with a high-end video card, are capable, betting on the sport, of driving frame rates in way over the 120Hz, 144Hz, or 240Hz that even the highest gaming monitors can display.
An interesting wrinkle, too
 Recent testing by some enthusiast outlets has noted that the third-gen Ryzens aren't always ready to hit their peak rated clocks the smallest amount bit times with as many cores as originally touted. BIOS updates coming soon for AMD motherboards could boost the Ryzen 9 3900X's clock speeds a bit on more cores. This is mostly of interest to extreme enthusiasts and overclockers, but it is a good reminder to always ensure your software and firmware is up to this point. It might have a simple effect on how the 3900x is performing in both games and general applications.
but  its still  the differences we found in testings are a really important reminder that specs alone aren't telling the entire story when you're comparing two CPUs for gaming or content creation.
Getting on the PCI Express Train

Besides these specs and performances, there are many many differences between  the feature set for the respective of Ryzen 9 and Core i9 platforms that need to factor into your buying decision.
All of AMD's third Ryzen generation  chips include support for PCI Express4.0. This cutting edge system level bus offers added bandwidth for video cards  and storage components like SSDs . the primary new SSDs to support the new PCI Express 4.0 standard are already on the market, which could make the Ryzen 9 3900X a stronger pick if you're also planning on upgrading your storage drive within the near future, or building a PC from scratch with a watch toward future proofing.
 to realize support for PCI Express 4.0, you'll also need a fresh AMD X570 chipset based motherboard beside your Ryzen 9 3900X . An older  AM4 AMD socket board may support this new CPU, but it won't enable the PCI Express 4.0 speeds on its expansion slots or M.2 slots.

Also note that future Intel CPU platforms will almost certainly get a PCI Express 4.0 support, while future the AMD CPU's will whilst likely get Thunderbolt 3, both of which should occur within the course of latest supporting chipset rolling will get into the years to return back. So, if you really need support for both, it should be worth waiting

Pricing It Out

Most of the comparisons above presuppose that you're curious about buying one among these chips by itself, to put in during a new PC or to upgrade an existing one. Many of the comparisons also apply if you are looking at buying a pre-built system with a Ryzen 9 3900X or Core i9-9900K, however.
As with most things in life, money is probably the foremost important point of distinction whether you're upgrading, building from scratch, or buying pre-built. With their $500 list prices, both of those CPUs are expensive in absolute terms. (Sure, you'll find server-grade and enthusiast CPUs that cost well quite $1,000, but those are outside the realm of consideration for many shoppers.) and since they're priced identically, neither has a clear advantage here.
You may got to think about the worth of a replacement motherboard and cooler to support these chips, however. The Core i9-9900K requires a Z390 motherboard, which you almost certainly don't already own and will be a tad costlier than boards supported the older Z370 chipset, depending on the model. The Ryzen 9 3900X works with most AM4socket motherboards (older ones, only after a BIOS upgrade), but you will need a new-generation one supported the AMD X570 chipset one that unlocks all of those features, including the PCI_Express 4.0 support.

The CPU cooling may be a key distinction, as well, and a possible cost booster. The Ryzen 9 3900X comes with AMD's stock cooler within the box, a nifty, RGB LED-ringed cooler called the AMD Wraith Prism, pictured above. It's not a flowery liquid cooler, but it's included within the cost of the CPU. The Core i9-9900K, on the opposite hand, comes because the chip alone, with no CPU cooler within the box. You'll need to feature your own, and Intel generally recommends a liquid cooler.
If you don't own one, you're looking at $75 to $100 for a basic single-fan, sealed-loop all-in-one liquid cooler, and you'll want to be sure your case has the room for installing it. A few makers, like Noctua, offer air coolers rated to stay the Core i9-9900K cool. But if you would like to run it (or the Ryzen 9, for that matter) at peak speeds for sustained periods or overclocked, you'll be wanting to travel liquid.

Bottom Line: For Most, the Ryzen 9

Factoring in specs, performance, price, and features, neither chip leaves the opposite in its dust when it involves gaming  performance.it still provides a slight edge to the Core i9-9900K if the game frame rates are all that drives you. On the raw CPU muscle side of things, though, for applications which will hit all cores, the Ryzen 9 3900X does have a foothold in many cases, which is why it's our current choice for best high end CPU.
With more cores and support for more addressable threads, higher memory speeds, and a bigger cache, this CPU has an the most suitable option if you can leverage those extra cores for no extra cash .