Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: 36 Game Benchmark

A battle that needs no further introduction, we're pitting the new Ryzen ix 3900X caput to head against the Core i9-9900K in 36 games. There's loads of results to go over and this article is solely focused on PC gaming performance. For more than context on the capabilities of the latest Ryzen serial, bank check out our day-one reviews of the 3900X, 3700X and the mainstream Ryzen 5 3600. We've also ran an IPC clock-for-clock examination comparing against Intel CPUs and a cooling comparison, using the stock Wraith Prism cooler vs. a liquid cooler on the Ryzen 9.

Before nosotros jump to the benchmarks, a few obligatory test notes: the 3900X has been tested on the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme using the latest BIOS revision and there are two test configurations. The first which we're calling "stock" is the 3900X with the Wraith Spire RGB box cooler and nothing more the XMP contour loaded in the BIOS using DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. And then we have an overclocked configuration using DDR4-3600 CL16 memory, the Corsair Hydro H115i all-in-one liquid cooler with PBO+AutoOC enabled.

There'southward also stock and overclocked configurations for the Cadre i9-9900K, though they are both technically overclocked as nosotros aren't power limiting the Intel CPU. This is meliorate explained as out of the box and and so transmission overclocked. The stock or out of the box configuration uses DDR4-3200 CL14 memory with the Corsair H115i on the Gigabyte Z390 Ultra. So for the overclocked configuration the retentivity has been upgraded to DDR4-3600 CL16 with an all-core clock of v GHz.

All testing took place at 1080p using an MSI RTX 2080 Ti graphics carte du jour to remove GPU bottlenecks. Nosotros'll await at the margins for all 36 games towards the end of the review, but first we'll go over and briefly talk over the findings for about a dozen of the titles tested.

Benchmarks

We tested the latest version of World War Z which brings nearly a number of fixes and performance improvements. Both stock and overclocked the 9900K was ~ii% faster than the 3900X which is a negligible deviation. 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.

Next up we have Forza Horizon four. Here the 3900X trailed by a 4% margin when comparing out of the box functioning. That margin was halved with both CPUs overclocked and at this indicate we recollect information technology's fair to say the 9900K is maximizing the RTX 2080 Ti's performance. This is largely a GPU-bound game, merely information technology's notwithstanding worth testing given its quality and popularity. It's a gorgeous and fun game, no doubtfulness.

StarCraft II was heavily requested for this comparing and we accept to admit this is the first fourth dimension we've benchmarked a worst instance scenario in this title. Previous benchmarks take been based on 2v2 gameplay, just it seems where Ryzen really struggles is with the bigger 4v4 matches when all teams are maxed out. And so what nosotros take here is a worst-case scenario and unfortunately for AMD, the Core i9 is up to nineteen% faster out of the box when comparison the average frame charge per unit.

With both CPUs overclocked the 9900K was 12% faster, which is all the same a reasonable functioning reward. 1% low performance was closer but the gap was still there between the two.

Another championship where Ryzen seems to struggle is Shadow of the Tomb Raider and exercise annotation nosotros're not using the built-in benchmark which we believe would aid out Ryzen's case. This is in-game performance and here the 9900K was 17% faster which is a big margin.

Where the 3900X did surprise was in Monster Hunter World. Both processors delivered similar average frame rates, yet the 1% depression figure was 13% college with the Ryzen processor. Once overclocked the 3900X was the clear winner offering non just greater 1% depression performance but a slight improvement in boilerplate frame rate functioning besides.

The Cadre i9-9900K got back to its winning ways in Noon Legends, though here the 3900X was just ~7% slower, dropping 10 fps on average when comparison stock functioning. The margin did abound slightly once both CPUs were overclocked, now the 3900X is seen to be x% slower.

The 2d boxing royale title nosotros tested is Fortnite and while the 3900X was plenty fast, it still lagged backside. Although we see a pocket-size 5% arrears for the average frame rate, the Ryzen processor was up to 13% slower when looking at the 1% depression performance. If you lot don't need over 160 fps then the 3900X will practise just fine, but if y'all seek maximum operation you'll desire the 9900K.

The Resident Evil 2 results are interesting: stock the 3900X was 6% slower on boilerplate, but provided stronger 1% low functioning, beating the 9900K by four%. Then when overclocked the average frame rates were much the same while the Ryzen processor however provided amend minimum frame charge per unit performance. Overall the experience was much the same using either CPU.

