Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Falls to $410 Amid Intel Comet Lake-S Release

AMD Ryzen Processor
(Image credit: AMD)

Today, we dropped our Intel Core i9-10900K review, providing a look at how Comet Lake-S performs. At the same time, the older, but still very competitive, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has gotten a price drop and is now selling for just $410 on Amazon.

When the 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X launched in September, it sold for as much as $590 while supplies ran tight, well over its $499 MSRP. Slowly, that price has dropped over the last year, with pricing sitting at about $435 for the last few months.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: was $499, now $410 @ Amazon
AMD's 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X remains an absolute beast of a processor, even in light of Intel's new i9-10900K. With its price now down to $410, you'll want to consider taking the red pill.View Deal

In our AMD Ryzen 9 3900X review, we praised the chip for pushing the limit on what a mainstream desktop chip can do with 12 cores and 24 threads while keeping the price managable.

The Ryzen 9 3900X's 12 cores are built on the 7nm lithographic process and come with a base frequency of 3.8 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 4.6 GHz on the best performing cores. Wired to the cores is 64 MB of L4 cache, and unlike its Intel counterpart, the almost one-year-old 3900X does have PCIe 4.0 -- 24 lanes of them, in fact. 

Intel's new Comet Lake-S chips may be all the news right now, but if you want to save some cash, this is a great bargain for AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X.

  • migber7
    $389 at Microcenter for anyone lucky enough to live near one.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Got to love semi-effective competition.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    migber7 said:
    $389 at Microcenter for anyone lucky enough to live near one.

    Now THAT's a deal!
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    Well given the 10900k was 12% slower than the Ryzen 9 3900x in "creative workloads", so at like $410, the 3900x makes a TON of sense still for those tasks.

    https://ibb.co/s9qkQpq
    Reply
  • AnarchoPrimitiv
    FIRST Tom's hardware needs to go back to their 10900k review and correct where they said "they're similar in price" when comparing the 3900x and the 10900k. The 3900x is 25% cheaper and is nowhere near being in "the same area" with respect to price as the original review suggested multiple times. So please change that so consumers have an honest appraisal.

    "Thanks Intel"....?? Just an FYI, but the 3900x was as low as $417 Two Months AGO, so it's both incorrect and disingenuous to imply that the 3900x was at MSRP the day before the 10th gen Intel CPUs were released, which isn't the case at all. Yes, competition leads to lower prices, but based on the fact that the 3900x was this cheap months ago, I guarantee the PRIMARY and PREDOMINANT reason the 3900x is discounted is so AMD can clear stock before Ryzen 4000/Zen3 is released (with recent leaks suggesting that they could be released as early as August/September).

    At $500 the 3900x is still stiff competition for the 10900k, so based on the facts I've already stated, it's more likely a result of seeking to reduce stock.
    Reply
  • Nemesia
    AnarchoPrimitiv said:
    FIRST Tom's hardware needs to go back to their 10900k review and correct where they said "they're similar in price" when comparing the 3900x and the 10900k. The 3900x is 25% cheaper and is nowhere near being in "the same area" with respect to price as the original review suggested multiple times. So please change that so consumers have an honest appraisal.

    "Thanks Intel"....?? Just an FYI, but the 3900x was as low as $417 Two Months AGO, so it's both incorrect and disingenuous to imply that the 3900x was at MSRP the day before the 10th gen Intel CPUs were released, which isn't the case at all. Yes, competition leads to lower prices, but based on the fact that the 3900x was this cheap months ago, I guarantee the PRIMARY and PREDOMINANT reason the 3900x is discounted is so AMD can clear stock before Ryzen 4000/Zen3 is released (with recent leaks suggesting that they could be released as early as August/September).

    At $500 the 3900x is still stiff competition for the 10900k, so based on the facts I've already stated, it's more likely a result of seeking to reduce stock.

    It was at 400 dollars in March for like 2 weeks after that it took a long time for it to be at the same price. I know I check all the prices every day and I bought the 3900X 2 months ago and it was not at 400. It was 499.
    Reply