Best Eight-Core CPU Battle: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs Intel Core i7-9700K

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,875
Enjoying the Ryzen processors so far myself!

"If you're looking for a chip that can chew through a wide range of both threaded workloads and still handle gaming adeptly, Ryzen 7 3800X is the better pick of the two. AMD's octa-core offers cutting-edge features, like PCIe 4.0 support, and delivers exceptional performance in multi-core workloads. If you're looking for a processor for work, the Ryzen 7 3800X is hard to pass by. Ultimately, the Ryzen 7 3800X's biggest competitor comes from within AMD's own stable: The Ryzen 7 3700X is a very capable processor that brings the lion's share of the 3800X's performance, but at a lower price point. Keep that in mind at checkout.


The Core i7-9700K has two things going for it: The processor really shines in gaming and is a fun to overclock. We don't expect anyone to pick up a Core i7-9700K just to play games, so gaming performance ultimately takes the backseat. At stock settings, the Core i7-9700K is not even close to catching the Ryzen 7 3800X in multi-core workloads. The chip, when overclocked to 5.1 GHz, closes the performance gap in some situations. However, neither we or Intel can guarantee that every sample can hit that frequency."

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/best-eight-core-cpu-amd_ryzen_7_3800X_vs_intel-core-i7-9700k
 
Comparing an AMD CPU with SMT against an Intel CPU without HyperThreading? Of course the former is going to do better in multithreaded workloads. Tom's doing a great job of trying to regain their credibility with this one.
 
Best eight core CPUs? Really?! TH just finds new lows, it's remarkable.
 
ManofGod said:
And yet, the 9700K still costs more, with the need for more expensive motherboards, to boot. :)
Click to expand...
and they charge an eyewaterting 100 dollars to flip a fucking switch and a 100mhz boost for the same cpu with hyperthreading 9900k

Meeho said:
Best eight core CPUs? Really?! TH just finds new lows, it's remarkable.
Click to expand...

8 core cpus are now mainstream quads are entry level

seems like a great time top start comparing them

not seeing a bad reason for the review.
 
erek said:
Enjoying the Ryzen processors so far myself!

"If you're looking for a chip that can chew through a wide range of both threaded workloads and still handle gaming adeptly, Ryzen 7 3800X is the better pick of the two. AMD's octa-core offers cutting-edge features, like PCIe 4.0 support, and delivers exceptional performance in multi-core workloads. If you're looking for a processor for work, the Ryzen 7 3800X is hard to pass by. Ultimately, the Ryzen 7 3800X's biggest competitor comes from within AMD's own stable: The Ryzen 7 3700X is a very capable processor that brings the lion's share of the 3800X's performance, but at a lower price point. Keep that in mind at checkout.


The Core i7-9700K has two things going for it: The processor really shines in gaming and is a fun to overclock. We don't expect anyone to pick up a Core i7-9700K just to play games, so gaming performance ultimately takes the backseat. At stock settings, the Core i7-9700K is not even close to catching the Ryzen 7 3800X in multi-core workloads. The chip, when overclocked to 5.1 GHz, closes the performance gap in some situations. However, neither we or Intel can guarantee that every sample can hit that frequency."

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/best-eight-core-cpu-amd_ryzen_7_3800X_vs_intel-core-i7-9700k
Click to expand...

What the actual fuck?

Comparing the 3700X or 3800X to the 9700K directly is ridiculous. One has SMT while the other lacks Hyperthreading as someone already pointed out. The statement about no one picking up a 9700K for gaming and thus gaming benchmarks take a back seat? Wut? Gaming is literally the only thing the 9700K would compete well in. It's going to get destroyed by the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 offerings in any multi-threaded workload. What is the point of this article? It reads like an AMD puff piece. AMD doesn't need it and Intel doesn't need to be knocked down a peg like this when it can and has be done legitimately plenty of times.

ManofGod said:
And yet, the 9700K still costs more, with the need for more expensive motherboards, to boot. :)
Click to expand...
Auer said:
Sit down.

It's a poor comparison is what he's saying, because the 9700K is pretty much a one trick pony.
Click to expand...

