AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K: What is the difference?
64points
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
64points
Intel Core i7-9700K
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Intel Core i7-9700K
Why is AMD Ryzen 7 3700X better than Intel Core i7-9700K?
- 534MHz higher ram speed?
3200MHzvs2666MHz - 8 more CPU threads?
16vs8 - 7nm smaller semiconductor size?
7nmvs14nm - 2MB bigger L2 cache?
4MBvs2MB - 1.56x higher PassMark result?
22724vs14554 - 30W lower TDP?
65Wvs95W - 20MB bigger L3 cache?
32MBvs12MB - 1 newer version of PCI Express (PCIe)?
4vs3
Why is Intel Core i7-9700K better than AMD Ryzen 7 3700X?
- 5°C higher maximum operating temperature?
100°Cvs95°C - 0.
5GHz higher turbo clock speed?
4.9GHzvs4.4GHz - Has integrated graphics?
- 8.62% higher PassMark result (single)?
2897vs2667
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
vs
Intel Core i5-1135G7
AMD Ryzen 3 3250U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 3 5300U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 7 5700U
vs
Intel Core i7-1165G7
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
vs
Intel Core i5-10210U
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U
vs
Intel Core i5-10210U
Intel Core i3-1115G4
vs
Intel Core i5-1135G7
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H
vs
Intel Core i7-11800H
Intel Celeron N4020
vs
Intel Core i3-1005G1
Price comparison
Cheap alternatives
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
7 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
9.
9/10
7 User reviews
Intel Core i7-9700K
0 User reviews
Intel Core i7-9700K
0.0/10
0 User reviews
Features
Value for money
9.4/10
7 votes
No reviews yet
Gaming
9.9/10
7 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
9.6/10
7 votes
No reviews yet
Reliability
9.9/10
7 votes
No reviews yet
Energy efficiency
9.1/10
7 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
1.CPU speed
8 x 3.6GHz
8 x 3.6GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.
CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
4.4GHz
4.9GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700K
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.
25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
4MB/core
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
3200MHz
2666MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
47.68GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.
maximum memory amount
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700K
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-9700K)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.
bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-9700K)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
170.7seconds
224.8seconds
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
509.9seconds
709.8seconds
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700K
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads.
This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700K
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700K
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700K
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-9700K)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700K
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700K
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-9700K)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
3700X vs 9700k: Does the Ryzen 7 beat the Intel Core i7?
This post contains affiliate links.
That means if you buy something I get a small commission at no extra cost to you.
AMD has long been the budget alternative to Intel.
The Ryzen 7 3700X is AMD’s answer to the Intel Core i7-9700k, which has ruled the under-$400 CPU space.
The price separation between the two is nearly enough to fit 16GB of DDR4 in between.
With a lower price yet twice as many threads, does the 3700X win out? Read on to find out.
Gaming Performance
At 1080p, the 9700k holds a 5-10% framerate edge in most gaming benchmarks.
At 1440p, the difference shrinks to a 5% or lower lead on average for the 9700k.
If you plan to game at 4k, 3440×1440, or another very high resolution, expect the difference to be minimal.
Either CPU will be capable of delivering close to the maximum possible performance of CPU’s today.
Only slight gains will be had by stepping up to a Ryzen 9 3900X or i9-9900k.
Both of those CPU’s cost closer to $500.
Multimedia Performance
Both the 3700X and 9700k are 8-core CPU’s. While the 9700k has 8 threads, the 3700X has 16 – just as with the more expensive 9900k.
Taking advantage of the extra cores will depend on the task being performed.
Rendering, video encoding, compression, and encryption can generally use as many threads as you can throw at them.
This is an area where the 3700X shines, and far outperforms the 9700k. Expect a time reduction anywhere from 20-50% in performing some of these tasks.
Games make use of 8 threads or less, but with 16 threads, half are free for other tasks.
This makes streaming another good use case for a CPU like the 3700X with a lot of threads. If you plan to stream on Twitch or another platform while playing 3D-intensive games, your games will be smoother and suffer less of an FPS hit.
So we’ve outlined that streamers and those who plan to render, encode video, compress, or encrypt frequently will see an advantage with the 3700X.
Most other tasks like web browsing, office apps, and photo editing simply won’t put the extra threads of the 3700X to use.
Both the 3700X and 9700k have identical base clock speeds of 3.6GHz, but the 9700k clocks in at 5.0GHz Turbo versus the 3700X’s 4.4GHz Max Boost.
Due to this difference in max clock speeds, productivity apps generally perform better on the 9700k – to the order of about 5-10% faster in benchmarks.
Bottom line – 3700X leads for streaming and heavily threaded apps like rendering, encoding, and compression; 9700k leads in everything else.
Temperature & Cooling
The 3700X is far more efficient than its AMD predecessors. That said, Intel has made bigger temperature improvements than AMD in the last couple of generations.
Temperatures of 70°C at heavy load are typical for the 3700X, while the 9700k runs closer to 65°C.
When overclocked, the 3700X can see temps of 80°C or higher. Compare this to overclocked temps of below 75°C for the 9700k.
New CPU’s can handle high temps, but this does contribute to the overall heat output and noise level of your system. Fans need to spin up higher to better dissipate the heat.
If noise level and heat output are big concerns of yours, the 9700k does a better job at keeping its temps down.
Power Usage
Earlier Ryzen CPU’s were pretty power-hungry.
That has changed with the 3000 series.
The third-generation Ryzen 3700X has a very low 65W TDP compared to the older 2700X or 3800X’s 105W. Power draw is much lower at both idle and load.
Compared to the 9700k, idle power draw is a few watts higher. Under load, though, the 3700X’s power consumption is as much as 30W lower.
One note is that ExtremeTech found that power consumption is higher using X570 motherboards than X470 boards. This may be fixed through a BIOS update in the future. For now, power draw is still lower with the latest Ryzen CPU’s on an X570 board, but not as much so as with X470 models.
The 3700X stands as the more efficient CPU under load.
Overclocking
Gone are the AMD Athlon days of massive overclocks. A lot of this has to do with the addition of more and more cores.
The 3700X isn’t much of an overclocker. Expect to see about an extra 100MHz if you choose to overclock with air or a basic water cooling setup.
I’d personally recommend not bothering with your own overclocking if you pair the 3700X with an X570 motherboard.
Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) will automatically overclock the CPU when possible, and keep the clock speed and power usage lower when it’s not needed.
The 9700k does a little better with overclocking. Most samples will overclock to 5200MHz. This amounts to a gain of just a few percent. However, it puts the performance pretty close to a stock-clocked 9900k in any apps where its additional threads aren’t put to use (games and photo editing, for instance).
When overclocked, the 9700k extends its lead a bit further ahead of the 3700X in games.
Value
As of this writing, street prices were about $50 cheaper on the 3700X. This is nearly significant enough to pay for an SSD or RAM for your build, and not to be overlooked.
On top of that, it ships with a CPU cooler.
A good CPU cooler.
There’s no need to replace AMD’s bundled CPU heatsink/fan unless you plan to use water cooling.
Intel, as usual, does not bundle a cooler. Adding something equivalent to the Wraith Prism cooler that AMD provides will cost you another $30-40.
That moves the price gap to $80-90 dollars, or about 25% higher cost for the 9700k.
Finally, compare AMD and Intel motherboards side by side. You’ll find AMD boards with identical features are cheaper as well.
All said and done, you could be looking to save a bit over $100 by going with a 3700X system over a 9700k build.
Conclusion
You really can’t go wrong with either the 3700X or the 9700k. They fit into a great price point where you’re getting near to top-end performance without spending a fortune.
Here’s where I think each CPU stands out. Figure out what matters most to you and pick accordingly.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X:
- Overall Value
- Streaming
- Video Editing
- Encoding & Compression
- Low Power Consumption
Intel i7-9700k:
- Gaming
- Photo Editing
- Office Applications
- Overclocking
- Lower Temperatures
VIEW RYZEN 3700X ON AMAZON
VIEW i7-9700K ON AMAZON
Intel Core i7 9700K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X: performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i7 9700K
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
We compared two 8-core desktop CPUs: the 3.6 GHz Intel Core i7 9700K against the 3.6 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. On this page, you’ll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.
- Review
- Differences
- Performance
- Specs
- Comments (1)
Review
General overview and comparison of the processors
Single-Core Performance
Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks
Core i7 9700K
68
Ryzen 7 3700X
67
Performance
Measure performance when all cores are involved
Core i7 9700K
44
Ryzen 7 3700X
58
Power Efficiency
The efficiency score of electricity consumption
Core i7 9700K
46
Ryzen 7 3700X
61
NanoReview Final Score
Generic CPU rating
Core i7 9700K
54
Ryzen 7 3700X
63
Key Differences
What are the key differences between 3700X and 9700K
Advantages of Intel Core i7 9700K
- Includes an integrated GPU Intel UHD Graphics 630
- 11% higher Turbo Boost frequency (4.
9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz)
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
- Has 20 MB larger L3 cache size
- More modern manufacturing process – 7 versus 14 nanometers
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than the Core i7 9700K – 65 vs 95 Watt
- Newer PCI Express version – 4.0
- Newer — released 9-months later
- Around 6.08 GB/s (15%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth
Benchmarks
Comparing the performance of CPUs in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Core i7 9700K
1280
Ryzen 7 3700X
+5%
1339
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Core i7 9700K
9424
Ryzen 7 3700X
+29%
12151
Passmark CPU (Single-Core)
Core i7 9700K
+8%
2888
Ryzen 7 3700X
2667
Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)
Core i7 9700K
14419
Ryzen 7 3700X
+56%
22548
Geekbench 5 (Single-Core)
Core i7 9700K
1278
Ryzen 7 3700X
1274
Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)
Core i7 9700K
7397
Ryzen 7 3700X
+13%
8374
▶️ Submit your Cinebench R23 result
By purchasing through links on this site, we may receive a commission from Amazon. This does not affect our assessment methodology.
