Intel's Core i9-10900K is neck and neck with AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X in the latest 3DMark tests

[Redaktion]

While the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X might not be a pure 1:1 competitor for the Intel i9-10900K, their similar price tier is quite enough to prompt a comparison in this case. The most important difference between the two CPUs is the core count and the boost clocks, and the latter is supposed to have a greater impact on the scores, but this is not particularly evident in the latest 3DMark scores.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-s-Core-i9-10900K-is-neck-and-neck-with-AMD-s-Ryzen-9-3900X-in-the-latest-3DMark-tests.452935.0.html

[william blake]

i-9 is meh already, bring the mighty i-11.

[Robert]

Ok, they are in line with the AMD 3000 series. What about the upcoming 4000 series? Those are both introduced this year, hence it's a more realistic comparison. ;-)

[Floppy Donk]

The 3900X is $50 USD more expensive than the supposed cost of the 10900K but you get the cooler and 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads with AMD 😑 Plus PCIe 4.0 support. No sense in going Intel anymore. Unless you are a MASSIVE fan of Intel branding.

[8&8]

@floppy donk ...to not speak that power consuption should be 100w in less.

[Glass Hand]

PCIE 4 is a big deal considering the next gen nVidia cards and NVMe drives will be out soon. Intel owners will find their busses saturated by these newer peripherals but AMD owners will be ready to take full advantage.

[kvorshk]

Glass Hand: I am thinking you are not understanding pcie technology very well. Yes it will be faster but gen four peripherals are not saturating gen 3 lanes.

[xyz3002]

No mention of Ram Timing and Channel set up. Dual or Quad?