• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3800x vs 9900k

Hilly said:
Been that long eh? I've always used Intel, but never had any bias to any manufacturer, I just choose what's right for me at that time. Same with GPUs.

I just think the 3900 / 3950 are the way to go right now, unless you play to wait for the 4x series.
Click to expand...

GIGABYTE AM4 Guide to Overclocking AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen™(Matisse)-Series Processors
https://www.gigabyte.com/FileUpload/Global/multimedia/2/file/548/988.pdf

ryzen_9_3950x_benchmarks_r15.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTgRaugBsRY
 
Last edited:
zx128k said:
RAM 3733 Tightened timings, Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39968597? 11420 No core overclocking IF 1866
RAM 3800 Tightened timings, Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8796206 11408 No core overclocking IF 1900

With ABBA I am hitting all cores 4424-4449 when gaming in destiny 2.
Click to expand...

You're getting score regression which could also be due to run variance.

I'd run Geekbench 3 or 4 to compare memory and fabric impacts. It'll be more consistent than 3dmark.

I've read through that GB guide. Really interested to see how many people will run their recommended voltages. Should be interesting.
 
Robert896r1 said:
You're getting score regression which could also be due to run variance.

I'd run Geekbench 3 or 4 to compare memory and fabric impacts. It'll be more consistent than 3dmark.

I've read through that GB guide. Really interested to see how many people will run their recommended voltages. Should be interesting.
Click to expand...

The timings are not as good at IF1900

Geekbench 4 at IF 1900
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771477

Single-Core Score
6241

Multi-Core Score
39787

Geekbench 4 at IF 1867
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771461
Single-Core Score
6230

Multi-Core Score
39387

9900KS vs 3800x
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS82L0EvODQ1MjE4L29yaWdpbmFsL1J5emVuLTctMzgwMC1YLXZzLUNvcmUtaTktOTkwMEtTLlBORw==


So in Geekbench 4 I am faster both in ST and MT than a 5GHz all core 9900KS. The Ryzen 7 3800X system was using memory clocked at 3,460 MHz while the Core i9-9900KS system was strangely utilizing memory running at 2,134 MHz.

3800x with the same memory

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13567135

Multi-Core Score
34059

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-3800x-vs-core-i9-9900ks,39872.html

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...7-3800X-in-Geekbench-comparison.427411.0.html

Corsair Vengeance 3200Mhz 16GB
Intel Core i9 9900K @ 5050Mhz 101 x 50 1.34v
October 19, 2018
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/3.htm

Geekbench 4
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/5.htm

Single-Core Score
6594

Multi-Core Score
37745

With IF 1900MHz
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14130048

Single-Core Score
6171

Multi-Core Score
40396

Looks like at 5GHz all cores the 9900k and 3800x with 2134MHz RAM are the same both ST and MT. With better RAM the 3800x pulls ahead of the 9900k with MT.

graph_3.png



graph_2.png


Note in the above two images: The Ryzen benchmark was only using DDR4-2133mhz memory while the i9 was using DDR4-2666mhz. After ABBA BIOS Ryzen does 6241 ST and memory appears to have little effect.

3800x @ 5.05GHz IF 1800

GB4_6618SC_42300MC-1024x639.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hilly said:
Been that long eh? I've always used Intel, but never had any bias to any manufacturer, I just choose what's right for me at that time. Same with GPUs.

I just think the 3900 / 3950 are the way to go right now, unless you play to wait for the 4x series.
Click to expand...

My last AMD was a small form factor with this chip http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 3200+ - ADA3200DAA4BW (ADA3200BWBOX).html
I try to go for the best overall value , not the low end and the high end , but somewhere in the middle, eg for graphics I went with the rtx 2070 super for wasn't going to spend over £1000 on the rtx 2080 ti which looks to be the card right now.
 
zx128k said:
T
Corsair Vengeance 3200Mhz 16GB
Intel Core i9 9900K @ 5050Mhz 101 x 50 1.34v
October 19, 2018
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/3.htm

Geekbench 4
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/5.htm

Single-Core Score
6594

Multi-Core Score
37745
Click to expand...