Specifications
Full technical specification of Intel Core i7 9700K and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
General
| Vendor | Intel | AMD |
| Released | October 8, 2018 | July 7, 2019 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| instruction set | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |
| Model number | i7-9700K | — |
| Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
| Cores | 8 | 8 |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Base Frequency | 3. |
3.6 GHz |
| Turbo Boost Frequency | 4.9 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36x | 36x |
| Bus Bandwidth | 8 GT/s | — |
| L1 Cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 Cache | 12MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | Yes |
| Transistors | — | 3.8 billions |
| Fabrication process | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| TDP | 95 W | 65 W |
| Max. |
100°C | 95°C |
| Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| GPU Base Clock | 350 MHz | — |
| GPU Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | — |
| Shading Units | 192 | — |
| TMUs | 24 | — |
| ROPs | 3 | — |
| Execution Units | 24 | — |
| TGP | 15 W | — |
| Max. Resolution | 4096×2304 — 60 Hz | — |
iGPU FLOPS
Core i7 9700K
0.38 TFLOPS
Ryzen 7 3700X
n/a
Memory support
| Memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 |
| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Max. |
2 | 2 |
| Max. Memory Bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 47.68 GB/s |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| Official site | Intel Core i7 9700K official page | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X official page |
| PCI Express Version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express Lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Cast your vote
Choose between two processors
Core i7 9700K
23 (24.5%)
Ryzen 7 3700X
71 (75.5%)
Total votes: 94
ompetitors
1.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X or Intel Core i7 9700K
2.
Intel Core i5 12600K or Intel Core i7 9700K
3.
Intel Core i5 12400F or Intel Core i7 9700K
4.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
5.
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
6.
Intel Core i5 12600K or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
7.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
8.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Ryzen 7 3700x vs Intel i7 9700k
Building a custom PC for gaming or productivity-based applications used to be so easy back in the day. All you needed to do was find a suitable Intel processor in your budget and build your system around that. But now, the market is changed as there are a lot of options available from Intel as well as AMD for a CPU. Thus, you now get tones of options available for a CPU in every budget.
While having options allows you to choose the perfect option regarding your usage, it also creates a lot of confusion as most models look quite similar on paper based on their specifications. Right now, a lot of users face confusion between Intel and AMD CPUs that are available in about the same price range.
Today, we will go through the major differences between the Ryzen 7 3700x and the Intel i7 9700k CPUs and compare them based on various factors such as gaming performance, thermal performance, overclocking capabilities, and many more. Stick until the end of our discussion to find out the best CPU for your build.
Outline
About Ryzen 7 3700x
Before we move onto the comparison, let us try to understand both CPUs in a brief manner. First, on the list, we have the Ryzen 7 3700x processor from AMD. Released back in July 2019, the Ryzen 7 3700x quickly gained popularity based on its price to performance ratio. With a price tag of only $330, the Ryzen 7 3700x offered a lot of advantages against its competitors.
Coming to the technical specifications of the Ryzen 7 3700x, it is an octa-core desktop processor with 16 operational threads available. It operates at a base clock of 3.6 GHz but offers extended performance for a short period of time with a turbo clock speed of up to 4.4 GHz. This CPU also supports overclocking, which is suitable for heavy gaming and workstations. The Ryzen 7 3700x operates with a 36 MB L3 cache and has a 65W TDP. 3700X is based on AM4 socket.
Pros
- Available under an affordable price tag
- The number of threads is higher
- Higher L3 cache capacity
- TDP is significantly lower
- Premium stock cooler included
- Suitable choice for multipurpose PC builds
Cons
- Turbo clock capacity is lower
- Slight performance dip in gaming
- No integrated graphics
- Supported motherboards are relatively expensive
About Intel i7 9700k
Now that you are familiar with the Ryzen option let’s take a look at the other side of the competition. Here, we have the Intel i7 9700k CPU. This is a relatively older model of CPU as it was released back in October 2018. Still, this CPU is a preferred choice for many users as it provides great performance for gaming PC builds. Although, you will have to spend a couple of extra bucks if you are going for the Intel i7 9700k, as it is priced around $374.
The Intel i7 9700k is also an octa-core desktop processor operating at a base clock of 3.6 GHz. But, unlike Ryzen 7 3700x, the Intel i7 9700K doesn’t support multithreading. Still, it features great power capacity for heavy tasks as it has turbo clock capacity that goes as high as 4.9 GHz capacity. Unlike most other Intel CPUs, the i7 9700k processor supports overclocking with LGA 1151 motherboards. It has a 95W TDP and offers 12 MB of L3 cache capacity.
Pros
- Single-core performance is pretty good
- The best-suited choice for gaming
- Can be used on a PC without a graphics card
- LGA 1151 motherboards are affordable in comparison
- Overclocking compatibility is great
Cons
- Need to purchase a separate cooler along with the CPU
- No multithreading
- L3 cache capacity is lower
- Higher power draw
- Comparatively expensive option
- Multicore performance is pretty bad
Ryzen 7 3700x vs Intel i7 9700k Table
Now that you are familiar with both AMD Ryzen 7 3700x and the Intel i7 9700k processors, it should be easier for you to make a choice. Although, you should still consider the side by side comparison presented below to get a clear picture.
Here, we will be comparing some of the important characteristics of each CPU and give you a detailed analysis of each option. Thus, you can find the advantages and flaws of each processor easily and decide on the basis of the comparison.
| Factors | Ryzen 7 3700x | Intel i7 9700k |
| Price Range | Priced around $330 | Priced around $374 |
| Socket type | AM4 Socket | LGA 1151 |
| Number of physical cores | 8 core CPU | 8 core CPU |
| Number of threads | 16 thread | 8 thread |
| Maximum TDP | 65W | 95W |
| Architecture | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| First Available In Market | July 2019 | October 2018 |
| Single-Core Performance (userbenchmark. |
140 points | 135 points |
| Multi-Core Performance (userbenchmark.com) | 1023 points | 917 points |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Turbo Clock | Up to 4.4 GHz | Up to 4.9 GHz |
| Overclocking Support | Available | Available |
Gaming Performance
Custom PC builds are majorly designed for gaming and gaming and similar applications such as content creation, live streaming, and video editing. Hence, it is important to consider the gaming performance of a CPU before you decide which option is going to power your next build. Let’s talk about the gaming performance difference between Ryzen 7 3700x and Intel i7 9700k.
-
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
First up, we are going to take a look at the gaming performance offered by Ryzen 7 3700x. At the standard Full Hd 1080p resolution and best possible graphics settings, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700x offers pretty consistent results. And as this CPU is specifically designed to be used with a dedicated graphics card, it offers great support for high-end graphics cards and allows it to perform without any bottleneck.
Let’s take a look at the gaming performance observed with the Ryzen 7 3700x paired with a high-end Nvidia RTX 2080 OC edition graphics card for 10 popular PC games.
| Game | Average Frames Per Second |
| Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | 99 FPS |
| Project Cars | 93 FPS |
| Battlefield V | 183 FPS |
| Rainbow Six Siege | 306 FPS |
| The Witcher 3 | 150 FPS |
| Metro Exodus | 179 FPS |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 102 FPS |
| Hitman 2 | 95 FPS |
| The Division 2 | 129 FPS |
| Watch Dogs 2 | 104 FPS |
-
Intel i7 9700k
Up next, we have the gaming performance recorded with an Intel i7 9700k paired with the same Nvidia RTX 2080 OC edition graphics card as well as an identical hardware configuration. After taking a look at our comparison tables for both CPUs, it is evident that Intel i7 9700k manages to deliver considerably better performance when it comes to gaming, thanks to its higher turbo boost capacity.
For each game in the testing, Intel i7 9700k has managed to maintain triple-digit FPS, whereas Ryzen has fallen short on a couple of heavy games. Let’s take a look at the gaming performance observed with the Intel i7 9700k paired with a high-end Nvidia RTX 2080 OC edition graphics card for 10 popular PC games.
| Game | Average Frames Per Second |
| Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | 101 FPS |
| Project Cars | 103 FPS |
| Battlefield V | 191 FPS |
| Rainbow Six Siege | 340 FPS |
| The Witcher 3 | 156 FPS |
| Metro Exodus | 184 FPS |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112 FPS |
| Hitman 2 | 103 FPS |
| The Division 2 | 143 FPS |
| Watch Dogs 2 | 107 FPS |
Multimedia Performance
Multimedia performance is also very important when it comes to buying a CPU. Even if you are designing a system mainly for gaming, you will eventually use the computer for other tasks such as streaming and recording. Even if you don’t, the extended multimedia performance on the CPU keeps your system future-proof for extended applications later on.
-
Ryzen 7 3700x
Coming to the productive part of the system, the multimedia performance includes heavy tasks such as video editing, rendering, video encoding, video decoding, compression, decompression, and much more. For that, the higher thread count of Ryzen 7 3700x manages to keep it ahead in the competition.
As these tasks utilize multiple threads of the CPU at once, the 16 threads available with the Ryzen 7 3700x make it a dominant CPU in this comparison with up to 20 to 50% better performance in different tasks.
The added thread count also makes the Ryzen 7 3700x a suitable choice of CPU for content creators and streams. As most games would not utilize more than 8 threads, you will have 8 additional threads active for tasks like recording and streaming the game while you are playing it. However, nominal tasks like web browsing, photo editing, and online communication will not utilize the additional power available with the Ryzen 7 3700x.
-
Intel i7 9700k
The multimedia performance offered by the Intel i7 9700k is not up to the level as compared with the Ryzen 7 3700x for heavy tasks. The main reason behind that is the reduced thread count offered with this CPU. Here, you will only have 8 operational threads operating at a base speed of 3.6 GHz. While this much power is more than enough for casual tasks, it will struggle a bit in heavy tasks like video editing and rendering.
Although, the higher turbo clock capacity of the Intel i7 9700k might be an advantage for some users when it comes to multimedia performance. For basic applications that focus more on a single core performance, you will find the operational time slightly reduced with the Intel i7 9700k. You might see up to 5 to 10% performance increase with the Intel i7 9700k for the apps and services, which are based on single-core performance of the CPU.
Temperature & Cooling
The temperature and cooling parameters available with a CPU also affect its performance by a lot. As you may already know, CPUs don’t perform well at high temperatures due to thermal throttling. To avoid that, you need to check the operating temperatures of both CPUs at high load and possible cooling solutions that you can administer.
-
Ryzen 7 3700x
Similar to most AMD processors, the Ryzen 7 3700x is also shipped with a dedicated stock cooler. It is a fact that AMD’s stock coolers are pretty good, and users generally don’t need to buy a third-party air or water cooler for their AMD-based system. That being said, the Ryzen 7 3700x processor from AMD goes up to 70°C temperature while operating at heavy loads.
Such temperatures can be easily maintained by the included stock cooler. Thus, you can get a decent performance out of your CPU without spending additional bucks on a third-party cooler. Although, we will highly recommend liquid cooling your system if you are planning to overclock your CPU and use it at a higher clock speed.
-
Intel i7 9700k
Recently, Intel has stopped shipping stock coolers with its overclocking compatible CPUs. This includes the K series processors, which also includes our next competitor, the Intel i7 9700k. As this CPU is dedicated to gamers, most users are going to overclock their system. And for that, most users prefer a liquid cooling system or an AIO cooling system. Thus, Intel has removed the stock coolers to save some manufacturing costs and bring down the prices of its CPUs.