The motherboard cost gets brought up a bit, and it's really not true. Sure, if you opt for the cheapest X470 motherboards and compare them to Z390, you'd be right. However, comparing a modern X570 motherboard that's got a decent VRM to a Z390 board brings them a lot closer together. If you go with motherboards like MSI's low end X570's or ASRock's low end boards, you'll find the VRM's can heat your house. You get what you pay for on motherboards to some extent. That's not to say you need a $500 X570 board, but things aren't great below the $300 mark for the most part.

The same is true of Intel's Z390 offerings. Though, because Intel's so strict about motherboard manufacturer guidelines, you probably get a better VRM and build quality at budget levels than you do on the AMD side. Last time I did the comparisons, I found that you could get within about $40 or less between X570 and Z390. I'm not saying that's insignificant to everyone, but it's not exactly as though there is a massive price disparity between the two.

Master_shake_ said:
and they charge an eyewaterting 100 dollars to flip a fucking switch and a 100mhz boost for the same cpu with hyperthreading 9900k



8 core cpus are now mainstream quads are entry level

seems like a great time top start comparing them

not seeing a bad reason for the review.
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple. We never know the reason why a 9700K had its HT disabled. It could be because the feature didn't function correctly, or it was done purely for market segmentation and to fill orders for the less expensive CPU. If we were talking about quad cores, you could almost guarantee that it's due to segmentation or order fills rather than due to the silicon being defective in some way. However, going to 8 or more cores on Intel's 14nm process increases the defect rate quite a bit. It also increases costs and so on.

Features on Intel CPU's aren't disabled by switches, but rather by laser cutting on the CPU to lobotomize the CPU in a sense. It disabled cores, features, etc. on the silicon. The "KF" series are an example of Intel disabling a defective CPU feature, in this case iGPU and selling the CPU for a different market segment. It isn't done because Intel wants to do it that way, but because it has to. Those CPU's would otherwise end up in the trash as rejects.

The reason the comparison is so stupid, I've already outlined above. The fact is, that Intel's 9700K is an 8c/8t CPU with no Hyperthreading. A performance comparison between it and a 3800X or 3700X is stupid. The 9700K will get destroyed at everything but gaming. Yet, the author chose to focus on multi-threaded and non-gaming performance and acts like no one would ever buy a 9700K for gaming. This is ridiculous as its literally the only reason to buy one. A 9700K is one of the fastest gaming CPU's on the planet right now. It's 99% as good as the 9900K and sometimes its actually faster.

The article shows incredible bias. You can compare these CPU's in a review as I have done so in the past. I never compared them directly, but I did include numbers for the 9700K in the lineup. Price comparisons are always valid. But that's not what we have here. It's comparing 8 core CPU's for an arbitrary reason in a testing scenario designed to make AMD look good and Intel look worse than it actually is. The author's statement: "We don't expect anyone to pick up a Core i7-9700K just to play games, so gaming performance ultimately takes the backseat" shows this bias. The statement is either a lie, or its a statement made in ignorance about the market segment and just who these CPU's would or should appeal to.

The bias is also displayed by making an assumption about who would buy the CPU rather than letting the data lead you to a conclusion about who the CPU is best for and why you should or shouldn't buy it in a given scenario. If your testing methods are without bias, you may find your results completely invalidate any assumptions you made and lead you to a new conclusion. When I reviewed AMD's 3400G, I compared it to Intel's 9400K / KF. I thought the 9400K would absolutely suck and although it's priced too high, it's actually better than the 3400G in pretty much every respect. I wouldn't have ever figured this out had I not done testing that was designed to find the strengths and weaknesses of these CPU's.

That's why this article is stupid, biased and essentially worthless.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
What the actual fuck?

Comparing the 3700X or 3800X to the 9700K directly is ridiculous. One has SMT while the other lacks Hyperthreading as someone already pointed out. The statement about no one picking up a 9700K for gaming and thus gaming benchmarks take a back seat? Wut? Gaming is literally the only thing the 9700K would compete well in. It's going to get destroyed by the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 offerings in any multi-threaded workload. What is the point of this article? It reads like an AMD puff piece. AMD doesn't need it and Intel doesn't need to be knocked down a peg like this when it can and has be done legitimately plenty of times.
Click to expand...

Well the only person defending this "review" is an admitted AMD fanboy so I'd say you're right on the money.
 
Furious_Styles said:
Well the only person defending this "review" is an admitted AMD fanboy so I'd say you're right on the money.
Click to expand...