You want to be a bit careful with the review stuff. A lot of them just bump up the clock but leave the uncore/cache at default (43x). When you run too far out of sync, it starts hurting you notably. uncore helps a lot with RAM latency also which in turn helps with overall performance.

Unfortunately, uncore is tied to vcore which means you can run into a scenario where you need more vcore just for uncore to go higher which is generally not worth it on it's own.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771538 that's mine after closing out steam and other apps.
 
zx128k said:
The timings are not as good at IF1900

Geekbench 4 at IF 1900
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771477

Single-Core Score
6241

Multi-Core Score
39787

Geekbench 4 at IF 1867
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771461
Single-Core Score
6230

Multi-Core Score
39387

9900KS vs 3800x
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS82L0EvODQ1MjE4L29yaWdpbmFsL1J5emVuLTctMzgwMC1YLXZzLUNvcmUtaTktOTkwMEtTLlBORw==


So in Geekbench 4 I am faster both in ST and MT than a 5GHz all core 9900KS. The Ryzen 7 3800X system was using memory clocked at 3,460 MHz while the Core i9-9900KS system was strangely utilizing memory running at 2,134 MHz.

3800x with the same memory

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13567135

Multi-Core Score
34059

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-3800x-vs-core-i9-9900ks,39872.html

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...7-3800X-in-Geekbench-comparison.427411.0.html

Corsair Vengeance 3200Mhz 16GB
Intel Core i9 9900K @ 5050Mhz 101 x 50 1.34v
October 19, 2018
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/3.htm

Geekbench 4
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i9_9900k/5.htm

Single-Core Score
6594

Multi-Core Score
37745
Click to expand...

Why the intel core i9-9900ks @ 4.00 ghz , shouldn`t that be 5.00 ghz ?
 
Robert896r1 said:
You want to be a bit careful with the review stuff. A lot of them just bump up the clock but leave the uncore/cache at default (43x). When you run too far out of sync, it starts hurting you notably. uncore helps a lot with RAM latency also which in turn helps with overall performance.

Unfortunately, uncore is tied to vcore which means you can run into a scenario where you need more vcore just for uncore to go higher which is generally not worth it on it's own.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14771538 that's mine after closing out steam and other apps.
Click to expand...

You have an epic RAM overclock as well, even better than mine. 1800MHz = 3600CL15 Reduce your ram to defaults at 2666-3200 and that score will hopefully match the benchmarks.

That is a damn good overclock you have. RAM and CPU.
 
Last edited:
Running Aida64 at stock core clocks, IF 1900 and the vcore is constant 1.408 volts. Clock is approx. +/-4.2GHz. LLC is 3 which is auto in bios. vcore seems very high with ABBA or these chips can take a lot of voltage?
 
Last edited:
zx128k said:
GIGABYTE AM4 Guide to Overclocking AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen™(Matisse)-Series Processors
https://www.gigabyte.com/FileUpload/Global/multimedia/2/file/548/988.pdf

ryzen_9_3950x_benchmarks_r15.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTgRaugBsRY
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'll give this a watch, appreciate the information.

peter224722 said:
My last AMD was a small form factor with this chip http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 3200+ - ADA3200DAA4BW (ADA3200BWBOX).html
I try to go for the best overall value , not the low end and the high end , but somewhere in the middle, eg for graphics I went with the rtx 2070 super for wasn't going to spend over £1000 on the rtx 2080 ti which looks to be the card right now.
Click to expand...

I remember the 64 chips well; I remember the thunderbird chips; Good processors, then AMD disappeared off that cliff for a while, but it's better for the industry and ultimately us, that they're back.
 
Ryzen 3000 series CPUs have improved in gaming performance 2 times (incrementally, but still) since launch (Agessa update and boost update).
Intel 9000-series since launch have slowed down with all the numerous security patches since launch that were not included in reviewer benching.

I would like TPU or ComputerBase to do at least a 16+ game bench with the latest patches, I bet the gap between the 3900X and 9900K is less than 3% now (2080 Ti @ 1080p).
 
Would prefer 1440p and 4k scores to be included as who games with a 2080ti at 1080p? The resolutions were chosen in Intel's favour. 1440 and 4k (enthusiast resolutions) there was barely any different anyway, down to error most review sites put the difference down to. I see another thread is using Crysis3 as a bench. Funny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom