• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

amrnuke

Member
Apr 24, 2019
194
166
76
Such as? Surfing he Web? Open up Task Manager and looking at the 16 "Cores"? What Consumer apps beside Games is the 9900K trading blows with 3900X?
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on that one. Even with the bad boost behavior of current UEFI revisions on a lot of boards right now, the 3900x is solidly beating the 9900k in everything but 1080p gaming. 1440p and up it's a wash. In applications, 3900x is ahead. You've got to look for specific niches (such as what Intel is obviously doing) to make the 9900k out to be a better applications processor. I think @UsandThem laid it out pretty well, but there are other reviewers who are basically saying the same thing. Unless you care about 1080p gaming, certain oddball games that just love Intel CPUs for whatever reason (Starcraft 2?), or um . . . maybe WebXPRT (but it seems like my 3900x is faster than the reviewed ones?) then the 9900k makes no sense.
I said "for the vast majority of people" carefully, because most people are using their computer for browsing the web, checking email, running Office, perhaps VPN into work, gaming. I hate to agree with Intel, but most people aren't rendering, doing software/game development, running physics simulations, or these days, even MP3 encoding. I'm not being scientific at all about this, but when you pare it down to the basic stuff that the "vast majority" of people are using their computers for, that list looks more like... browser, Office, and games, with some Photoshop, OCR, VMWare, Java tossed in for some people. I also appreciate that people still use compression/decompression and encryption, but not on a daily/weekly basis for most; I'll include it anyway.

For Octane, 9900K wins in most reviews, for Kraken 3900X wins most reviews. Speedometer seems split. For most reviews, 9900K wins WebXPRT, though some have the 3900X ahead (like you, DrMrLordX). For compress/decompress with 7zip 3900X wins, for WinRAR it seems 9900K wins. Veracrypt AES 9900K wins, Twofish the 3900X wins. In Office, 9900K wins in Word and Powerpoint, 3900X wins in Excel. Photoshop and Gimp seem to favor the 9900K as well. VMWare seems to favor 9900K. And given the edge in gaming, removing price and platform from the equation, the 9900K is still the best CPU for what the vast majority of people do.

I just don't understand the points about "what consumer apps besides games is the 9900K trading blows with the 3900X?" (well, Office, image editing, web browsing, encryption, VMWare, and gaming) and "you've got to look for specific niches" (since when are Office, image editing, web browsing, encryption, VMWare, and gaming niche markets?). Perhaps I'm missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilum and Zucker2k

amrnuke

Member
Apr 24, 2019
194
166
76
Nope. Using your own words - the 3900X trades blows with the 9900K in gaming, and is clearly faster in mainline consumer tests as well as productivity apps.

The 9900K is a very nice chip, but the use case where it is superior to the 3900X is very small.
Where did I say the 3900X trade blows with the 9900K in gaming? The 9900K wins ~90% of the time in the reviews I've looked at. And as above, the 9900K is as fast as the 3900X in the apps the "vast majority of people" (not just techies) are using, such as Word, Powerpoint, Excel, browsers, and some light image editing, VMWare, and a sprinkle of encryption and compression/decompression.
 

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
186
106
76
I said "for the vast majority of people" carefully, because most people are using their computer for browsing the web, checking email, running Office, perhaps VPN into work, gaming. I hate to agree with Intel, but most people aren't rendering, doing software/game development, running physics simulations, or these days, even MP3 encoding.
The Vast majority of the people don't have the Cash to purchase a 9900K, for the tasks you just posted an i5 with OC is all they need
 

JustMe21

Senior member
Sep 8, 2011
266
12
81
I'm still waiting on review using competetive gaming settings. Benches at Ultra settings don't indicate competitive to me, but more of extreme casual. If you're competitive, at minimum, you run at 1080p and turn your detail down as much as possible to maximize frame rates. Granted, I've seen people who used even lower resolutions and minimal details, but I feel 1080p is a minimum for an acceptable FoV. At more minimal settings, I would think that frame rates would be a lot closer between the different architectures.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
258
206
116
This just shows, Intel knows Ryzen 3xxx are quite good. Nice seeing some competition again.
"It is hardly just a classic competition. For example from Ryzen 3000 lounch to present day, "for example largest German PC retailer Mindfactory= i9 9900K /i7 8700K sales drops 90%", or instead people in the hordes buying R5 3700X.

"Well hm is this logic or madness, preety hard to pinpoint".:grinning:

66767044_10161935629825371_23270914493775872_n.jpg

"Poor people, well life is hard what can you do so only R5 3600."

 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,540
5,844
136
Lets see, I have the budget, but do I want to spend another $80 on cooling over AMD ? for 3% in games but less in most everything else ? Oh, and I want to have a hotter running processor, and I have to overclock it to get there.

Yea, right, that makes a lot of sense. Only niche people buy these and based on the above, you really no longer have a case to buy Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

amrnuke

Member
Apr 24, 2019
194
166
76
The Vast majority of the people don't have the Cash to purchase a 9900K, for the tasks you just posted an i5 with OC is all they need
Heck, a 3400G is more than what most people need. But if they want the absolute fastest (but absolute worst performance for dollar) for browsing, Office, and gaming, the 9900K is (probably, barely) the chip.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
638
178
116
Where did I say the 3900X trade blows with the 9900K in gaming? The 9900K wins ~90% of the time in the reviews I've looked at. And as above, the 9900K is as fast as the 3900X in the apps the "vast majority of people" (not just techies) are using, such as Word, Powerpoint, Excel, browsers, and some light image editing, VMWare, and a sprinkle of encryption and compression/decompression.
I can see my post went completely over your head.
 

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
898
543
136
Heck, a 3400G is more than what most people need. But if they want the absolute fastest (but absolute worst performance for dollar) for browsing, Office, and gaming, the 9900K is (probably, barely) the chip.
Honest question, when was the last time someone was limited by their CPU for office and browsing? The only case you can make for the 9900k is 1080p gaming with a very high end GPU, something that not many people are going to be doing. Even then, the 9900k only wins by a few percent most of the time. There may be a few games out there where the 9900k is able to break a 10% difference, but I haven't seen many.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,488
843
136
The 9900K is a very good, powerful CPU. More than most people will ever need. But if you want the overall fastest consumer grade system, you have to go with the 3900X. A couple of NVMe PCIe 4 drives for storage, and nothing in the Intel stable can touch it.
 

UsandThem

Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
11,303
1,854
136
Whose quote is that? It wasn't in the video.
You made it further than I did.

The audio "quality" was too horrible for me to watch through the whole thing. Did they pipe the audio through a walkie talkie to capture it? :eek:
 

MarkPost

Member
Mar 1, 2017
160
75
71
I said "for the vast majority of people" carefully, because most people are using their computer for browsing the web, checking email, running Office, perhaps VPN into work, gaming. I hate to agree with Intel, but most people aren't rendering, doing software/game development, running physics simulations, or these days, even MP3 encoding. I'm not being scientific at all about this, but when you pare it down to the basic stuff that the "vast majority" of people are using their computers for, that list looks more like... browser, Office, and games, with some Photoshop, OCR, VMWare, Java tossed in for some people. I also appreciate that people still use compression/decompression and encryption, but not on a daily/weekly basis for most; I'll include it anyway.

For Octane, 9900K wins in most reviews, for Kraken 3900X wins most reviews. Speedometer seems split. For most reviews, 9900K wins WebXPRT, though some have the 3900X ahead (like you, DrMrLordX). For compress/decompress with 7zip 3900X wins, for WinRAR it seems 9900K wins. Veracrypt AES 9900K wins, Twofish the 3900X wins. In Office, 9900K wins in Word and Powerpoint, 3900X wins in Excel. Photoshop and Gimp seem to favor the 9900K as well. VMWare seems to favor 9900K. And given the edge in gaming, removing price and platform from the equation, the 9900K is still the best CPU for what the vast majority of people do.

I just don't understand the points about "what consumer apps besides games is the 9900K trading blows with the 3900X?" (well, Office, image editing, web browsing, encryption, VMWare, and gaming) and "you've got to look for specific niches" (since when are Office, image editing, web browsing, encryption, VMWare, and gaming niche markets?). Perhaps I'm missing something?
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2263?vs=2519

I cant figured out how its possible 9900K wins in most reviews in Octane, Kraken, Speedometer, WebXPRT, 7zip, winrar, AES... when in AT benchs 3900X smokes 9900K in (majority) of them.

And I cant figured out how its possible image editing such as Photoshop seems to favot to 9900K, when here https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CPU-Roundup-AMD-Ryzen-3-AMD-Threadripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/ (the more complete Photoshop testing ever), even a 3600 wins 9900K.

The reality is that 3900X is the fatest desktop processor right now in the majority of tasks, and by a large margin in many of them.
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
663
686
106
So Intel is targeting people with more money than sense?
You'd be surprised at how large that market really is. Afterall, some folk are prepared to spend a grand on a smartphone that is barely a minor iteration of last year's version (which they also bought).
 

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
515
556
136
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2263?vs=2519

I cant figured out how its possible 9900K wins in most reviews in Octane, Kraken, Speedometer, WebXPRT, 7zip, winrar, AES... when in AT benchs 3900X smokes 9900K in (majority) of them.

And I cant figured out how its possible image editing such as Photoshop seems to favot to 9900K, when here https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CPU-Roundup-AMD-Ryzen-3-AMD-Threadripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/ (the more complete Photoshop testing ever), even a 3600 wins 9900K.

The reality is that 3900X is the fastest desktop processor right now in the majority of tasks, and by a large margin in many of them.
Yes. At least in Photoshop and 7Zip 9900K certainly isn't flat-out better. Rather the opposite in a number of loads. On top of the pudget systems review I'd add this one:
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3405567/ryzen-3000-review-amds-12-core-ryzen-9-3900x.html?page=3
 

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,888
269
126
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2263?vs=2519

I cant figured out how its possible 9900K wins in most reviews in Octane, Kraken, Speedometer, WebXPRT, 7zip, winrar, AES... when in AT benchs 3900X smokes 9900K in (majority) of them.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/7
They (anand)messed something up.
The full review anad made completely backs up this intel presentation,the 9700k is on par with locked TDP and we all know that the 9900k can clock at least as high even with locked TDP if you spend the time to tweak it.
Depending on if they lock the 9900k to default TDP or have the TDP unlocked or even overclock the 9900k, the results will vary.

And I cant figured out how its possible image editing such as Photoshop seems to favot to 9900K, when here https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CPU-Roundup-AMD-Ryzen-3-AMD-Threadripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/ (the more complete Photoshop testing ever), even a 3600 wins 9900K.
9900X and 9900K are two different CPUs,the 9900k is at the same level as the 3900x and the 3800x and again this is with default setup,they make a big deal out of it at the beginning of the article that everything is as close to spec as possible.
And if you look at the individual scores they posted you will understand what intel is saying here,depending on what your benchmark suit focuses on you can make either one win hands down,which is the whole point,you have to measure what you actually will use.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,207
2,767
136
I said "for the vast majority of people" carefully, because most people are using their computer for browsing the web, checking email, running Office, perhaps VPN into work, gaming.
Those people are not buying the 9900k. If you buy the 9900k and use it the way most 9900k owners use it, the 3900x winds up being the better buy. Especially in applications where you will start to want raw performance, like encoding or streaming. Furthermore, i am not convinced that Intel's methodology is producing reliable results that should be taken seriously by anyone (see post above from @MarkPost ).
 

MarkPost

Member
Mar 1, 2017
160
75
71
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/7
They (anand)messed something up.
The full review anad made completely backs up this intel presentation,the 9700k is on par with locked TDP and we all know that the 9900k can clock at least as high even with locked TDP if you spend the time to tweak it.
Depending on if they lock the 9900k to default TDP or have the TDP unlocked or even overclock the 9900k, the results will vary.


9900X and 9900K are two different CPUs,the 9900k is at the same level as the 3900x and the 3800x and again this is with default setup,they make a big deal out of it at the beginning of the article that everything is as close to spec as possible.
And if you look at the individual scores they posted you will understand what intel is saying here,depending on what your benchmark suit focuses on you can make either one win hands down,which is the whole point,you have to measure what you actually will use.
My fault, it was too late here xD I messed up "K" and "X". Anyways, in Photoshop 3900X is faster tan 9900K.

And sorry, I cant understand what Intel is saying here. So, the company promoting to hell fifteen or twenty years ago HT, MT etc... is now telling us "hey buy our top of the line $500 desktop cpu to surfing the web, checking your mail, or writing a letter to mom. Its the fatest". Seriously? wtf? hell you can do that happily with any ten years old CPU.

No, what we have here is, at best, a pathetic try from Intel marketing department. Better shut up and work to release a better product than the competition. Intel is just behind right now in almost any scenario: perfomance, consumption, efficiency etc
 
Last edited:

Atari2600

Senior member
Nov 22, 2016
901
914
106
Intel is faster than AMD in pretty much every instance that is irrelevant.

Intel: Hey, we are faster in MS Word. Your doc will open 0.0003 seconds quicker (rounded up)!
Everyone: Err... so.

Intel: Hey, we are faster in 1T specrate!
Everyone: Who cares?

Intel: Hey, we can produce 193 FPS on XXXX @ 1080P. AMD can only do 186 FPS!
Everyone: I can't notice the difference.


AMD: For a Corona render job that would take 4 hrs on a 9900K, we can do it an hour quicker.
Everyone: Oooooooh.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY