A new CPU architecture is coming to Intel, but AMD just showed off its next generation of products that will give the company a run for their money. What do you think about this?
The “i5 9600k vs ryzen 7 3700x” is a comparison between the Intel Core i5 9600K and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. The article will compare specifications of both processors, as well as benchmarks that were conducted by Passmark Software.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X versus Intel Core i5 9600K
When creating a new gaming system or workstation, you will definitely get to the point when you must choose a CPU.
We compare the Intel i5 9600K and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X processors.
It’s critical to acquire not just the highest performance, but also the best price-performance ratio, particularly for gamers and workstation users.
Getting a CPU that has 3% higher performance capabilities but costs 50% more than the less performing CPU has no practical value.
For the Intel i5 9600K versus AMD Ryzen 3700X, we’ll go through each of these aspects in detail.
Our final Verdict may be found at the bottom of the article or in the table above.
Intel Core i5 9600K versus AMD Ryzen 7 3700X results
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is ranked first.
- It’s quick, and its single-core performance outperforms many Intel CPUs.
- It’s a great option for gaming as well as productivity.
- It features eight cores and sixteen threads, making it a multi-threading computing powerhouse.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X – The most powerful CPU
The Zen 2 design seems to put AMD in a position where it can finally catch up to Intel.
AMD has spent the last two years laying the groundwork for success with Zen, Zen+, and the AM4 architecture.
They now seek to enjoy the benefits of their achievements.
In our in-depth study, we’ll explain how the Ryzen 7 3700X with eight cores and the Ryzen 9 3900X with twelve cores will outperform Intel’s rivals.
AMD has a long-term strategy, which should be obvious by now.
The Zen microarchitecture was not designed in a single generation; rather, numerous generations were produced from the start, each with distinct aims and manufacturing processes.
When Zen 2 was first announced in 2015, the objective was to attain 7 nm manufacturing. However, it was unclear at the time if this would work.
Zen 2 was supposed to be a server architecture with a low clock rate, and it was planned as such.
And this is precisely what we can expect from the second generation EPYC CPUs, which will have up to 64 cores and will be available in late summer.
AMD discovered at the end of 2015 that CPUs and chips could be clocked substantially higher.
As a result, it was determined that Zen 2 might be utilized for Ryzen desktop CPUs as well. New Ryzen CPUs have been created as a result of this.
AMD would not say whether or not there was a backup plan in place or what it looked like.
In the Ryzen 3000 family of CPUs, three factors come together:
- The manufacturing of 7 nm semiconductors…
- the chip’s layout
- the Zen 2 design, which is expected to enhance IPC performance significantly.
AMD established various goals for the Zen 2 architecture in order to achieve an IPC bonus of 8 to 10%.
However, even if it was not expected before 2015, this would not have let AMD to catch up to Intel.
In the end, we settled on a 15 percent average for the following reasons:
- The front end now has a more balanced look.
- The Micro Op Cache has been expanded, allowing numerous previously processed instructions to be saved and reused.
- First and foremost, an IPC plus of 15% indicates that power consumption is growing – the industry forecast has been updated to decrease overhead.
Since the Next Horizon Tech-Day in early June, the following has been known:
A Ryzen CPU with 16 cores will be available. It will be known as the Ryzen 9 3950X, and it will have a base clock rate of 3.5 GHz that can be increased to 4.7 GHz.
When it comes to the maximum boost clock, it’s also the fastest Ryzen CPU. This model’s thermal design power is likewise 105 W.
In September, the Ryzen 9 3950X will be available. All additional models, as well as the mainboards that go with them, will be available beginning next week.
We’re looking at the Ryzen 9 3900X with 12 cores today.
This clocks a little faster in the basic clock rate, at 3.8 GHz, but only “only” 4.6 GHz when booted.
Here, too, the TDP is 105 W. The Ryzen 7 3800X is more likely to be found in mainstream computers.
It has eight cores that run at speeds of 3.9 or 4.5 GHz. The L3 cache is reduced to 32 MB since only one Valhalla die is utilized. The TDP remains at 105 watts.
We’re now trying the Ryzen 7 3700X, which is a little more cost-effective.
The clock speeds are 3.6 and 4.4 GHz, and the cache size is the same as the Ryzen 7 3800X.
This variant is available from AMD with a decreased TDP of 65 W.
The Ryzen 5 3600X is the first processor to include six cores running at 3.8 or 4.4 GHz. Because there are only six active cores, the L2 cache is limited to 3 MB.
At 32 MB, the L3 cache stays unchanged. AMD has given the Ryzen 5 3600X a bit more wiggle room when it comes to power consumption, setting it at 95 W.
For the time being, the Ryzen 5 3600 is the entry-level variant, but it also has six cores that clock at 3.67 and 4.2 GHz, respectively.
TDP has been lowered to 65 W.
There will very certainly be Ryzen 3 variations later. Only the six models described above are official at the moment, with five of them set to begin production immediately.
The AM4 platform, or the socket with the same name, is used by all of them.
At Computex, AMD unveiled all of the information. The third-generation Ryzen CPUs, for example, have 24 PCI Express 4.0 lanes.
The chipset will be connected to four of these.
This leaves 16+4 for the graphics card and other applications such as SSDs to connect to.
DDR4-3200 memory is now supported, however the increased memory clock rate should improve this generation greatly.
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600X AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
The chipset is created in the same fashion as the processor’s I/O die and is made in 14 nm.
As a result, AMD may produce a chip that can be utilized several times.
The processor’s I/O die, on the other hand, is made in 12 nm and serves as the master of communication.
The chipset is an I/O die from the 14 nm manufacturing process.
Memory controllers, for example, are simply not utilized here.
The dies are 212 mm2 in size and include 4.8 billion transistors.
A Zen 2 CCD (Core Complex Die) measures 74 mm2 and has 3.9 billion transistors.
In addition, the IOD (I/O-Die) with 125 mm2 and 2.09 billion transistors is still available.
We get a total size of 199 mm2 with 5.99 billion transistors for a Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 CPU with six or eight cores.
As a result, dies based on Zen 2 are somewhat smaller (CCD + IOD), but have over a billion more transistors to offer.
We’re talking about 273 mm2 and 9.89 billion transistors with the Ryzen 9 variants with 12 or 16 cores.
Of course, this may be taken a step further.
With eight CCDs and one IOD (assuming the IOD is the same for server CPUs), an EPYC processor can accomplish 717 mm2 and 33.29 billion transistors.
A Cascade Lake SP CPU with 28 cores has a surface area of 694 mm2 and is reported to have over 8 billion transistors.
RAM and Ryzen
In certain aspects, AMD’s Zen architecture, or Ryzen (Threadripper) CPUs, are particularly reliant on the memory they utilize.
Processors may benefit greatly from memory enhancements in terms of clock and timing.
The MCM designs of the Ryzen Threadripper CPUs, on the other hand, have issues with memory accesses over distant die memory controllers.
AMD supplies a CCD (Core Complex Die) and an I/O Die for Ryzen CPUs with six and eight cores.
The Infinity Fabric establishes a connection between the two chips.
In both directions, the data is sent at a rate of 32 bytes per cycle. Two CCDs are used in Ryzen CPUs with 12 or 16 cores.
These, too, are coupled to the I/O die via an interconnect, and each of them has a capacity of 32 bytes/cycle.
The second iteration of Infinity Fabric is used by the third generation of Ryzen CPUs.
In Multi-Chip Module Processors, this was already the backbone of the interconnect system (MCM).
The bus has been increased from 256 to 512 bits in the second generation. In many ways, queries sent across the Infinity Fabric were sped up.
Up to a memory speed of DDR4-3600, the memory clock (mclk), the memory controller clock (uclk), and the Infinity Fabric clock (fclk) are tied together through a constant ratio.
The frequency of these three units is 1,600 MHz if DDR4-3200 is set.
The three components function in 2:1 mode when a memory clock is configured through DDR4-3600.
The Infinity Fabric clock is set at 1,800 MHz by default, although it may be changed manually.
In 2:1 mode, the latencies rise by around 9 ns. This translates to a memory speed of 2,200 MHz, an Infinity Fabric clock of 1,800 MHz, and a memory controller clock of 1,100 MHz for DDR4-4400.
As previously stated, the Infinity Fabric’s clock may be manually modified in 33 MHz stages.
Overclocking: Pushing Life to Its Limits
We were able to boot at 4.5 GHz on all eight cores on the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, however the machine did not operate stably for a long period.
The system only ran well when the frequency was decreased to 4.3 GHz.
This is 100 MHz less than AMD claimed in the boost specification, but the 4,300 MHz on all cores is always there, resulting in considerable performance gains, particularly in multi-core testing.
The performance of Cinebench R20 improves by roughly 6%.
The Ryzen 7 3700X, which has been accelerated in this fashion, has seen a significant gain in performance, particularly in terms of power consumption.
The need for power approaches that of its older brother, and grows by over 50%.
This also demonstrates that the new Ryzen CPUs have already reached their maximum performance.
The effect is much evident with the Ryzen 9 3900X:
On all twelve cores, we were unable to obtain steady functioning beyond the fundamental clock rate.
The system could not be kept permanently stable even with all cores running at 3.8 GHz.
The findings are most likely the reason why automated overclocking through the Ryzen master tools only works to a limited degree, or quits after a few seconds of clock rise.
We did not increase the voltage because of the 7 nm technology and the already extremely high basic voltage of roughly 1.475 V.
Our initial efforts at overclocking with Ryzen 3000 were not improved by a fresh BIOS update or even a second X570 mainboard.
Overall, it should be noted that the new Ryzen CPUs are already at their maximum performance and can only be marginally increased.
AMD is now succeeding with the Ryzen CPUs, despite the fact that graphics cards have been challenging for many generations.
In practically every area, they have caught up to their competition, and in many cases, they have outperformed them.
However, with the third generation of Ryzen CPUs, the first and second generation’s multi-core supremacy will be expanded to other sectors.
AMD’s Zen 2 design also puts it on par with its rivals in terms of single-threaded or IPC performance.
This was the strategy for Zen 2, according to AMD’s own words, and the objectives were met.
The issue areas of the Zen architecture were addressed in the Zen 2 architecture.
The Micro Op Cache and the L3 Cache have both been enhanced. Both should guarantee that the CPU pipeline is used more effectively and efficiently.
The excellent results in the single-threaded benchmarks are evidence of this.
This bottleneck is also alleviated by upgrading the RAM frequency to the current JEDEC standard DDR4-3200 with a simple overclocking to DDR4-3600.
AMD is technologically ahead of the competition because to its 7 nm chip design and production.
This may be noticed in the power consumption, for example.
However, the CPU frequency hits 4.7 GHz in boost, which is far more than AMD’s expectations.
AMD benefits greatly from the manufacture of a large number of miniature CCDs. Another benefit is the design’s adaptability.
The IOD takes care of the remainder, reducing memory latencies and adding compatibility for PCI-Express 4.0. PCI-Express 4.0 must yet demonstrate its benefits in the end-customer domain, in addition to better transfer speeds for massive data quantities.
In the desktop class, the Ryzen 9 3900X is presently unparalleled.
In applications where the cores put their strength to the road, 12 cores and 24 threads are unmatched.
Even the Core i9-9900eight K’s powerful cores aren’t enough. It also faces competition from the Ryzen 7 3700X, which has eight cores and can operate 16 threads at the same time.
The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Intel Core i9-9900K are now on par in terms of performance thanks to improvements in architecture and manufacturing.
The pendulum swings sometimes in favor of the Ryzen 7 3700X and sometimes in favor of the Core i9-9900K, depending on the test, but we haven’t seen such a close competition in a long time.
Because of the greater TDP, the Ryzen 7 3800X should outperform the Core i9-9900K throughout the course of the test.
However, the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X are still lagging behind in games.
Intel is certainly catching up to Intel in this area, although it still doesn’t seem to be as excellent as the simulated benchmarks.
We ran tests in 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
The greater the resolution, the sooner the GPU limit is reached and the processors begin to draw closer together.
The Ryzen 7 3700X offers a distinct edge in terms of power consumption, owing to its 7nm fabrication.
Under full load, the Core i9-9900K uses over 190 W, while the Ryzen 7 3700X consumes around 95 W.
However, we use the findings from a Cinebench test since a processor can rarely handle much additional stress.
In games, the Core i9-9900K uses somewhat less power, although AMD has the edge in terms of power usage.
The Ryzen 9 3900X not only allows for a lot more, but it also has a lot better multi-threaded performance.
Memory overclocking is a lot of fun and has a lot of promise.
To pull the Ryzen CPUs out of reserve, it doesn’t even have to have especially fast memory.
DDR4-3600 is already sufficient for a noticeable performance gain.
You may, however, blow off steam with the memories if you wish.
Timing, in addition to the clock, is quite significant.
On the other hand, overclocking the CPU is still a bit of a pain at the present.
It’s unclear whether or not this scenario will alter. The Ryzen 7 3700X boosts performance by 4.3 GHz on all cores (more was not achievable with our sample).
The Ryzen 9 3900X, on the other hand, was a diva.