Next upwards we have Assassinator'south Creed Odyssey and this is another title where Intel is a piffling faster on average only y'all'll never find the ~4% reduction in average frame rates when using the 3900X. That'due south especially truthful given the stiff 1% low performance of the Ryzen processor.

At launch we saw AMD challenge -- 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. But lo and behold the 3900X was a smidgen faster, performance was basically the same overall, but nosotros didn't expect the 3900X to push button average frame rates higher than the 9900K.

Despite offering silky smooth frame rates in Battlefield V, the 3900X was yet quite a scrap down on the 9900K, abaft by an 8% margin for the average frame rate and 11% for the 1% depression. We saw like margins for the stock and overclocked results.

Moving on to F1 2022, the 3900X was seven% slower out of the box, merely in one case overclocked that margin was reduced to three% every bit both processors enabled a similar level of performance. This is 1 of those instances where if you don't need to keep frame rates well above 144 fps, it really doesn't thing which CPU you utilise.

Far Cry New Dawn isn't a great championship for AMD CPUs, though information technology's non that bad either. Here the 3900X was 9% slower out of the box and 10% once both CPUs were overclocked. Operation was perfectly acceptable but for maximum operation the 9900K does deliver the best results.

The third and final battle royale game nosotros tested is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. We're not using the replay feature to measure performance, rather we're dropping into the same map at the same spot and measuring performance that fashion. The 9900K was faster overall but the 3900X was only 4% slower on average, so non a bad result for AMD.

In Earth of Tanks we encounter the 3900X performing 8% slower when looking at the average frame charge per unit. Both CPUs pushed frame rates up over 200fps nonetheless.

Putting It All Together

Overall the Cadre i9-9900K is the faster gaming CPU as we had come to wait, though the margins are close in many titles. Ryzen does offering other advantages, but before nosotros talk over that allow's await at the performance breakdown across all 36 games tested.

On boilerplate the 3900X was 6% slower than the 9900K when gaming. Results where the margin was less than v%, you can deem those a draw considering the margin of mistake and that 1% lows are within the aforementioned altitude. In terms of frame rates, for very depression FPS (certainly not the case at 1080p with a 2080 Ti), 30 to 32 fps is a 7% increase, for case. Then at farthermost high frame rates, a v% increase is going from 200 to 210 fps, which is non a margin worth getting likewise excited over.

At that place were a few titles where the 3900X nudged alee past insignificant margins and in that location were quite a few where information technology lost by an insignificant margin as well. So there were games where the 3900X was slower past a 10% margin or greater, seven titles in total where Ryzen was up to xvi% slower.

Now with both CPUs overclocked we see very little change. Here the 3900X was just 5% slower on average, so pushing the 9900K up to five GHz doesn't give it an reward.

What to Buy?

In our day-1 review we found the Ryzen nine 3900X to be eight% slower on average across the 9 games we tested. By calculation some other 27 games to the mix, things haven't inverse much and surprisingly this played in AMD's favor to an extent.

When information technology comes to value, these new results don't change much either. If you lot ignore the bundled box cooler, the 3900X is a little more plush per frame than the 9900K. Still, if you plan to use the Wraith Prism out of the box and so the 3900X is a piddling cheaper than the Intel processor. At the end of the day, they're both ~$500 CPUs and depending on what you lot use your PC for, 1 might be better than the other.

If you plan to use your PC for a multitude of tasks and not only to play games, but also create videos, 3D models or practise anything that can take advantage of a 12-cadre processor, the Ryzen 9 3900X is going to exist a significantly better investment. For productivity tasks in general, Ryzen is considerably faster than the Core i9 every bit shown in our full review.

The merely reason we'd invest in the 9900K right at present would exist if we played games such as StarCraft Two full time. There's a few titles that do play noticeably better with the Intel CPU, in StarCraft's case in complex belatedly game 4v4 battles. Likewise, you'd go Intel if you needed every last frame possible, but short of that the 3900X is the better selection.

It's worth remembering that we're seeing little difference at 1080p with an RTX 2080 Ti. This means using an RTX 2080 will more than halve the margins seen here and we know because we've looked into it. Then with an RTX 2070 or RX 5700, functioning volition exist identical. Alternatively, if you play at higher more GPU-jump resolutions, you'll observe the same matter, marginal departure in terms of gaming performance.