Paired with a standard air cooler, the Intel i7 9700k already offers lower operation temperatures as compared with the Ryzen. Under heavy load, the Intel i7 9700k operates at around 65°C temperature levels. And while overclocked, you will notice around 75°C temperature levels for the same. Also, a decent 3rd party cooler like Noctua or CoolerMaster can bring down the temperatures even further while maintaining a quieter performance for your system.
Power Usage
The power usage of a CPU indirectly affects your whole system. The power drawn by a CPU is mentioned in the TDP unit, which stands for thermal design power. If the TDP of a CPU is higher, it will require more power from your power supply. This will reduce the efficiency of your power supply unit and make your computer struggle in heavy tasks, which increases the power draw for other hardware as well.
-
Ryzen 7 3700x
AMD was infamous in the past because of its power-hungry CPUs when it was designing 14 nm processors. But, AMD has managed to turn the whole thing around with the release of 3rd generation Ryzen series processors designed with the 7 nm architecture.
The Ryzen 7 3700x mentioned here has a TDP of only 65W, which is nearly 40% less than its competitors. Even with such low TDP, Ryzen is offering a higher thread count, which is admirable.
A lower TDP CPU like the Ryzen 7 3700x will bring down your system’s running cost a lot in the long run. As less power is being consumed, Ryzen 7 3700x is a perfect choice for budget-focused productivity systems.
-
Intel i7 9700k
While the power requirement for Ryzen CPUs has reduced by a lot in the past few years, the power requirement for Intel CPUs is, more or less, the same. The Intel i7 9700k operates at 95W TDP, which is 40% higher than that of its Ryzen competitor. Thus, the overall power usage and running cost of the Intel i7 9700k will be quite higher compared to the Intel i7 9700k.
But, the higher power draw on the Intel i7 9700k helps to keep a balanced performance output for the processor even when it is working at its peak capacity. As the peak clock speed of Intel i7 9700k is around 5 GHz, you will find it stable while playing heavy games at face lesser FPS drops.
Overclocking
Overclocked systems offer much higher performance compared to the default clock system as the overclocked hardware, whether it is your CPU, GPU, or RAM, gets more work done in less amount of time. Ryzen CPUs have always been popular with the OC favored community in the past, But, the current generation of Intel processors also offers great OC capabilities.
-
Ryzen 7 3700x
The Ryzen 7 3700x already offers you a larger number of threads. Thus, you will not notice a lot of difference if you overclock your Ryzen CPU with decent air or even a water cooler. You can expect about a 100 MHz additional speed with the CPU after overclocking which offers a few percentages of gain in the performance
Ryzen CPUs is equipped with smart PBO technology. The PBO stands for precision boost overdrive that automatically overclocks the CPU when required and keeps the clock speeds at the standard level when not necessary. Thus, you can save yourself from the trouble of overclocking and resetting your CPU time after time.
-
Intel i7 9700k
Overclocking is yet another parameter where Intel i7 9700k seems to take a lead compared to the Ryzen 7 3700x. This Intel CPU offers great overclocking capabilities with up to 5200 MHz overclocking possible with a high-end liquid cooler. While this high overclocking capability adds up to the performance of the CPU, it also makes the CPU in line with the high-end Intel i7 9900k processor.
Keep in mind that overclocking only increases the clock speed of existing cores and threads. Thus, you will notice the performance gains only in games and apps which are focused on single-core performance of the CPU. In heavier apps that rely on multi-core performance, the effect of overclocking the Intel i7 9700k is not going to be significant.
3700X vs. 9700k: Does the Ryzen 7 beat the Intel Core i7
In simpler words, the Ryzen 7 3700x is basically a budget alternative available for the Intel core i7 9700k processor. Each of these processors offers some dedicated advantages and disadvantages and differs in aspects like gaming, multimedia, thermal, and power usage characteristics.
But, you also need to consider the major fact, which is the budget for the CPU. As CPU is not as important in gaming as compared to the graphics card, you can buy the Ryzen 7 3700x and put the remaining balance of your budget to get a better GPU or get an additional RAM or even an NVMe M.2 drive for your system for extra performance. As for the lower gaming performance of the Ryzen 7 3700x, you might not even get to notice that with a high-end GPU or additional RAM.
Also, you will be getting a higher thread count with the Ryzen 7 3700x along with a lower power draw. Thus, your system will be capable of doing so much more apart from gaming while keeping the running cost lower in comparison. Not to mention, you will also be saving a few bucks because of the included stock cooler in case you are not thinking of overclocking the system.
Conclusion
Buying a CPU is one of the most important decisions you will have to make while building a system. While going through our comparison between Ryzen 7 3700x and the Intel i7 9700k, you must have noticed the similarities as well as differences between both processors that should be studied before making a choice.
In the end, we would like to recommend buying the Ryzen 7 3700x if you are looking for a value for the money option that can also be beneficial for video editing, streaming, and other applications. Although, the Intel i7 9700k is also not a bad choice for an overclocked system dedicated to gaming and entertainment.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7–9700K: Which should you get?
The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and the Intel Core i7-9700K are only a step below flagship CPU offerings from AMD and Intel. Both are capable processors for any task you might throw at them and both cost a pretty penny. But which CPU is better? Let’s find out below.
Design and features
First of all, let’s compare their raw specs. Let’s start with the Ryzen CPU. It’s an eight-core processor that supports hyperthreading, making it an eight-core/sixteen thread unit. The CPU works at 3.6GHz base and 4.4Ghz turbo frequency, which isn’t bad but isn’t anything mind-blowing. Intel has shown how fast mainstream CPUs can run when with its LGA 1200 processor series. When you cannot improve the manufacturing process and shrink the die, frequency stays your last way to improve performance.
Anyway, those eight cores spend a mere 65W of power, which is very low by today’s standards. This allows the 3700X to run on most B450 boards and on every B550, X470, and X570 motherboard out there. In other words, if you don’t need a beastly VRM and a ton of features you can pair this CPU with a budget board and get a pretty powerful all-around machine. Finally, the CPU has 32MB of L3 cache.
The 9700K is another eight-core CPU, but this one doesn’t have hyperthreading enabled. It’s a strange move by Intel, but they had to do that because the flagship model was the 9900K, which is an eight-core/sixteen threads design. This puts the 9700K in a weird place because both its predecessor (8700K) and successor (10700K) feature hyperthreading. An i7 without hyperthreading is plain weird to hear.
Anyway, the CPU works at 3.6GHz base and 4.9 (single-core) boost frequency, which is noticeably higher than the 3700X. What’s also higher is the 9700K’s TDP rating, sitting at 95W. On the flipside, the 9700K has only 12MB of cache memory, which is more than two times less than what we can find on the 3700X.
Finally, the 9700K can be slotted on a Z390 or a Z290 motherboard. You can also pair it with a budget B or H board but that would be a waste of its performance since it would be memory limited and unable to overclock. Design-wise, the 9700K has a higher working frequency and TDP while the 3700X features hyperthreading, and it you can pair it with budget motherboards without performance penalties. Now, let’s compare their performance.
Gaming and productivity performance
3700X falls behind the 9700K when it comes to gaming benchmarks. The AMD CPU is about 10 percent slower than Intel’s offering on average at 1080p. At 1440p the margin gets much lower and, in most games, you won’t notice any difference between the two processors. And at 4K even the most powerful GPU becomes a bottleneck so there both CPUs should show exactly the same performance.
When it comes to productivity performance, the 3700X simply decimates the 9700K. The AMD CPU is about thirty percent faster on average, with the lead being even higher in a few selected benchmarks. Overall numbers are clearly on the side of the 3700X, which is a way better option for productivity tasks. No matter which work you’re doing on your PC, the 3700X is a better choice. And even if you’re a gamer who occasionally does work on their PC we would still recommend the 3700X.
You can pair both CPUs with any graphics card available today. They won’t impose a CPU bottleneck even when paired with the RTX Titan. We would recommend upper mid-range or high-end GPUs to pair with these two processors. Something like the RTX 2070 Super, RTX 2080 Super, or the RX 5700 XT. You can go with something more affordable in case you’re playing at 1080p. Something like the RTX 2060 (Super) or the RX 5600 XT.
When it comes to the memory, any 3200MHz kit with solid latencies (CL14 or CL15) should provide enough bandwidth for the either of the two CPUs. The Ryzen part could gain more performance by using even faster memory but you’ll have to pay a lot for only a couple of percents of a performance boost. It’s up to you whether that’s worth the investment or not.
See also
Price and which one to buy
This is another department where the 3700X takes the win. On average, it’s about fifteen percent cheaper than the 9700K. Add the required aftermarket cooler for the 9700K and the price difference can go up to thirty five percent, which is a lot.
On the other hand, the 3700X can run with the provided box cooler. Thermals are fine but the noise can be pretty high. Investing in a budget or mid-range aftermarket cooler may be a wise investment. Even with an aftermarket cooler such as the Scythe Mugen 5 Rev.B or the Fuma 2 the 3700X stays a better deal with about twenty percent lower price. This price difference can mean getting a 2070 Super instead of the 2060 Super. Or getting an RTX 2060 instead of a GTX 1660 Super. In other words, you can get a much better GPU if you buy the 3700X instead of the 9700K.
Or hell, you don’t have the get a better GPU. Invest that money in a better PSU, or a flashier case. Or get 16GB more memory, that’s also faster than what you’ve planned on getting. You can get some major upgrades for the price difference between the two CPUs, which makes the 3700X an overall better buy. That’s a yes from us for people who game and work on their PC.
And the choice is even easier for people who use their PC for work. The 3700X is up to thirty percent faster in productivity loads and is cheaper. So yes, if you need a great CPU for work the 3700X is a much, much better choice than the 9700K. As for gaming, we would again pick the 3700X. Yes, the 9700K is faster but with new and more demanding games that advantage will melt thanks to the 3700X’s hyperthreading. Sixteen threads will work great with next-gen games. In a couple of years, the 3700X will be much better suited for modern games than the 9700K, which has eight cores but no hyperthreading.
Purchases through our links may earn us a commission. Learn more.
Goran is a PC hardware expert whose years in the field has given him knowledge in everything gaming tech related.
Intel Core i7-9700K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs 3800X
While Intel’s 10th Gen processors are out in the US and North America, they’re still unavailable in many regions of Asia-Pacific. Furthermore, many countries like China and Australia, the new Comet Lake-S parts are overpriced, while the older 9th Gen lineup is still selling at its original MSRP. Therefore, these comparisons are still relevant to many consumers. In this post, we have a look at Intel and AMD’s top-end offerings and decide which one is the best buy. The competitors for this one will the Core i7-9700K, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and the 3800X.
Specifications
| Specs | Core i7-9700K | Ryzen 7 3700X | Ryzen 7 3800X |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores/Threads | 8/8 | 8/16 | 8/16 |
| Base Clock | 3. |
3.6 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Cache | 12 MB | 32 MB | 32MB |
| TDP | 95W | 65W | 105W |
| Memory Support | DDR4-2666MHz | DDR4-3200MHz | DDR4-3200MHz |
The prices of AMD’s Ryzen 3000 CPUs have dipped significantly over the past month. While the Ryzen 5 3600 is available for just $159, the 3700X and the 3800X are both selling under $300. Intel’s Core i7-9700K has dropped to $359 at Microcenter to make way for the 10th Gen Comet Lake-S parts. However, most online retailers like Newegg and Amazon are still selling it for around $380. This is despite the launch of the newer chips.
Test Bench
Motherboard:
- ASRock X570 Taichi (AMD)
- Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master (Intel)
RAM:
- G.Skill Trident Z Royal 8GB x 2 @ 3600MHz
Graphics Card:
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
Storage:
- WB Black 480GB NVMe
- WD Black 4TB HDD
PSU:
- Corsair HX1000i
Intel Core i7-9700K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs 3800X: Gaming Performance
All the games were tested at 1080p using the highest in-game graphics preset:
In Assassins’ Creed and Ashes, the Ryzen 7 3800X comes out on top with the 3700X following shortly behind. The Core i7-9700K manages a decent showing in the latter but AC’s Anvil Engine prefers thread counts over clocks. This leads to a rather rare defeat for the Core i7 in Assassins’ Creed Origins.
The remaining titles from Deus Ex to The Division all benefit from the Core i7-9700K’s high boost clocks while ignoring SMT. The Intel Core i7 seems like the better pick for gaming workloads, but keep in mind that these are all 1080p tests, and even then the deltas don’t cross 10%.
At higher resolutions such as 1440p and 4K, these deficits will mostly be reduced to under 5%. There’s also the price to consider. The Core i7-9700K is nearly $100 more expensive than the Ryzen 7 3700X. You can save those hundred bucks on the CPU and spend them on a better GPU or monitor.
Content Creation: Cinebench, IndigoBench
Moving on to non-gaming workloads, SMT suddenly becomes relevant. Cinebench fully utilizes all the CPU threads SMT or not. Unsurprisingly, the Intel Core i7-9700K is crushed by the Ryzen 3000 parts in both the single-threaded as well as the multi-threaded benchmarks. In the latter, the 3800X manages to one-up even the top-end Core i9-9900K which scores a bit under 4.9K.
In IndigoBench, the 9700K is once again beaten pretty badly by the Ryzen 7 siblings, clearly highlighting AMD’s advantage in multi-threaded workloads like rendering and video editing.
Encoding, Compression & Browsing
7-zip is one of those programs that’ll eat as many threads as you throw at it. It scales well with even 32 core Threadrippers. As expected, AMD once again has a major advantage here.
Kraken is a good indicator of browsing performance. Unlike Jetstream, it’s a more balanced test. In the latter, the Core i9-9900K often performs worse than the 9700K. The reason being that each thread has more L2 cache. Hyperthreading being enabled in the 9900K, each core’s L2 and L1 cache is divided between two threads, and they being competing for resources.
Like 7-zip, Handbrake also benefits from higher core counts and that’s quite obvious here. While the core clocks do have an impact, it’s largely nullified by the presence of SMT on the Ryzen 7 parts.
Conclusion
All three chips are excellent high-end processors. However, with the recent price drops, the Ryzen 7 3700X is a much better value for money CPU. Even if you’re looking to build a gaming-centric PC, it’s better to opt for the Matisse part, avoiding the 9700K.
You’re basically looking at like 5% more FPS in games for an extra $100 and significantly worse content creation performance. Not worth it. I’d suggest investing in the 3700X or the 3800X if you’re into overclocking. Both the chips offer much better performance per dollar and performance per watt. In gaming, they may be slightly behind their Intel rivals, they’re much faster in everything else and cost notably less.
Related Articles
Intel Core i7 9700K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X:
performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i7 9700K
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Which is better: Intel Core i7 9700K at 3.6 GHz (with Turbo Boost up to 4. 9) or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 3.6 GHz (with Turbo Core up to 4.4)? To find out, read our comparative testing of these 8-core desktop processors in popular benchmarks, games and heavy applications.
- Overview
- Differences
- Performance
- Features
- Comments
Overview
Overview and comparison of the main metrics from NanoReview
Single -flow performance
Rating in tests using one nucleus
Core i7 9700k
68
Ryzen 7 3700x
67
Multi -flow performance
Tests in benchmarks, where all nucleus are involved0003
Core i7 9700k
44
Ryzen 7 3700x
58
Energy Efficiency
Energy Effect CHIP
Core I7 9700K
Ryzen 7 3700X 9000,000,000 9000,000 9000 9000 RIC
Core i7 9700K
54
Ryzen 7 3700X
63
Key differences
What are the main differences between 3700X and 9700K
Reasons to choose Intel Core i7 9700K
- There is an integrated graphics accelerator Intel UHD Graphics 630
- 11% higher frequency in Turbo Boost (4.
9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz)
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
- Has 20 MB more L3 cache
- More modern process technology — 7 vs 14 nanometers
- 32% lower than Core i7 9700K peak power consumption — 9012 vs 65 watts New PCI Express Standard — 4.0
- 9 months later than rival
- 6.08 GB/s (15%) higher maximum memory bandwidth
Benchmark tests
Compare the results of processor tests in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (single core)
Core i7 9700K
1280
Ryzen 7 3700X
+5%
1339
Cinebench R23 (multi-core)
Core i7 9700K
9424
Ryzen 7 3700X
+29%
12151
Passmark CPU (single core)
Core i7 9700K
+8%
2888
Ryzen 7 3700X
2667
Passmark CPU (multi-core)
Core i7 9700K
900 R2 14419
+56%
22548
Geekbench 5 (single -core)
Core i7 9700K
1278
Ryzen 7 3700x
1274
Geekbench 5 (multi -core)
9000 Core i7 9700K
002 7397
Ryzen 7 3700X
+13%
8374
▶️ Add your score to Cinebench R23
Specifications
List of full technical specifications for Intel Core i7 9700K and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
General information
| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |
| Release date | October 8, 2018 | July 7, 2019 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Instruction set architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |
| Model number | i7-9700K | — |
| Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
| Cores | 8 | 8 |
| Number of threads | 8 | 16 |
| Frequency | 3. |
3.6 GHz |
| Max. frequency in Turbo Boost | 4.9 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36x | 36x |
| Bus speed | 8 GT/s | — |
| Level 1 cache | 64KB (per core) | 64KB (per core) |
| Level 2 cache | 256KB (per core) | 512KB (per core) |
| Level 3 cache | 12MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Power consumption
| Number of transistors | — | 3.8 billion |
| Process | 14 nanometers | 7 nanometers |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 W | 65 W |
| Critical temperature | 100°C | 95°C |
| Integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| GPU frequency | 350 MHz | — |
| Boost GPU frequency | 1200 MHz | — |
| Shader blocks | 192 | — |
| TMUs | 24 | — |
| ROPs | 3 | — |
| Computer units | 24 | — |
| TGP | 15W | — |
| Max. |
4096×2304 — 60Hz | — |
Igpu Flops
Core i7 9700k
0.38 Teraflops
Ryzen 7 3700x
N/D
Memory Support
| Type of memory type | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 |
| Max. size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Number of channels | 2 | 2 |
| Max. bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 47.68 GB/s |
| ECC support | No | Yes |
Other
| Site Intel Core i7 9700K | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | |
| PCI Express Version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Max. PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Poll
What processor do you think is the best?
Core i7 9700K
23 (24. 5%)
Ryzen 7 3700X
71 (75.5%)
Total votes: 94
Competitors
1.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Intel Core i7 9700K
2.
Intel Core i5 12600K and Intel Core i7 9700K
3.
Intel Core i5 12400F and Intel Core i7 9700K
4.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
5.
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
6.
Intel Core i5 12600K and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
7.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
8.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
What will you choose: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel Core i7 9700K?
Name
Message
Intel Core i7 9700 vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X:
performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i7 9700
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Which is better: Intel Core i7 9700 at 3. 0 GHz (with Turbo Boost up to 4.7) or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 3.6 GHz (with Turbo Core up to 4.4)? To find out, read our comparative testing of these 8-core desktop processors in popular benchmarks, games and heavy applications.
- Overview
- Differences
- Performance
- Features
- Comments
Overview
Overview and comparison of the main metrics from NanoReview
Single -flow performance
Rating in tests using one core
Core i7 9700
64
Ryzen 7 3700x
67
Multi -flow performance
Tests in benchmarks, where all nucleus
Core I7 Core 9000 9000 40
Ryzen 7 3700X
58
Power Efficiency
Chip Power Efficiency
Core i7 9700
51
Ryzen 7 3700x
61
Rating NanoreView
Final rating of the processor
Core i7 9700
51
9000 Ryzen 7 3700x
63 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
Key differences
What are the main differences between 3700X and 9700
Reasons to choose Intel Core i7 9700
- Includes Intel UHD Graphics 630
- 7% higher frequency in Turbo Boost (4.
7 GHz vs. 4.4 GHz)
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
- Has 20 MB more L3 cache
- More modern process technology — 7 vs 14 nanometers
- Unlocked multiplier
- 15%) higher maximum memory bandwidth
Benchmark tests
Compare the results of processor tests in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (single core)
Core i7 9700
1190
Ryzen 7 3700X
+13%
1339
Cinebench R23 (multi-core)
Core i7 9700
8524
Ryzen 7 3700X
+43%
12151
Passmark CPU (single core)
Core i7 9700
+4%
2762
Ryzen 7 3700X
2667
Passmark CPU (multi-core)
Core i7 9700
13256
Ryzen 7 3700X
+70%
22548
Geekbench 5 (single core)
Core i7 9700
1210
Ryzen 7 3700X
+5%
1274
Geekbench 5 (multi-core)
Core i7 9700
6692
Ryzen 7 3700X
+25%
8374
▶️ Add your score to Cinebench R23
Specifications
List of full specifications of Intel Core i7 9700 and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
General information
| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |
| Release date | April 23, 2019 | July 7, 2019 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Instruction set architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |
| Model number | i7-9700 | — |
| Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Capacity
| Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
| Number of threads | 8 | 16 |
| Frequency | 3. |
3.6 GHz |
| Max. frequency in Turbo Boost | 4.7 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 30x | 36x |
| Bus speed | 8 GT/s | — |
| Level 1 cache | 64KB (per core) | 64KB (per core) |
| Level 2 cache | 256KB (per core) | 512KB (per core) |
| Level 3 cache | 12MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Power consumption
| Number of transistors | — | 3.8 billion |
| Process | 14 nanometers | 7 nanometers |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 W | 65 W |
| Critical temperature | 100°C | 95°C |
| Integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| GPU frequency | 350 MHz | — |
| Boost GPU frequency | 1200 MHz | — |
| Shader blocks | 192 | — |
| TMUs | 24 | — |
| ROPs | 3 | — |
| Computer units | 24 | — |
| TGP | 15W | — |
| Max. |
4096×2304 — 60Hz | — |
Igpu Flops
Core i7 9700
0.38 teraflops
Ryzen 7 3700x
N/D
Memory Support
| DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 | |
| Max. size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Number of channels | 2 | 2 |
| Max. bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 47.68 GB/s |
| ECC support | No | Yes |
Other
| Official site | Site Intel Core i7 9700 | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X |
| PCI Express Version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Max. PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Poll
What processor do you think is the best?
Core i7 9700
6 (18. 8%)
Ryzen 7 3700X
26 (81.3%)
Total votes: 32
Competitors
1.
Intel Core i5 12600K or i7 9700
2.
Intel Core i7 8700 or i7 9700
3.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X or Ryzen 7 3700X
4.
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G or Ryzen 7 3700X
5.
Intel Core i5 12600K or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
6.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X or Ryzen 7 3700X
7.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D or Ryzen 7 3700X
What will you choose: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel Core i7 9700?
Name
Message
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-9700: what’s the difference?
64 BALLLA
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
57 Ballla
Intel Core i7-9700
Winner when comparing
VS
64 Facts compared to 9000 Is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Intel Core i7-9700?
- 20% higher CPU speed?
8 x 3.6GHz vs 8 x 3GHz
- 534MHz higher RAM speed?
3200MHz vs 2666MHz - 8 more CPU threads?
16 vs 8 - Smaller 7nm semiconductors?
7nm vs 14nm - 2MB more L2 cache?
4MB vs 2MB - 1.68x higher PassMark score?
22724 vs 13561 - 20MB more L3 cache?
32MB vs 12MB - 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
4 vs 3
Why is Intel Core i7-9700 better than AMD Ryzen 7 3700X?
- 5°C higher than maximum operating temperature?
100°C vs 95°C - 0.3GHz higher turbo clock speed?
4.7GHz vs 4.4GHz - Does it have integrated graphics?
- 5.36% higher PassMark score (single)?
2810 vs 2667
Which comparisons are the most popular?
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5600x
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X
9000 VS
VS
VS
58 5800 ° C 9000. 000 VS 9000 2 5800 il i7-9700
VS
Intel Core i7-8700
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
VS
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
Intel Core I7-9700
VS
Intel Core I5-104000 AM 7 3700X
VS
AMD Ryzen 7 5700g
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
Intel Core i7-9700k
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
VS
AMD Ryzen 9 5900x
INTEL CORE INTEL CORE IS vs
Intel Core i7-4700MQ
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
VS
AMD RYZEN 7,0002 AMD RYZEN 7000 AMD Ryzen 7,0002 AMD Ryzen 7
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
Intel Core i5-11400
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
VS
AMD Ryzen 9 5950x
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
Intel Core2 Intel Core2 Intel Core
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5500u
Intel Core i7-9700
VS
Intel Core i7-6700
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
9000 VS
Intel Core I7-INTEL Core I7-INTEL Core I7-INTL Core i7-9Ol000 /10
1 votes
performance
9. 6 /10
7 Votes
8.0 /10
1 Votes
Reliability
/10
002 7 Votes
9.0 /10
1 Votes
Energy efficiency
9.1453 /10
7 Votes
8.0 /10
1 VOTES
PERSOSTROSK
8 x 3.6GHz
8 x 3GHz
CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second a processor can perform, given all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3.speed turbo clock
4.4GHz
4.7GHz
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 Cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6.L3 cache
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
4MB/core
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
3200MHz
2666MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
47.68GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.DDR version
DDR (Dynamic Random Access Memory, Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4 memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.Maximum memory
Maximum memory (RAM).
6.bus baud rate
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.
7. Supports memory debug code
✖AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700
Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700)
A newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark 9 result0003
This test measures processor performance using multithreading.
2. PassMark result (single)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)
4.Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Cinebench R20 is a test that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the single core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender test result (bmw27)
170. 7seconds
293.1seconds
The Blender test (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
509.9seconds
884.8seconds
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9.performance per watt
This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Functions
1.uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides higher performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as flows. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2. Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
4.Version SSE
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.
6 bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✔Intel Core i7-9700
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
✖Intel Core i7-9700
Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and video streaming through Digital Rights Management (DRM) ).
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPUs are better?
AMD Ryzen 5 3600/3600X and Intel Core i7-8086K processor benchmark and comparison with AMD and Intel 9 octa-core processors0001
We test the processors AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and 3800X, as well as Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X and compare them with Intel Core i7 and i9 for LGA1151
It is unlikely that anyone will argue that a sharp increase in the number of cores in mainstream desktop processors from four ( which was a kind of «standard» for more than ten years) up to eight in just a couple of years, is the most significant event in this market segment. That is why in the first tests according to the new version of the methodology, we focused on eight-core models — as well as on the (rather successful) AMD initiative last year to endow the desktop platform with models with 12 and even 16 cores. Of course, they go beyond the mass segment primarily in terms of price, but they make you completely rethink the concept of HEDT. Well, and ideas about the «horizons» of mass platforms, of course, too. So far, Intel has nothing to answer such challenges directly, but the company has already sharply reduced prices for multi-core solutions for LGA2066, increasing the competitiveness of this HEDT platform, and also plans to switch from eight cores to ten in new mass platforms this year.
Against this background, the heroes of yesterday , such as six-core processors, somehow faded. They appeared ten years ago, but for a long time they were expensive, and then they became conditionally “slow” overnight. Quite an interesting process that deserves detailed consideration.
Summary of previous series
In principle, the first six-core x86 processors were presented by Intel at the end of 2008, but they did not leave noticeable traces in people’s memory. For objective reasons, these were Xeons for “multi-socket” systems based on the already outdated Core2 architecture and the “recharged” Socket604 platform (debuted back in the days of NetBurst), announced only a little earlier than the then revolutionary first-generation Core. And even though the latter had only four cores at the start, they “pulled” eight computation threads, and the integrated memory controller radically improved the work with it. In addition, the abandonment of the archaic FSB itself allowed a significant increase in the speed of interprocessor data exchange in two-socket systems (which have always sold much better than a multisocket). In general, 2010 turned out to be more important — when Intel introduced six-core processors for LGA1366 and a new LGA1567 platform for «adult» solutions. Within the framework of the latter, not only six-, but also eight-core processors were already produced, later supplemented with ten-core models. But LGA1366 was the ancestor of the High-End Desktop, so not only Xeon, but also Core i7 were produced within its framework. First — only 980X Extreme Edition for $999, then the 990X began to “settle down” at this price level, and the company “recommended” selling the Core i7-980 for a little less than $600. At the end of 2011, we saw a “restyling” of the platform in the form of LGA2011 with second-generation Core processors, but the same number of cores for the same money, then its third-generation refresh, and then … Then 2014 happened and LGA2011-3 — the older (“extreme”) processor for which has already become eight-core, and the younger six-core was offered at a price of around $400. In general, for four years entrance ticket fell in price by 2.5 times — but even this was not enough for mass popularity. Not because of any technical reasons — the price war between AMD and Intel in 2006-2007 radically brought down the prices of mass processors: 80% of buyers suddenly discovered that they already had enough devices from the $80-$200 price range, and not like before .
Before him, it remained to reduce prices by a further two times — which, perhaps, by now would have happened in an evolutionary way. But the reality turned out to be more interesting — AMD returned to the market of processors with high performance.
This company introduced its six-core desktop computers in the same 2010 — and immediately at «humane» prices: initially the lineup included Phenom II X6 1090T for $289 and Phenom II X6 1055T for only $199. It is clear that this did not happen at all because of some kind of philanthropy — just about as many processors worked. Six-core (as in the case of Core2) was implemented at a relatively low price — a couple of cores were added to the four available in Phenom II. However, these processors were an evolutionary development of the legendary Athlon 64 of the beginning of the millennium, so by that time they were obsolete. In general, a temporary solution is in anticipation of the Bulldozer. Which was also much delayed at the start, so the FX sample of the second half of 2011 looked great against the background of the first (2008-2010), and not the second generation Core. In addition, the backlog in the development of technical processes and attempts to make a «big leap» forced the company to limit the number of cores in the FX to four. And so that such a retreat would not seem strange after Phenom II X6, verbal tightrope walking was used: the cores were renamed to modules and introduced the term «x86-core» — a part of the module capable of executing one thread of arithmetic-logical instructions. The decoder is one per module (i.e., two such «cores»), the floating point unit is the same, the behavior is at the level of a regular Core core with Hyper-Threading — but cheap six- and eight-core processors. True, the latter competed only with the quad-core Core (and even then — so-so), except for the price, and the former had even worse. So the company only once updated the «productive» line in 2013 — and took up a radically new microarchitecture.
Let’s note an interesting point — the results of work on the Zen project clearly show that the company tried first of all to make a good . .. quad-core processor, that is, it acted, in general, in the spirit of Intel. But at the same time, it was decided to fix the long-standing shortcomings of AMD platforms, namely the lack of a «good» interprocessor interface. Therefore, by 2017, the company had both a “base module” (CCX) of four processor cores with memory controllers and PCIe, and an Infinity Fabric bus ready. With its help, it was possible to connect several blocks for different purposes (for example, CCX with a GPU to build an APU), as well as several CCXs in one chip, several chips on one substrate, and even several sockets in one computer system. The potential possibilities of this interface are endless — and still not fully realized, which allows the company not to slow down the pace of release of new products. In practice, to restore its position in the market, AMD for the first time limited itself to one «homogeneous» crystal from two CCXs, which made it possible to release relatively inexpensive eight-core desktop processors.
