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

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The number of cores on a processor is very important. At the end of the day, the cores, combined with frequency and architecture, dictate the amount of performance the chip can deliver. However, while having more of anything is typically better, not everyone needs a ton of cores or can put them to good use. Times have changed, and now it's common to find mainstream processors with up to 16 cores, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, but that healthy ration of cores, and the higher price point, isn't for everyone.

Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • Evil_Overlord
    I find it very interesting that despite the 3800X having more L3 Cache, faster memory speeds, and hyperthreading, the 9700K beats it in all gaming benchmarks. Thanks for the article.
    Reply
  • joeblowsmynose
    Evil_Overlord said:
    I find it very interesting that despite the 3800X having more L3 Cache, faster memory speeds, and hyperthreading, the 9700K beats it in all gaming benchmarks. Thanks for the article.

    Right? Because "hyperthreading" makes games run waaay faster and clock speeds don't have any impact ... :P

    SMT won't really improve game performance and games love high clocks - its straight forward.
    Reply
  • GoatGuy
    Evil_Overlord said:
    I find it very interesting that despite the 3800X having more L3 Cache, faster memory speeds, and hyperthreading, the 9700K beats it in all gaming benchmarks. Thanks for the article.
    Gaming drivers ARE optimized for the Intel line, because all competent programming teams figure "our largest market historically has been for Intel processors". It takes Ryzen specialization to optimize drivers (and installtion-self-modification-options) for them.
    Reply
  • cwolf78
    The reason why Intel still holds a slight advantage in gaming is inter-core latency. Intel, which are still using monolothic dies with a ring bus architecture, have lower inter-core latency compared to AMD's CCX and chiplet architecture. AMD keeps making strides in reducing this latency each generation with upgrades to their Infinity Fabric and by using large amounts of L3 cache. Intel is going to be using a similar approach to their chip design when they reach 7 nm and they will go through the same teething issues as AMD. (Rumors currently are that Intel are having a lot of difficulty getting their fabric's power consumption under control.) This combined with the projected performance increase with Zen 3 leads me to believe there will no longer be any difference in gaming performance between the two with perhaps a slight edge for AMD. And the best part is, if you're a current AMD customer, you can upgrade to Ryzen 4000 (Zen 3) on your current platform.
    Reply
  • Redneck5439
    joeblowsmynose said:
    Right? Because "hyperthreading" makes games run waaay faster and clock speeds don't have any impact ... :p

    SMT won't really improve game performance and games love high clocks - its straight forward.

    Agree totally with you. Hyperthreading in games is basically pointless, frequency is much more important (at least in the current generation with their current IPC). Even today's "modern" games that take advantage of more cores / threads don't typically leverage more than 6 cores in a meaningful manner and will rarely take advantage of all 8 cores. I have found that I get better gaming performance with my 3800X if I disable SMT and increase the overclock for this very reason. With SMT on my max overclock is 4.5Ghz all core @ 1.41V, with SMT off my max overclock is 4.575Ghz all core @ 1.41V. The gaming performance is better with 8 cores 8 threads @ 4.575Ghz than running with stock boost or with running 8 cores 16 threads @ 1.5Ghz.
    Reply
  • Redneck5439
    cwolf78 said:
    The reason why Intel still holds a slight advantage in gaming is inter-core latency. Intel, which are still using monolothic dies with a ring bus architecture, have lower inter-core latency compared to AMD's CCX and chiplet architecture. AMD keeps making strides in reducing this latency each generation with upgrades to their Infinity Fabric and by using large amounts of L3 cache. Intel is going to be using a similar approach to their chip design when they reach 7 nm and they will go through the same teething issues as AMD. (Rumors currently are that Intel are having a lot of difficulty getting their fabric's power consumption under control.) This combined with the projected performance increase with Zen 3 leads me to believe there will no longer be any difference in gaming performance between the two with perhaps a slight edge for AMD. And the best part is, if you're a current AMD customer, you can upgrade to Ryzen 4000 (Zen 3) on your current platform.

