AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Today, we'll put the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in a heated contest to see which chip comes out on top. The best processor is not necessarily the one with the most number of cores or the highest clock speeds; rather, it is the one that fulfills your specific requirements and fits within your budget. Gamers do not necessarily require the highest-end chip to enjoy the latest AAA games, although having one wouldn't hurt. However, numerous compelling reasons exist for a consumer to seek to acquire a flagship processor.

You may be part of a small, elite crowd of enthusiastic gamers with the financial capacity to acquire the latest and greatest mainstream processor. Alternatively, you could be among the type of users who use their systems for more than just casual gaming, thereby warranting a more substantial investment in a processor that provides considerable processing power alongside exceptional gaming performance. The million-dollar question remains whether to choose between Intel or AMD, as both chipmakers have released highly compelling flagship processors in the current market.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
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.

With contributions from
  • Jabberwocky79
    It's kind of a no-brainer isn't it? I mean, they are practically equal when it comes to productivity performance, and AMD is clearly superior for gaming, so....

    I wish I had an AM5 platform, but productivity was my main concern when building my current system. And at the time, AMD was lagging behind a little bit in the productivity arena.
    Reply
  • TheSecondPower
    Since the 9800X3D offers similar gaming performance to the 9950X3D and the results were heavily waited toward gaming, if you had replaced the 285K in this article with the 9800X3D, I think the 9800X3D would look pretty good.

    If you eliminate gaming, the 285K is $110 cheaper today on B&H and offers similar productivity performance at similar power consumption so it'd seem like the better value. Also regarding the statement, "we typically use our systems more than letting them idle for prolonged periods." I don't think that's true. Maybe if you only use your computer to game you turn it on, game, and turn it off. (If that's you, get the 9800X3D instead of the 9950X3D.) But when getting work done the CPU is rapidly going between idle and busy as you interact with it and pause to think. And a lot of people do leave the computer running while they step away from it.
    Reply
  • Jabberwocky79
    ^^ Hmm.. all valid points. For me, I work from home and my PC is in constant use, and between work and casual use, probably only sitting idle about 2 hours out of 12. Realistically, most people would be happy with either CPU, but the longevity of the AM platform appeals to me. I'm the type of person that builds one machine every 10-15 years and keeps upgrading it to keep up.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    TheSecondPower said:
    Also regarding the statement, "we typically use our systems more than letting them idle for prolonged periods." I don't think that's true. Maybe if you only use your computer to game you turn it on, game, and turn it off. (If that's you, get the 9800X3D instead of the 9950X3D.) But when getting work done the CPU is rapidly going between idle and busy as you interact with it and pause to think. And a lot of people do leave the computer running while they step away from it.
    Well as a forum I'm sure they are 24/7/365 doing 3d rendering and once in a while 10bit video transcoding for the occasional video they are posting....
    That's the only things they tested under productivity so that's what we have to believe.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    Doesn't all light use also fall under "idle" for Intel?
    My PCs are usually light use and rarely run P95.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    rluker5 said:
    Doesn't all light use also fall under "idle" for Intel?
    My PCs are usually light use and rarely run P95.
    Yes, this is accurate. Also, there is an 'active idle' use case that we model and have measurements of that type of workload. Sorry for the confusion on the wording in the article. I have corrected that.
    Reply
  • Heat_Fan89
    For me, when I drop that kind of cash on a CPU, it better be freaking good at gaming or i'm not interested. The Intel series of chips are trash for gaming when compared to the X3D variants. I wouldn't consider anything Intel these days. Intel tends to require new mobos with newer releases, AM5 doesn't. I can plug replace my 9800X3D with the 9950X3D.

    Plus Intel did themselves no favors with their last two generations with "crashgate".
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    TheSecondPower said:
    Since the 9800X3D offers similar gaming performance to the 9950X3D and the results were heavily waited toward gaming, if you had replaced the 285K in this article with the 9800X3D, I think the 9800X3D would look pretty good.

    If you eliminate gaming, the 285K is $110 cheaper today on B&H and offers similar productivity performance at similar power consumption so it'd seem like the better value. Also regarding the statement, "we typically use our systems more than letting them idle for prolonged periods." I don't think that's true. Maybe if you only use your computer to game you turn it on, game, and turn it off. (If that's you, get the 9800X3D instead of the 9950X3D.) But when getting work done the CPU is rapidly going between idle and busy as you interact with it and pause to think. And a lot of people do leave the computer running while they step away from it.
    X3D is a gaming processor. If you're going to compare non-gaming, then you have to consider the 9950x which is cheaper than the 285K. The 9950x is also better at single core than the x3D variant shown by the charts in this article.
    Reply
  • danny009
    Remember when Intel said "4 cores is all you need" sometime ago?
    Reply
  • Jabberwocky79 said:
    I wish I had an AM5 platform,

    Same here.

    Instead, i'm stuck with my Z790 motherboard for the foreseeable future.

    Fortunately, 13900K is still a potent processor and i only game at 4K, so i guess i'm fine for the time being.
    Reply