It is clear that desktops have long been niche solutions, but on the basis of such semiconductor devices it was possible to make multi-chip assemblies, bringing the number of cores in one socket to 32, which was more than that of Intel (albeit in a monolithic crystal). And up to two sockets, i.e. up to 64 cores in a two-socket system — Intel «could» and up to 192 cores per system, but using eight sockets. Well, as for laptops, other compact systems or just budget PCs, another crystal was planned for them — with CCX + GPU. Actually, that’s why Ryzen-based APUs for a long time remained fundamentally a maximum of quad-core, but today we are not talking about them.
Desktop processors without a graphics core initially received eight cores — and at the beginning of 2017, Ryzen 7 occupied an intermediate position between mass Intel processors for LGA1151 (up to four cores plus graphics) and HEDT solutions for LGA2011-3 (six to ten cores — and also without graphics). They turned out to be “intermediate” in terms of the number of PCIe lanes — the controller of the first crystals supported 32 PCIe 3. 0 lanes, of which 24:16 for video cards (by default), 4 for communication with the chipset, and 4 for one fast solid state drive. Buyers of systems based on Intel processors received at their disposal either 16 available «processor» lines, or already from 28. The memory controller was similar to the mainstream Intel platform — only two channels, which limited both bandwidth and maximum capacity. Therefore, despite the high performance, Ryzen 7 had to be positioned in the $300-$500 price segment — competition in the HEDT market was postponed until the fall. But this, we recall, is eight cores — obtained from crystals of «ideal» quality: where everything works. At the same time, at the first stage, marriage also happened — with one or even two faulty nuclei in the crystal. Nobody was going to “throw away” them, so deliveries of Ryzen 5 began in the summer: if no more than one core per CCX turned out to be non-working, then six-core 1600/1600X were obtained, and if two, then quad-core 1400/1500X (with the help of the first they were also disposed of chips with bad L3 cache).
Over time, the yield of suitable crystals increased, so that the working cores were already turned off — to saturate the market. But, if the younger Ryzen 7 cost a little over $ 300, then the six-core Ryzen 5 should, by definition, be sold cheaper. And so it was — in fact, this pair of models competed in price with the Core i5, but the «sevens» — with the Core i7 and higher. But in all cases, with a significant head start in the number of cores: Intel at that time offered only four of them at prices up to about $ 350 and six — above.
The «correction» came in the fall of 2017, when the second version of LGA1151 and six-core processors for it entered the market. Given that the process of manufacturing processor chips itself takes about six months, two conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, this is really an “answer” to the appearance of Ryzen 7 in the spring. Secondly, it didn’t have to be specially developed — in fact, the company already had a ready-made six-core design for mass production. Which goes well with the rumors of 2014 — the older Skylake endowed with so many cores (then just being developed). Now it is already difficult to judge how events would develop if Intel released such models in 2015 or at the beginning of 2017 (when Skylake was “refreshed” in the form of Kaby Lake without major changes). Perhaps the whole story would have gone in a completely different direction. In fact, new processors had to be brought to the market in a hurry, and even a little bit to change the platform, and for some time, budget motherboards and processors were only for the “old version” of LGA1151, and high-performance ones for the new one. But the old and new Core i5 and i7 cost the same, and more productive cores allowed the six-core Core i7 to compete directly with the eight-core Ryzen 7, often overtaking it. Here, AMD had to lower prices — “cramming” all Ryzen 7 at $ 300. Ryzen 5 also fell in price, becoming quite a “folk” in six-core versions. However, the prices were still comparable to the Core i5 — but with the ability to perform 12 computation threads versus six.
This balance was maintained in 2018 as well. AMD updated Ryzen — but the new models weren’t too different from the old ones. Intel has mastered eight cores — which could change the situation in the market, since the older Core i9s have already become faster than Ryzen 7 (still able to compete only with the Core i7), but they are a little cheaper. The problem is that Intel had to increase the number of cores in both desktop and laptop processors. While maintaining the same process technology, this led to an increase in the area of \u200b\u200bthe crystal — and a lower yield of finished products from each silicon wafer. But it was not possible to increase production volumes: since at the same time the demand for server solutions also grew (which turned out to be higher than predicted by Intel), and the company got involved in the LTE modem business … Therefore, the situation has not fundamentally changed.
Unlike last year — when Ryzen were significantly redesigned. The new chiplet layout made it possible to separate processor cores and cache from other bindings, transferring them to a more subtle production process, and even “shove” processors with 12-16 cores into the same dimensions. And the cores themselves are no worse than Core (as we have already seen), so Ryzen 9 is not needed to compete with Core i9 — now Ryzen 7 is enough for this. But new Ryzen 5 have also appeared — with a price like in Core i5, but the performance of Core i7. We already know this too, because we tested the Ryzen 5 3600 using the old method. Now it’s time to see how it and some other processors work in more recent programs.
Test participants
| Intel Core i5-9600K | Intel Core i7-8086K | Intel Core i7-9700K | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Coffee Lake Refresh | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake Refresh |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3.7/4.6 | 4.0/5.0 | 3.6/4.9 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 | 8/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×256 | 8×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 9 | 12 | 12 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Number of PCIe 3. |
16 | 16 | 16 |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |
There is one funny fact: for Intel processors, the formula «six cores twelve threads» was strategically important for four whole years (because that was the top models of the company), and for the same amount of time it was just important , but now in the company’s assortment there is practically no such actual model among the desktop ones. Notebook Core i7 «tenth» and «ninth» generations with such a formula are found, and on the desktop it ended along with the «eighth». Officially. So, these models are still on sale, the platform has not changed since 2017, and retail prices in the corresponding pairs (for example, i7-8700K and i7-9700K) are almost the same, so the choice of a specific model is a practical issue. We just took the best (albeit rare) Coffee Lake — the limited edition Core i7-8086K, which is comparable to the i5-9600K and i7-9700K. And in the future, its results will be useful to us, because within the framework of the soon-to-be-expected LGA1200 platform, Core i5 will receive such a nuclear formula, so it can become “popular” when applied to Intel processors (10 years after the appearance — but better late than nobody ).
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600X | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse |
| Production technology | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3.6/4.2 | 3.8/4.4 | 3.6/4.4 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×512 | 6×512 | 8×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 95 | 65 |
| Number of PCIe 4. |
20 | 20 | 20 |
| Integrated GPU | no | no | no |
And AMD is no stranger to releasing affordable six-cores. And over the past few months, the company has expanded its understanding of those by releasing the Ryzen 5 3500 and 3500X, which are more similar to the Core i5, since the cores in them are “single-threaded”. But this is understandable: before, the company needed a head start in the number of cores, or at least computation threads, since Core was architecturally better than Ryzen, but now there is no need for this. As a result, models with a «full» configuration already compete with Core i7 in terms of performance, while «simplified» models fit perfectly between them and quad-core APUs (which still retain the old architecture). Today we will limit ourselves to the first, of which there are two — but fundamentally they differ from each other only a little more than the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 3800X. The latter, as we remember, behaved almost identically in the tests — so let’s see if this will be repeated in the lower pair.
As for other environments, only motherboards were different: ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming X based on AMD X570 chipset and Asus ROG Maximus X Hero based on Intel Z370 chipset. And also the frequency of RAM — DDR4-2666 for Intel and DDR4-3200 for AMD. It is clear that the same frequencies could be set on these boards, but since Intel still does not officially support high-frequency memory, this is its choice, and it is worse for it. Moreover, the efficiency of memory controllers is also different, so the question is what to count equal terms , completely separate. Therefore, we test it this way, in strict accordance with the specifications and recommendations — we also use boards based on the X570 chipset for the Ryzen 3000. Here, too, the situation is ambiguous: on the one hand, AMD actively advertises the compatibility of the new processor family with old motherboards, and on the other hand, it still recommends using new motherboards. Which, generally speaking, is not very logical for Ryzen 5: the processors themselves are inexpensive, motherboards based on the X570 are expensive, and new chipsets for “inexpensive” are still not ready. Therefore, in the near future we will be engaged in a practical study of the need for the X570 chipset — but for now, for maximum correctness, we will test the Ryzen 5 3600/3600X in this (not too typical for them in practice) environment.
Test Method
Methodology for testing computer systems of the 2020 sample
The testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format. Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD — this article is also directly involved in today’s article) and grouped by areas of application of the computer. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. In the main lineup there are only a couple of «processor-dependent» games in low resolution and medium quality — synthetic, of course, but conditions close to reality for testing processors are not suitable, since nothing depends on them in such conditions.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2020
It’s clear that the 8/8 formula is better than 6/12, so the Core i7 upgrade is welcome. But the fact that the older Core i7 is a little slower than Ryzen 5 is impossible. It is also clearly seen that at present it is not worth paying attention to clock frequencies. This used to be a major difference between models, but ended as the spread in the number of cores increased, the presence / absence of SMT support, cache and memory systems, etc. This is more serious. And the frequency has since begun to change dynamically — depending on the load and power consumption. Therefore, last time we observed close results for Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 3800X, since in real software and their “working” frequencies turned out to be close, and now we see the same unanimity in a pair of Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 5 3600X. And, again, they are both faster than any Core i7 — although they compete with the Core i5 in price.
Renderers can squeeze out a little more, so the gap between the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 5 3600X has increased slightly. But against the backdrop of the difference between Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, these are trifles. In any case, Intel’s solutions are already behind, no matter how you think — at least taking into account prices, at least abstracting from them and paying attention only to the «nuclear formula».
As for working with video, there is parity between Ryzen 5 and Core i7. However, this is an average — if you look at the results of specific applications, you can see that everything is not so clear . First of all, due to the fact that programmers are mastering new features of hardware with a long lag — and the Core microarchitecture has not changed for five years now: since Skylake itself, the number of cores has been growing, but not their “quality”. Ryzen came later, and the Ryzen 3000 family did last year. So over time, they will probably “squeeze” more out of it. It always happens this way — Intel has proven since 2011: at the time of release, each generation overtook the previous one by the notorious 5% (about which they regularly scoffed in forums, etc.), and then they grew every year … So it will be and with AMD. And, by and large, it has only an academic value — technically it is already parity, but until Intel can reduce the prices of the Core i7 to the level of Ryzen 5, it is more logical for the buyer to “vote” for the latter with his labor ruble. Or for Ryzen 7 — where for the same money gives a little more than .
And the fact that the cores «leveled up» played a bad joke on Intel in these programs, where their quantity is not so important, like «quality», work with memory, etc. Previously, under such conditions, Core consistently won — but last year’s big jump of from AMD was so impressive that the 3000 family blows both them and the «old» Ryzen to smithereens. And already in almost any form — even the “stripped down” Ryzen 5 3500 is only slightly behind the Core i7-9700K, significantly outperforming all Core i5 and old Core i7 (however, we have already run far ahead by announcing the content of one of the future materials :)).