We’ll have to wait and see whether the issue is with the CPU or the motherboard.
Because the Ryzen 9 3950X already has extraordinarily high clock speeds, the platform and design of the 2x CCD can’t be the issue.
Final Verdict: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is the best performing CPU.
AMD puts its opponents under pressure not just in terms of performance, but also in terms of pricing.
However, we are familiar with this problem from prior Ryzen generations. However, AMD was able to win points back then mostly due to pricing, but they now have a few other advantages.
As a typical gaming CPU, the Ryzen 3700X is perhaps the most popular, with a price tag of $349.
The Intel Core i9-9900K is presently available for slightly under $500 on the open market. Even the Ryzen 7 3800X, at $429, would be a better deal.
The Ryzen 9 3900X costs just $100 more than the Ryzen 9 3900, yet it has four extra cores.
You obtain tremendously multi-threaded performance for minimal money if you have proper applications for this huge number of cores.
A 12-core Intel Core i9-9920X costs over $1,000 and needs an LGA2066 motherboard.
Even though there are minor compatibility issues, AMD has stuck with the AM4 platform for nearly three generations.
In general, though, AMD’s accomplishments on a single platform are now unrivaled.
Overall, the Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms the other processors in our test.
Intel i5 9600K is ranked second.
- Exceptional gaming performance
- The performance of single threads is excellent.
- There’s a lot of space for overclocking.
Intel i5 9600K — Gaming CPU with the best price-performance ratio
For many years, Intel’s Core i5 CPUs have featured four cores.
With the Core i8000 series and products like the Core i5 8600K, this has finally changed in 2017.
The replacement, the Core i5 9600K, was introduced around a year later, and we’ll put it to the test in this review, particularly in contrast to its predecessor.
In terms of technical facts, the new nomenclature indicates more differences than exist.
The Coffee Lake design is still used in the 9600K, the cache regions are unchanged, and the TDP remains at 95 watts.
There are just two places where there are major differences:
The clock rate is increased by 100 to 300 MHz.
Furthermore, instead of heat-conducting paste, soldered metal is utilized between the CPU die and the heatspreader, allowing for lower temperatures.
Our gaming benchmarks demonstrate that the Core i5 9600K has just minor benefits over the Core i5 8600K.
Depending on the title, it may differ from the 8600K by one to three percent in average frame rates, and up to five percent in 99th percentile rates (Total War: Warhammer 2).
In the end, the distinctions are insignificant.
The all-core turbo, which is 4.3 GHz in the case of the Core i5 9600K, always takes effect since all six existing cores are at least partly employed in our test games.
The Core i5 8600K, on the other hand, runs at 4.1 GHz, explaining the (little) performance difference between the two versions.
The Core i5 9600K is marginally ahead of the Core i5 8600K in our performance rankings.
In exchange, the Core i7 8086K, which costs around $200 more, can only compete with the 9600K on a minor level.
The virtual core doubling, which allows the 8086K to handle twelve instead of six threads concurrently, gives these versions a minor performance boost under average gaming load (4.3 GHz).
However, in our benchmark titles, this only provides a little benefit.
In Full HD and with high rather than maximum details, AMD has a little disadvantage over Intel devices.
The fastest Ryzen CPU (Ryzen 7 2700X) is eleven percent slower than the Core i5 9600K.
Higher detail settings or a slower graphics card, on the other hand, bring the CPUs closer together.
In games, the price-to-performance ratio is important.
While the Core i5 9600K is in the top third of the test field in terms of gaming performance, it is now only good enough for a middle price-performance ratio across the board.
Because it is around ten dollars more costly than the Core i5 8600K, but also somewhat quicker, both CPUs obtain a relatively comparable outcome here.
AMD’s Ryzen 5 CPUs, such as the Ryzen 5 2600 (six cores, twelve threads) and the Ryzen 5 2400G, may excel in this category (four cores, eight threads).
The current front-runner, though, is the Core i3 8100, which has been less influenced by recent price hikes than other Intel CPUs.
While doubling the virtual cores of a modern six-core CPU doesn’t assist much in gaming, it seems to aid in apps.
As a consequence, all Core i5 models (which do not support hyper-threading) rank in the middle of the pack, with the Core i5 9600K scoring highest overall owing to its high clock rates.
Because all of the AMD CPUs tested allow virtual core doubling, they outperform Intel in this discipline when compared to gaming performance.
However, the Intel CPUs’ outstanding single-core performance makes for a tight overall competition.