No, he is not completely on the money and I am an admitted AMD Fan, not AMD fan boy, get your shit straight.
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
And yet, the 9700K still costs more, with the need for more expensive motherboards, to boot. :)
Click to expand...

MicroCenter prices.

mITX Z390 boards start at $135. mITX AM4 B450 boards start at $120; mITX X570 boards start at $220.

A mITX Z390 board with an internal USB-C header is $150. The only mITX AM4 board with a USB-C header is $450.


I could have upgraded to a 9900k for about the same as I spent upgrading to a 3700x with the lower cost of the motherboard and the fact that I could have kept my DDR4-3000 as opposed to also "needing" to upgrade to DDR4-3600 - and I would have had a working case-front USB-C connector. I banked on the 4000 series being a nice upgrade but we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Bankie said:
MicroCenter prices.

mITX Z390 boards start at $135. mITX AM4 B450 boards start at $120; mITX X570 boards start at $220.

A mITX Z390 board with an internal USB-C header is $150. The only mITX AM4 board with a USB-C header is $450.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, interesting but, my X370 Taichi has a usb c header internally. Also, my B350 and B450 both have external USB C headers as well. And unless I am totally off base, you are not going to overclock that 9700K to 5.1 GHz on that cheap $135 board, which is what I meant to emphasize. (Or at least what I was more or less thinking, at the time I typed that, thanks.)
 
ManofGod said:
Hmmmm, interesting but, my X370 Taichi has a usb c header internally. Also, my B350 and B450 both have external USB C headers as well. And unless I am totally off base, you are not going to overclock that 9700K to 5.1 GHz on that cheap $135 board, which is what I meant to emphasize. (Or at least what I was more or less thinking, at the time I typed that, thanks.)
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure what overclocking is like on the Z390 boards and it's not like people are getting much in the way of useful overclocks on AM4 anyway. On my Z270 board with a 7700k it was as easy as setting the AutoOC to 4.9Ghz and rebooting; on my 3700x it's been an ordeal of testing RAM tweaks, PBO voodoo, and the like.
 
ManofGod said:
Hmmmm, interesting but, my X370 Taichi has a usb c header internally. Also, my B350 and B450 both have external USB C headers as well. And unless I am totally off base, you are not going to overclock that 9700K to 5.1 GHz on that cheap $135 board, which is what I meant to emphasize. (Or at least what I was more or less thinking, at the time I typed that, thanks.)
Click to expand...

Well, well, they have one of these, which are $124.99 before the $20 off with CPU: Prime Z390 and usually, the Prime boards get a decent overclock.
 
Bankie said:
Honestly, I'm not sure what overclocking is like on the Z390 boards and it's not like people are getting much in the way of useful overclocks on AM4 anyway. On my Z270 board with a 7700k it was as easy as setting the AutoOC to 4.9Ghz and rebooting; on my 3700x it's been an ordeal of testing RAM tweaks, PBO voodoo, and the like.
Click to expand...

You generally only have to adjust the CPU voltage and the frequency multiplier. Sometimes you have to add load-line calibration into the mix. I've gotten several 9900K's to 5.0GHz. I've hit 5.1GHz on a 9600K and I think 5.0GHz on the 9700K as well. The platform is solid for overclocking and most of the CPU's can clock fairly well. Thing is, 5.0GHz isn't that much beyond their standard turbo frequency anyway.

The biggest overclock and largest gains I've seen on a recent CPU is the 10980XE. That can be taken from 3.0/4.6GHz base to about 4.7-4.8GHz. Again, not much beyond their turbo frequency, but that's 18c/36t at that clock speed full time. The gains you get in applications are immense. It also takes a little more work to achieve sometimes. It's probably the last time we'll see traditional overclocking as we know it.
 
Dan_D said:
You generally only have to adjust the CPU voltage and the frequency multiplier. Sometimes you have to add load-line calibration into the mix. I've gotten several 9900K's to 5.0GHz. I've hit 5.1GHz on a 9600K and I think 5.0GHz on the 9700K as well. The platform is solid for overclocking and most of the CPU's can clock fairly well. Thing is, 5.0GHz isn't that much beyond their standard turbo frequency anyway.