Simple integer code, so here «virtual» computation threads are comparable in efficiency to physical cores — as before, updating the Core i7 only leads to a decrease in performance. This does not help intercompany competition in any way — just the opposite. Especially if you take into account the «cache-loving» program — and the «giant» L3 of the new Ryzen (thanks to the 7 nm process technology in many respects — it is clear that the microarchitecture is always linked to an affordable production process).
No wonder the picture is similar here. With the exception of a radical reduction in the difference between Ryzen 5 and Ryzen7 — simply because the bottleneck from the point of view of archivers quickly turns out to be the memory system. Ryzen 9 breaks away from Ryzen 7 more significantly — but thanks to doubling the capacity of L3. But Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 have the same caches — with the corresponding result. Well, the times when Core were ahead in such tasks are also already behind (such a slightly sad pun). Even (once again) without taking into account the price.
Back to the situation where physical cores are better than virtual threads. As a result, Intel processors line up in a neat ladder. AMD too — but the «steps» are shorter, since Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 differ just in the number of cores with the same caches and memory system. On the other hand, the first ones are already enough to compete with any Core i7 — despite the fact that they are cheaper.
The main conclusion is that the time for throwing cores and threads is over: even under equal conditions, Ryzen with cores is no worse than Core. Even better. So we can conclude that just adding Hyper-Threading support to Core i3 / i5 is not enough. This will give a good performance boost — but not enough to catch up with AMD. It is necessary to refine the microarchitecture, which Intel promises to do. So let’s see how well it will turn out. And the current round remains entirely with AMD — in almost all segments.
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
Once again, we are convinced that Coffee Lake was more economical than Coffee Lake Refresh, so if it were not for the need for eight cores… Ryzen. With the exception of the minimum load mode, which we use as file operations — so here the «hot» chipset can also interfere (but we will thoroughly understand this issue in one of the following materials).
The most interesting thing is that at the moment neither AMD nor Intel can find a direct correlation between the number of cores and power consumption. No — eight, of course, ceteris paribus, «eat» a little more than six — but exactly what is a little . Well, you should not pay attention to TDP for a long time if you are interested in consumption — they are not connected in any way. However, this is not news — it has always been so.
With comparable power consumption, the one who works faster is more efficient — but this number of cores is affected. With AMD, everything is the same — for Intel, the crystals today are not exactly the same, so once again it can be noted that with the Coffee Lake refresh, energy efficiency has fallen. And, most likely, most of the «ninth» generation six-core mobile Core i7 are made on «eighth» crystals.
Games
As already mentioned in the description of the methodology, it makes no sense to keep the «classic approach» to testing gaming performance — since video cards have long been determining not only it, but also significantly affect the cost of the system, you need to «dance» exclusively from them. And from the games themselves — too: in modern conditions, fixing a game set for a long time does not make sense, since literally everything can change with the next update. But we will carry out a brief test in (albeit) relatively synthetic conditions — using a couple of games in the «processor-dependent» mode.
But there is nothing interesting here — except that the Core i5 lagged behind everyone in the «formula» greedy for threads (and not just cores), and the «old» Core i7 turned out to be worse than the others in non-greedy «tanks». But Ryzen is smoother — and at the level of Core i7. Therefore, can continue to be considered the best gaming processor Core i9-9900K — and gaming computers, nevertheless, are assembled in practice based on the Ryzen 5 3600: the benefit is inexpensive and paired with any video card will rest on the video card. So it goes.
Total
Basically, we tested almost all of these processors before, so we didn’t expect any discoveries. This is the third testing of the new methodology, necessary to replenish the database of results — and the final verification of the methodology itself. Now we can move on: a new AMD HEDT platform is waiting for us, and in the short term, a new mainstream Intel platform is already looming. Yes, and information on old solutions needs to be updated, since the difference between them and “new solutions” usually increases with software updates.
So far, the main conclusion is this: although not immediately, AMD managed to bring Ryzen to the same level as the latest Core. It is clear that Intel “played along” in this, which has not changed the architecture since 2015, when there were no Ryzens yet, but in practice the result is important. And it is such that now (right now) AMD’s mass solutions do not need any head start to compete — they are better under equal conditions. And Intel can change this situation either by a serious price reduction (very serious — since now there is not even parity), or by an equally serious revision of the Core. Better yet, both at the same time. Roughly speaking, the new Core i5 should cost the same as the old ones, but work faster than any six-core Core i7. The maximum task is not to be slower than the eight-core Core i9. What happens in practice — we will soon find out. But this round, we repeat, is for AMD.
Comparison of AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Intel Core i7-9700K
Comparative analysis of AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Intel Core i7-9700K processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Technologies, Virtualization, Graphics, Graphic interfaces, Picture quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Peripherals, Safety and reliability.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T- Rex (Fps).
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
versus
Intel Core i7-9700K
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
- Newer processor, release dates difference 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
- 16 threads more: 24 vs 8
- About 2% more clock speed: 5 GHz vs 4.90 GHz
- A newer manufacturing process for the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 7 nm vs 14 nm
- L1 cache is 2.3 times (a) larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access 3 times more means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Performance in PassMark — CPU mark about 56% more: 22713 vs 14556
- Performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core benchmark about 17% more: 8651 vs 7386
- 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score benchmark approximately 21% faster: 9605 vs 7935
- CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Video Composition benchmark — Video Composition (Frames/s) approximately 82% faster: 9.915 vs 5.449
- benchmark performance CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 5.8 times bigger: 90.664 vs 15.67
More chance to run
more applications simultaneously: 12 vs 8
| Release date | December 2019 vs October 2018 |
| Number of cores | 12 vs 8 |
| Number of threads | 24 vs 8 |
| Maximum frequency | 5 GHz vs 4.90 GHz |
| Process | 7 nm vs 14 nm |
| Level 1 cache | 96K (per core) vs 64K (per core) |
| Level 2 cache | 512K (per core) vs 256K (per core) |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 22713 vs 14556 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 8651 vs 7386 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 9605 vs 7935 |
| CompuBench 1. |
9.915 vs 5.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 90.664 vs 15.67 |
Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-9700K
- L3 cache is 3
times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- About 11% less power consumption: 95 Watt vs 105 Watt
- About 9% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 2895 vs 2666
- About 4% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 1306 vs 1253
| Level 3 cache | 12MB (shared) vs 32MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2895 vs 2666 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 1306 vs 1253 |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
CPU 2: Intel Core i7-9700K
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1. |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | Intel Core i7-9700K |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2666 | 2895 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 22713 | 14556 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 1253 | 1306 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 8651 | 7386 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 9605 | 7935 |
| CompuBench 1. |
9.915 | 5.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 90.664 | 15.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.136 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 195.695 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.105 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2156 | |
| GFXBench 4. |
1155 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 2066 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2156 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 1155 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 2066 |
Performance comparison
| AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | Intel Core i7-9700K | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Zen 2 | Coffee Lake |
| Production date | December 2019 | October 2018 |
| Place in the ranking | 425 | 817 |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| Price now | $409. |
|
| Processor Number | i7-9700K | |
| Series | 9th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors | |
| Status | Launched | |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 12.64 | |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 4.2 GHz | 3.60 GHz |
| Level 1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| Level 2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| Level 3 cache | 32MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| Process | 7 nm | 14nm |
| Maximum frequency | 5GHz | 4. |
| Number of cores | 12 | 8 |
| Number of threads | 24 | 8 |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | |
| Unlocked | ||
| Bus Speed | 8 GT/s DMI3 | |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | |
| Maximum core temperature | 100°C | |
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 41. |
|
| Maximum memory size | 128GB | |
| Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
| Supported sockets | AM4 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
| Thermal Solution | PCG 2015D (130W) | |
| Fused Multiply-Add 3 (FMA3) | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (AVX2) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Extended instructions | Intel® SSE4. |
|
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
| Intel® TSX-NI | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) | ||
| Device ID | 0x3E98 | |
| Graphics base frequency | 350 MHz | |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 1. |
|
| Intel® Clear Video HD Technology | ||
| Intel® Clear Video Technology | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
| Video memory size | 64GB | |
| Integrated graphics | Intel® UHD Graphics 630 | |
| Maximum number of monitors supported | 3 | |
| 4K support | ||
| Maximum resolution via DisplayPort | [email protected] | |
| Maximum resolution via eDP | [email protected] | |
| Maximum resolution via HDMI 1. |
[email protected] | |
| DirectX | 12 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | |
| Number of PCI Express lanes | 16 | |
| PCI Express revision | 3.0 | |
| PCIe configurations | Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4 | |
| Scalability | 1S Only | |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection Technology | ||
| Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) | ||
| Intel® OS Guard | ||
| Intel® Secure Key Technology | ||
| Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
| Secure Boot |
Review of Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X — the new flagships from AMD
Review of Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X — the new flagships from AMD
Today we are waiting for a big review and testing of the new 3rd generation processors from AMD — Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X. The Ryzen 9 3900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a huge 64MB L3 cache. It operates at a base frequency of 3.8 GHz and overclocks to 4.6 GHz. It costs $500 and competes directly with the Intel Core i9-9900K. The Ryzen 7 3700X costs $330 and competes with the Intel Core i7-9700K. This is an 8-core, 16-thread processor with 32 MB cache, operating at frequencies from 3.6 GHz to 4.4 GHz.
Both 3rd gen Ryzen processors come with a Wraith Prism RGB cooler and we’ll use that for most of the tests. This means that the Intel processors will have a slight performance advantage, but we will factor in the cost of the cooler in the cost analysis for each processor.
R9 3900X and R7 3700X tested using MSI X570 Creation motherboard and ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero board used for testing Ryzen 1st and 2nd generation processors. All of them have been tested with DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, but you should also test with DDR4-3600 CL16 memory as AMD recommends DDR4-3600 CL16 memory for best results.
8th and 9th generation Intel Core processors were tested with a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra board using the same DDR4-3200 CL14 memory but cooled with a Corsair Hydro h215i RGB Platinum 280mm coolant. The video card for the tests was the MSI Trio GeForce RTX 2080 Ti.