    This and the fact that Intel's upcoming 10nm can't support the clock speeds of its current 14nm+++(+?) is why Intel has held off so long with bring 10nm to market. I believe that Intel is already looking at chiplet design after the success that AMD has had and when they bring high performance desktop 10nm it will feature the chiplet design. Intel is already struggling to keep up with AMD in core count and needs to adapt a chiplet design to be able to do so. However the increased latency (of a chiplet design) paired with lower frequency (of 10nm) is exactly why Intel doesn't have high end desktop 10nm processors already on the market or coming to market this year. Their 10nm high core count desktop processors while being much more efficient (and much more competitive with productivity work loads) would loose the one edge that Intel can still boast about - gaming performance. With higher latency and lower clock speeds they wouldn't be able to compete against their current i9 9900K(S) in performance and marketing its better efficiency would be a very hard sell. That is why we see Intel releasing a 10 core 14nm+++(I really don't know how many pluses we are up to now) rather than finally releasing 10nm (desktop).
    Reply
  • Gurg
    The unbiased Bottom Line take away should be that if you want top performance in gaming (13.5% higher FPS) and Office ( 4.6% better) buy Intel. If you primarily are into quicker performance in video editing, rendering etc buy AMD.

    If you are swayed by the inclusion of a $30 CPU air cooler in the purchase price, then you have way more issues that a $300-400 CPU won't help.

    Note: article uses charts from seven month old 3600x review.
    Reply
  • Redneck5439
    Really at this point if you are considering building a new rig you should really hold off for a few more months. Intel is getting the next gen ready for launch right now headed up by the 10900K with 10 cores and 20 threads. By June or July at the latest we will have AMD releasing their Zen 3 Ryzen 4000 series processors. I don't know if Intel can leverage anymore IPC out of their 14nm process or if the 10900K will just be a 9900K with 2 more cores, but AMD is claiming a 15% - 17% IPC increase with Zen 3. Several years ago I would have said its all hype, but AMD has delivered on its IPC claims since they released fist gen Ryzen.

    If AMD really does have 15 - 17% IPC increases coming with Zen 3 then they will have the most dominant processors available in any segment (gaming, editing, rendering, anything) by the end of the year. A 10900K with 10 cores, 20 threads and boost clock of 5.2Ghz is impressive but won't be able to save Intel if you compare it to a 3900X with 15 - 17% better performance across the board, which is what the 4900X should be all things being equal.

    Now, will this happen? Will AMD finally have a totally dominant processor lineup with Zen 3? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I don't have a crystal ball and Intel may indeed have something more up their sleeve than just a highly binned 9900K with 2 extra cores. The point is the 10900K should be releasing in a couple months and Zen 3 will be releasing very soon thereafter. If you are planning a new build you may just want to see what they have to offer before building now. At the very least the release of the new processors should drive the costs of existing processors down in just a few months time.
    Reply
  • 2Be_or_Not2Be
    Gurg said:
    The unbiased Bottom Line take away should be that if you want top performance in gaming (13.5% higher FPS) and Office ( 4.6% better) buy Intel. If you primarily are into quicker performance in video editing, rendering etc buy AMD.

    If you are swayed by the inclusion of a $30 CPU air cooler in the purchase price, then you have way more issues that a $300-400 CPU won't help.

    According to the Amazon links, it's $399 for the 9700K and $339 for the 3800X. That price differential, plus the $30 for the fan, makes it almost a $100 difference. That's a sizable difference; $100 more can almost buy you the motherboard to run that new CPU. You shouldn't so easily diminish the value of that $30 cooler.
    Reply
  • sizzling
    The Ryzen 7 3700X is a very capable processor that brings the lion's share of the 3800X's performance, but at a lower price point. Keep that in mind at checkout.

    Now that’s an understatement. Just had a quick look and the 3700X is about 14% cheaper in the UK while giving nearly identical performance to the 3800X. They perform so closely you have to ask why they both exist and the only answer I can come up with is marketing and squeezing a bit more out of customers who don’t properly research their next purchase.
    Reply