The Core i5 9600K, unlike the other Core i9000 CPUs, is not impacted by the issue of the turbo clock rate being throttled under heavy CPU stress because the TDP is exceeded for too long.
It helps that it only has six cores instead of eight and doesn’t support hyper-threading.
The all-core turbo of 4.3 GHz is maintained even when the CPU is fully loaded during video conversion with handbrake, and the CPU’s consumption of roughly 70 watts is much below the highest limit of 95 watts.
Applications that rank performance
Unsurprisingly, CPUs with a high thread count and clock speed had the greatest performance in our testing.
Because the Core i5 9600K has at least the latter and, after all, six genuine cores, it can only be classified as being in the middle third.
However, since the CPUs in this third are all close together, the Core i5 9600K may bridge the gap to the top third.
You won’t be thrilled with the new Core-i5-CPUs if you want to broadcast in excellent picture quality through CPU (rather than utilizing a graphics card or even a second PC).
While Ryzen 5 CPUs can generally offer a smooth picture at least at 60 frames per second in 720p, none of the Core i5 models, including the 9600K, can.
As you may have seen from previous benchmarks, Intel CPUs seldom lose any performance in the game itself since they concentrate on it.
In our view, AMD’s Ryzen CPUs provide the best balance of streaming and gaming performance.
Thermal paste vs. indium solder
With the introduction of AMD’s Ryzen CPUs, one question has resurfaced: the material choice for the CPU die and heatspreader (on which the CPU cooler rests).
In contrast to the heatspreader paste Intel has been using for years, AMD has chosen for soldered metal, which allows for lower temperatures.
Intel is adopting Indium solder for the first time in a long time in the Core I 9000 CPUs, which many gamers applauded at first.
However, a video of the well-known overclocker novel “der8auer” Hartung disillusioned me once more.
The reason for this is because the heatspreader in the Core I 9000 models is noticeably smaller (2.3 instead of 3.1 millimeters) and the indium layer is quite thick (approximately 0.5 millimeters) owing to a taller PCB and CPU die, so the benefits over the Core I 8000 processors are limited.
To see for ourselves, we let the Core i5 9600K and Core i5 8600K sweat in Assassin’s Creed: Origins for a longer amount of time in circumstances as close to ambient temperature as possible, as well as the test system employed, including the CPU cooler.
The result: In the open test arrangement, the Core i5 9600K achieves 57 degrees with a fan speed of 870 rpm, whereas the Core i5 8600K reaches 60 degrees with a fan speed of 910 rpm.
Of course, the clock rate of the Core i5 9600K, which is 200 MHz higher, must be considered.
When we run the 8600K at the same clock rate, the temperature climbs to just under 62 degrees and the CPU fan speeds up somewhat (about 930 RPM).
The 9600K hence offers some small benefits over the 8600K in terms of temperature (and thus maybe also in terms of fan speed).
However, because of the switch from thermal paste to indium solder, they aren’t as large as one would assume.
In terms of power usage, the Core i5 9600K does not provide any surprises:
Due to the slightly faster clock rate, it is somewhat more expensive than the Core i5 8600K.
In terms of energy efficiency, both models perform well.
At the start of the year, we fully overhauled our testing system.
To avoid the GPU becoming a bottleneck as soon as possible, we chose Nvidia’s highly powerful Geforce GTX 1080 Ti as the graphics card.
For the next test system, a swap to the even faster Geforce RTX 2080 Ti is already planned.
Different genres are represented in the games that have been tested. Assassin’s Creed: Origins (third-person action role-playing game), Civilization 6 (lap strategy), Kingdom Come: Deliverance (first-person role-playing game), Project Cars 2 (racing game), Total War: Warhammer 2 (real-time strategy), and Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus are among them (first-person shooter).
DirectX 12 is omitted on purpose.
The interface has yet to catch on, resulting in poorer frame rates in Civilization 6 and Total War: Warhammer on our test system than with DirectX 11.
In the shape of Wolfenstein 2, we have at least one game in our lineup that uses the Vulkan interface, which is largely technically impressive but not yet generally utilized.
In terms of resolution and detail level, we chose Full HD (1920×1080) and high details.
The visual card becomes more a bottleneck at greater detail levels and resolutions, such as WQHD (25601440) or 4K (38402160).
Lower resolutions, such as 128070, are, in our view, too far removed from reality.
Previously, we utilized Fraps to assess game performance; today, OCAT (Open Capture and Analytics Tool) is used instead.
Instead of the lowest attainable frame rate, OCAT displays the “99th percentile.”
As the name implies, this limit is exceeded by 99 percent of all measured values.
The 99th percentile has the benefit of filtering out individual slips as compared to specifying a pure minimum fps number (or the one percent of the lowest values).
Because these errors are frequently undetectable while playing the game, the 99th percentile is more useful, as it better reflects the majority of attained performance.
All CPUs are tested in dual channel mode with 16.0 GByte DDR4 RAM and a clock rate of 2.933 MHz.
In our experience, using RAM with even higher clock rates may assist Ryzen CPUs reach better performance in particular.
However, we chose to test with the Ryzen 2000 CPUs’ officially highest guaranteed frequency, and we utilized this speed to replicate the identical circumstances for the other processors in the test field (even though some of them only officially support slightly lower clock rates such as 2.666 MHz or 2.400 MHz as in the case of the Core i3 8100).
Windows 10 is utilized as the operating system, which is loaded on an SSD alongside the games and has all current updates and security fixes against Meltdown and Spectre.
We put the CPUs to the test in a variety of circumstances, including encoding a movie with handbrake and monitoring loading times in Civilization 6.
We also test the CPUs’ performance while broadcasting to Twitch.tv through OBS.
We also calculate the power usage when playing Assassin’s Creed: Origins and Cinebench, which utilizes all cores and threads to their utmost potential.
Apart from absolute number graphs, we also provide relative CPU classifications, on the one hand in terms of price/performance in games (Dollar/fps), and on the other hand in terms of energy efficiency (watt/fps).
Final Verdict: Intel i5 9600K is the best CPU for gaming in terms of price-performance ratio.
In this test, Intel’s Core i5 9600K is unquestionably the most impressive of the (for now) three new Core i9000 CPUs.
It is still the superior option in contrast to the Core i5 8600K at a same price due to the slightly faster clock speeds and somewhat lower temps.
However, for the $200 that the Core i5 is set to cost, you can obtain a powerful eight-core CPU like AMD’s Ryzen 7 3700, while similar CPUs from the previous generation, such as the Ryzen 7 1700X, are even cheaper.
Sure, Intel still has a little advantage in games where graphics cards aren’t a factor.
However, in reality, this is unlikely to be of much use.
In most circumstances, AMD, when combined with great application performance and reasonable costs, provides a superior overall package, in my view.
After years of Intel being practically unchallenged in the CPU industry, there has been a lot of change in the market due to Ryzen. And the next year promises to be as intriguing.
Final Score: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X versus Intel Core i5 9600K
In the end, the Intel i5 9600K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 3800X had a razor-thin margin of victory.
Both CPUs are quite powerful in terms of performance and pricing.
Overall, the Ryzen 7 3700X is the best choice if you want the finest gaming and application performance, i.e. for a workstation, with no sacrifices.
If you typically use your PC as a gaming machine rather than a workstation, the Intel i5 9600K will benefit you, since it is excellent for gaming and less so for workstation usage.
Also, of the two CPUs evaluated, the Intel i5 9600K has the greatest price-performance ratio.
When you consider that the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 30 percent greater performance than the Intel i5 9600K while costing just roughly 20% more, the Ryzen 7 3700X is an obvious choice for budget-conscious buyers.
Overall, we have to declare that the Ryzen 7 3700X is our favorite. It simply provides outstanding performance at an affordable price.
There are also predictions that AMD will launch the new Ryzen 4000 series around the end of 2020.
If this series is successful, it might spell the end for Intel, particularly if AMD maintains its price approach.
We’ll keep you informed!
The “i5-9600k vs ryzen 7 5800x” is a comparison between the Intel Core i5 9600K and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. The two CPUs are released in different months, so there is not much to compare yet.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X good for gaming 2020?
A: This is a difficult question to answer, as it all depends on what youre looking for. One thing that solidifies the Ryzen 7 3700Xs gaming prowess would be its price and performance ratio. For $259 USD, this CPU has been shown to offer great value when compared with others from Intel or AMD
Is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Intel?
A: I am a question answering bot. It would be best for you to ask Google that one as it is not my area of expertise.
What Ryzen is better than i5 9600K?
A: Ryzen is generally considered to be better than i5 9600K in terms of value for money.
- i5 9600k vs ryzen 7 3700x reddit
- ryzen 7 3700x vs i7-9700k
- i5-9600k vs ryzen 5 3600x
- ryzen 7 3700x vs i5-9400f
- ryzen 7 3700x vs i5-10400f