Testing Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900x
- Cinebench R20
- Sisoftware Sandra 2016
- Winrar
- 7-ZIP
- ARAMIERE PRO CC 2019 9001 V-RIDIERE PRO CC 2019
- 012
Cinebench R20
Let’s start with the Cinebench R20 multi-core test, where the Ryzen 9 3900X results look phenomenal. With an incredible 7086 points, it is 24% faster than the Threadripper 2920X. Moreover, it beat the Core i9-9900K by 45%
The Ryzen 7 3700X result is also impressive The new 8-core processor matches the i9-9900K and is 27% faster than the i7-2700X and 30% faster than the more expensive i7-9700K. The new 3rd generation Ryzen processors already look like performance kings.
The Ryzen 9 3900X in single core matched the Intel Core i9-9900K and was 19% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X. The R7 3700X scored 500, which puts it roughly on par with the i7-9700K.
SiSoftware Sandra 2016
Consider the memory bandwidth. All processors here use DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, but the new 3rd generation processors lag behind the 1st and 2nd generation, as you can see in the graphs. There is a good reason for this. Since most computers write little information, AMD decided to make the Core Complex Die 32 bytes wide for reading and 16 bytes for writing. This reduces write performance, but gives a noticeable performance boost in reading.
WinRar
The changes AMD made to the Zen 2 architecture had a profound impact on WinRAR performance. The Ryzen 7 3700X is a staggering 84% faster than the R7 2700X, putting it ahead of the i7-8700K and close to the i9-7900X. The R9 3900X also performs well, although it’s only 15% faster than the R7 3700X and behind the i9-9900K. In general, there is a significant increase in performance compared to previous generations of processors.
7-Zip
Let’s move on to 7-Zip. First there was compression testing, where traditionally Ryzen processors did not do it very well. For example, you could see the Ryzen 7 2700X being 14% slower than the i9-9900K. However, we now see the Ryzen 7 3700X lead the i9-9900K by 15%, matching the 10-core i9-7900X. The R9 3900X handles compression 11% better than the Threadripper 2920X and a whopping 45% better than the i9-9900K. Long live the new king of performance!
When it comes to unboxing, 3rd Gen Ryzen processors still have the performance edge. Here the R7 3700X is 11% faster than the i9-9900K and 52% faster than the i7-9700K. Meanwhile, the R9 3900X was over 60% faster than the i9-9900K and delivered a 17% performance improvement over the Threadripper 2920X.
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2019
Ryzen 9 3900X was 8% faster at video export than Threadripper 2920X. It’s also 22% faster than the i9-9900K, which even beat the R7 3700X, which was 25% faster than the i7-9700K. These results are especially impressive given that Adobe Premiere is optimized for Intel processors.
V-Ray Benchmark
We tested the old version of V-ray 1.0.8 and the latest version. In the old program, the Ryzen 9 3900X completed the workload in 48 seconds, while the R7 3700X completed it in 68 seconds. Ryzen 7 3700X was slightly slower than i9-9900K but much faster than i9-9700K. Meanwhile, the R9 3900X outperformed everyone, including the Threadripper 2920X.
Similar results in the new version of V-Ray, although here the Core i9-7900X manages to outperform the Threadripper 2920X. Regardless, the R9 3900X easily won first place, while the R7 3700X was not much slower than the i9-9900K.
Corona 1.3 Benchmark
Similar results are also seen with Corona, R9 3900X was 30% faster than i9-9900K, while the R7 3700X was only 10% behind. The Ryzen 7 3700X was also 12% faster than the R7 2700X.
Blender
The last application we’ll look at is Blender. Once again we see similar results between the tested processors, although this time the R7 3700X is much closer to the i9-9900K than the R7 2700X. During testing in Blender Open Data, there was a measurement and power consumption, the indicators of which are presented below.
Power consumption
The Ryzen 7 3700X consumed less power than the previous generation R5 2600X and even less than the Core i7-8700K. Its power draw was close to Ryzen 5 2600, 1600 and the old quad-core i7-7700K. The Ryzen 9 3900X also performed admirably, comparable to the R7 2700X and i9-7900X, making it more efficient than the i9-9900K and Threadripper 2920X.
In other words, the Ryzen 9 3900X was 41% faster than the i9-9900K in Blender while consuming 8% less power. This is a stellar result for AMD, and on that high note, we’ll move on to the gaming benchmarks.
Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey
In Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey testing, 3rd generation Ryzen is about 10% faster than the R7 2700X, which is good, but not fast enough to beat the i9-9900K. Despite the close numbers, the i9-9900K performed 4% better at 1080p with the RTX 2080 Ti. Those are really close numbers, so let’s see what happens at 1440p.
At 1440p, the i9-9900K is 6% faster than the R9 3900X and the i7-9700K is 6% faster than the R7 3700X. Not a huge headroom, but we were hoping to see a smaller gap at this resolution.
Battlefield V
In Battlefield V, 3rd Gen Ryzen processors once again fall behind the Intel Core i9. Both of the new Ryzen processors were 11% faster than the R7 2700X, which is a decent win, but also both saw lower average and lower FPS compared to the i9-9900K. The i9-9900K processor delivered 8% more than the average FPS and 13% more than the minimum.
At 1440p, the i9-9900K was only 4% faster than the R9 3900X.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
This time the i9-9900K was 17% faster than the R9 3900X on average FPS and 20% faster on minimum. The Ryzen 7 3700X is closer to the i7-9700K, but Intel’s performance in games looks solid.
At 1440p, the i9-9900K was only 8% faster in terms of average FPS.
The Division 2
We were hoping 3rd Gen Ryzen processors would do better in Division 2. Gameplay was smooth, but the i9-9900K had 11% more average FPS than the R93900X but with a similar minimum FPS.
At 1440p, all high-end processors: i9-9900K, i7-9700K, R7 3700X and R9 3900X provide the same performance.
Far Cry New Dawn
Far Cry New Dawn has always been a weak point for Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 7 2700X hits just 98fps and that makes the i9-9900K 26% faster. The new 3rd generation Ryzen processors don’t completely solve this problem, but the i9-9900K is now only 10% faster than the 3900X and 3700X.
World War Z
The failure seen in Far Cry New Dawn was a little disappointing, and the same can be said for the World War Z results. The 3rd generation proved to be no faster than the 2700X. The Intel Core i9-9900K was 18% faster than the R9 3900X and the i7-9700K was 21% faster than the R7 3700X.
Even with a ceiling of 151 FPS, the i9-9900K was able to beat the R93900X with 9% headroom at 1440p.
Rage 2
In Rage 2, everyone was about equal. The Ryzen 9 3900X and 7 3700X showed better minimum FPS than the R7 2700X, which puts them on par with the i7-8700K. Intel Core i9-9900K and i7-9700K showed 7% better minimum FPS.
At 1440p, we hit the graphics card, so everyone from the Ryzen 7 3700X and above was equal.
Hitman 2
Hitman 2 is another game that is not friendly to AMD processors, and this is another problem for the third generation of Ryzen. Here i9-9900K beats R9 3900X by 15%.
At 1440p, the i9-9900K is 5% faster than the R9 3900X. The Ryzen 7 3700X is still 9% faster than the R7 2700X, see how the 3rd generation Ryzen series is a nice step up when it comes to gaming.
Total War: Three Kingdoms
Total War: Three Kingdoms provides a solid result for AMD. The Ryzen 7 3700X managed to improve minimum FPS by 8% over the R7 2700X, making it only 1% slower than the i9-9900K and 5% slower than i7-9700K.
At 1440p we hit the graphics card again, so the difference between processors is 1-2 frames.
DDR4-3200 vs DDR4-3600
AMD recommends using DDR4-3600 memory with 3rd generation Ryzen processors. We compared DDR4-3600 with DDR4-3200 to see if performance drops when using DDR4-3200 RAM.
The good news is that you will see almost identical performance in Corona, WinRAR, Far Cry New Dawn, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and World War Z with both sets of RAM.
We see that key performance indicators do not change much when changing RAM.
X570 chipset vs. B450
We reviewed the performance of the new X570 chipset against the B450 using MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC and MSI X570 Creation motherboards. Looking at Cinebench scores, there seems to be a marginal difference of around 1% between the two platforms.
With PBO + AutoOC enabled in Ryzen Master, we again see similar performance on the X570 and B450 boards. According to AMD, the PBO feature on 3rd generation Ryzen processors can be enabled on all motherboards that support them.
In World War Z we don’t see much difference in performance between the two boards.
Overclocking
Like 1st and 2nd Gen Ryzen processors, 3rd Gen Ryzen has little overclocking potential. At best, we were able to increase the multi-core score of the Ryzen 9 3900X by 4% and the Ryzen 7 3700X by 6%.
Looking at the single-core results, you can see that you can only get 4-6% more performance when overclocked.
Cost Per Frame
What does Ryzen 3rd Gen offer in terms of value? Prices for the new generation are higher than for the previous one, which is not surprising.
Compared to Intel’s more gaming processors, the Ryzen 3700X is on par with the i7-9700K and i7-8700K in terms of value. The Ryzen 9 3900X is doing worse, the i9-9900K looks better in terms of cost, but is it?. The Ryzen 9 3900X comes with a cooler, while the Intel K processors don’t, so to be fair, we’ll add the cost of the cooler to the Intel processors. We added $75 to the budget of each Intel K-series processor for a Dark Rock 4 cooler. Price revision showed that Ryzen 9The 3900X is now better than the i9-9900K, and the Ryzen 7 3700X has moved closer to the Core i5-9600K.
Motherboard costs are about the same, so it doesn’t matter in this comparison. As for AMD’s 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen processors… they’re very cheap right now. The new R7 3700X only costs 14% more per frame than the R7 2700X, and given the decent power savings and improved performance, we think it’s worth it.
Conclusion
There are more than 50 graphs here, now you have a good idea of how Ryzen 9The 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X are behaving compared to the current generation of Intel processors.
As for the new X570 chipset, it may only be needed for premium processors like the Ryzen 9 3900X or the upcoming Ryzen 9 3950X. For those looking to purchase the Ryzen 7 3700X or the more affordable Ryzen 5 3600, we recommend the existing X470 or B450 boards. The
4th Gen PCIe SSDs are good, but for gaming and general use, they aren’t worth the difference you’ll pay for the X570 over previous chipsets. Most likely you will not notice a difference compared to existing PCIe Gen 3 models. Who needs extra bandwidth is probably better off waiting for Threadripper, which will offer more PCIe lanes and be more useful in this regard.
Going back to our game results, we suspect that they will provoke a lot of controversy. The end result of the new processors is good, in general they have made a big step forward. What’s more, in realistic gaming conditions, you won’t notice the difference between an Intel Core i9-9900K, Ryzen 9 3900X, or Ryzen 7 3700X, as the difference in 1440p resolution with the RTX 2080 Ti was surprisingly small.