The biggest overclock and largest gains I've seen on a recent CPU is the 10980XE. That can be taken from 3.0/4.6GHz base to about 4.7-4.8GHz. Again, not much beyond their turbo frequency, but that's 18c/36t at that clock speed full time. The gains you get in applications are immense. It also takes a little more work to achieve sometimes. It's probably the last time we'll see traditional overclocking as we know it.
Click to expand...

If I do not play online competitive games, Dan, would you upgrade a 1700 at 3.8 GHz with a Vega 56, a 1600 at 4.0 GHz with a Vega 64 or R2600 at 4.0 Ghz with a RX 5700? Upgrade with a 3600 or 3700X if you have a ton of games but do not game a ton? Thanks.
 
Yeah, that was a pretty lame smackdown from Tom's. So much wrong.... Has Tom's become the National Enquirer of hardware reviews/comparisons?
 
The 3800X and 9700k are both $399 MSRP. I assume that is why they compared those two processors. The are both 7 class parts(i7/R7). The i9 9900k is $539 MSRP.
I do agree though, the article is written poorly.
 
Master_shake_ said:
well the 3700x is an 8 core cpu.

adding the suffix "thread" is a new thing.

we didn't call a q6600 4 core 4 threaded cpu now did we?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call a test between a race car and a truck "a battle of 300 HP vehicles", just like I wouldn't call a 8/16 vs 8/8 a battle of eight core CPUs. Technically correct, but stupid nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
How does it not make sense to compare 2 CPUs in the same price range? Isn't that the most important part of choosing components???
I never read Tom's, probably never will, but come on....
What Dan_d said about directly comparing them being "ridiculous" is stupid. They are competing against each other directly so they are going to be "directly compared" to each other. How does it not make sense?

Everything else Dan said was spot on though
 
Last edited:
Bankie said:
MicroCenter prices.

mITX Z390 boards start at $135. mITX AM4 B450 boards start at $120; mITX X570 boards start at $220.

A mITX Z390 board with an internal USB-C header is $150. The only mITX AM4 board with a USB-C header is $450.


I could have upgraded to a 9900k for about the same as I spent upgrading to a 3700x with the lower cost of the motherboard and the fact that I could have kept my DDR4-3000 as opposed to also "needing" to upgrade to DDR4-3600 - and I would have had a working case-front USB-C connector. I banked on the 4000 series being a nice upgrade but we'll see.
Click to expand...

The downside of itx/sff formats, you don't always have good mobo options.
 
ManofGod said:
If I do not play online competitive games, Dan, would you upgrade a 1700 at 3.8 GHz with a Vega 56, a 1600 at 4.0 GHz with a Vega 64 or R2600 at 4.0 Ghz with a RX 5700? Upgrade with a 3600 or 3700X if you have a ton of games but do not game a ton? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone else. If your happy with your current gaming experience, then it doesn't make much sense to upgrade. If you aren't, then an upgrade is perhaps warranted. I know people ask questions like this because they want new hardware and aren't sure what to expect from teh change. The Ryzen 7 1700 isn't a great gaming CPU. It just isn't. It was well behind Intel's CPU's from several years ago on the gaming front. You would see quite an improvement upgrading to a 3600 but almost none going to a Ryzen 7 2600. There is a big change going from a 1st or 2nd generation Ryzen to the 3000 series. Especially where gaming is concerned. A Ryzen 5 3600 or 3600X would be a big upgrade on that front over a 1700.

As for a Vega 64, I know they are faster than the Vega56, but I am not really sure by how much. To be perfectly honest, if it isn't one of the top two graphics cards on the market, I don't pay too much attention to them. That said, a quick check on the subject seems to show that the Vega 64 isn't that much faster than the Vega 56 most of the time. However, the Radeon 5700 looks to be an alright upgrade over the Vega 56. However, I think that one depends on what resolution and quality settings your at. Sometimes it only seems to put out about 5-10FPS more, but sometimes that's in a game where the Vega 56 is running sub-60FPS. Those numbers don't sound like much but that's a pretty dramatic impact on your experience. Being at 49FPS and cracking 60FPS is a pretty big jump in performance. In other cases where you might be seeing 89FPS and jumping to 101FPS, it isn't as big a deal. 1%'s don't look much different between the two, but your averages do.

But again, that's a personal choice. Performance wise I say yes, but price is up to you. I'm the guy who buys $1,000+ CPU's and $1,200+ video cards. Naturally, I'm going to say yes as I can afford it. Where I tend to not take the upgrade is where the difference is well below 10% and the price is 40-50% more to get there.

cjcox said:
Yeah, that was a pretty lame smackdown from Tom's. So much wrong.... Has Tom's become the National Enquirer of hardware reviews/comparisons?
Click to expand...

It sure seems that way. As I said, it reads like someone is trying to fluff AMD for a porno shoot.


Decibel said:
Become?

No.

Been... Pretty much since Dr. Tom left
Click to expand...

It's certainly spiraled downhill over the years. That's what happens when a media conglomerate buys your site and all it gives a shit about is ad revenue.
 
Rockenrooster said:
How does it not make sense to compare 2 CPUs in the same price range? Isn't that the most important part of choosing components???
I never read Tom's, probably never will, but come on....
What Dan_d said about directly comparing them being "ridiculous" is stupid. They are competing against each other directly so they are going to be "directly compared" to each other. How does it not make sense?

Everything else Dan said was spot on though
Click to expand...

The only way they compare is in terms of price point. I'll give you that to an extent. Beyond that, the comparison is completely illogical because you know how its going to go before clicking the link. An 8c/16t AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is going to destroy a eight core Intel CPU without Hyperthreading in any multi-threaded workload. It's pretty stupid in that the outcome of such a comparison was already known and the one area the 9700K competes in (and actually beats AMD) was glossed over and pretty much ignored.

The AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is also significantly cheaper than the 9700K. It's platform is newer and there are a wider range of motherboards to choose from for it. The 9700K doesn't get past the starting line for most people. Even the price point comparison seems like a weak reason to compare these two. They don't compare in any other way. Well, beyond gaming which again Tom's ignored.

That's why the article reads like someone is trying to get on their knees for AMD.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
The only way they compare is in terms of price point. I'll give you that to an extent. Beyond that, the comparison is completely illogical because you know how its going to go before clicking the link. An 8c/16t AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is going to destroy a eight core Intel CPU without Hyperthreading in any multi-threaded workload. It's pretty stupid in that the outcome of such a comparison was already known and the one area the 9700K competes in (and actually beats AMD) was glossed over and pretty much ignored.

That's why the article reads like someone is trying to get on their knees for AMD.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter that one is handicapped or not, if they sell for the same price then they are in the same competitive range.
 
thesmokingman said:
Doesn't matter that one is handicapped or not, if they sell for the same price then they are in the same competitive range.
Click to expand...

They don't sell for the same price. The Ryzen 7 3800X is significantly cheaper. Almost to the point where it's in a different bracket. Price isn't necessarily the only comparison point. I agree, its what generally defines a segment, but again: That's not really the problem with the comparison.

1582841478835.png


The problem is that the article was written to make the 9700K look worse than it is by not comparing their gaming performance thoroughly. This is the main reason why the comparison is stupid. That's what people have a problem with. It's also seemingly pointless to write an article about it, when the question was answered by a 100 different sites and countless wannabe Youtube stars. (Even legitimate ones.) So, why is this being done? Why is it a warm handy for AMD? AMD doesn't need this.
 
Dan_D said:
They don't sell for the same price. Price isn't necessarily the only comparison point. I agree, its what generally defines a segment, but again: That's not really the problem with the comparison. The problem is that the article was written to make the 9700K look worse than it is by not comparing their gaming performance thoroughly. This is the main reason why the comparison is stupid. That's what people have a problem with. It's also seemingly pointless to write an article about it, when the question was answered by a 100 different sites and countless wannabe Youtube stars. (Even legitimate ones.) So, why is this being done? Why is it a warm handy for AMD? AMD doesn't need this.
Click to expand...

Well I'll give you that no one needed this review cuz everyone already knows the outcome. Thus I'm not sure why yer crying over an obvious conclusion.
 
1_rick said:
Just to address this one point, an adapter is $23. I have one in my current build.
Click to expand...

Then you lose the normal internal USB 3.0 header which any ITX board only has one of. So if your case has a front 3.0 A and a 3.0 C connection you have to choose one or the other. And purchasing that adapter basically puts the total cost of a "lowly" B450 board to the price of a full-featured Z390 board.
 
Ranulfo said:
The downside of itx/sff formats, you don't always have good mobo options.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you go AM4 ITX your options are either somewhat limited or severely overpriced.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top