Known as 9900KS or 3900x
Known as 9900KS or 3900x
Likely just listing names. It’s unclear what you mean by the feeding pipeline since it doesn’t seem to have such a bottleneck. SMT is seen as a bit more efficient in performance compared to Simultaneous multithreading. Usually, the 3800x runs slower than the 9900k. For streaming tasks, people often choose the 3900x, but with the new Nvenc encoder it’s hard to decide.
This model is a high-end 9900K, not the standard version. Running at stock settings it can vary in performance across different benchmarks: However, the manual at 5.2GHz OC consistently shows a strong advantage for stock performance, especially in Far Cry 5. At that setting, it leads significantly over the 3900X, with some graphs highlighting this trend. A 5.2GHz OC seems to give a noticeable edge—around 10+ frames per second more than the 3900X with PBO, though results may vary depending on the game and whether you manually tune the chip. In most cases it doesn’t dominate multi-threaded tasks, but for gaming or streaming, the 9900KS is a solid pick. If you prefer a lower power draw and fewer cores, go with the 3900X. For style or brand appeal, either option has its merits. Both CPUs are reliable, though Zen 2 has had some past issues that have largely been resolved.
@GoldenLag and Zando here, I admit it's true the performance is dropping in many titles now. It seems optimization plays a big role, since most studios have been using Sky Lake longer than Zen. In the games I'm playing—like VR Il-2 and DCS—I'm seeing similar results to what you'd expect with older 9900K chips. Both tend to struggle with optimization. Part of this depends on whether developers later parallelize important sections (AI, that is). If they do, I could see a noticeable boost from multi-threaded improvements and possibly a 5-10% speedup in single-thread performance within a year. This might shift with the new 10th-gen Intel chips, especially if the socket and chipset support Sunny Cove parts. With the current prices for 3700X and 3800X, it's worth checking your local market to see which offers better value. I remember reading somewhere that 3800X chips are more likely to outperform 3700X by a margin of about $20, but I can't confirm from benchmarks. From what I recall, Coffee Lake CPUs aren't great at streaming either—just based on what I've heard. Have you seen any recent benchmarks on this topic?
I haven't encountered anything like this before. I streamed smoothly with an 8600K using NVENC on my 1080 II guess. No encoding was done on the CPU side. That's actually a point against Ryzen—their platform seems less stable compared to Intel. They've dealt with similar issues before, mainly fixing them with Zen and Zen+, though 2 is newer. It would be strange if they keep repeating launch-day bugs. I do notice fewer vulnerabilities than Intel, but keep in mind people have been closely watching Ryzen just as much as Intel has. The 9900KS also had some fixes for certain issues.
They say 3800X is a higher binned version of 3700X and should handle more OC settings, possibly with lower voltage at similar clock speeds compared to the others. Regarding performance, while the 9900KS does beat the 3700X/3800X/3900X at 1080P, most gamers don’t play at that resolution anymore. With dual rigs and monitors—one at 3440x1440 and another at 3840x1080—the GPU bottleneck becomes more important than the CPU when higher resolutions are used.
Occasionally, I agree most games rely heavily on the GPU, but in Il-2 VR even at 4K with full VR, the limits are set by the CPU—despite the averages being GPU-dependent. At HP Reverb settings, 150km of rolling clouds and terrain kept my 1080 Ti running at 100% usage, averaging around 54fps, but adding eight B-25s with their AI crews debating whether I’m hostile would bring it down to about 40fps even on high-end systems. I’m seeing better low frames, but the differences are small and hard to replicate consistently in testing, so I might be mistaken.
I'm still deciding what to pick. Some people say neither option is a bad choice, but if I choose Intel, I don't have support for the new generation chips yet—they won't use LGA1200 or something similar. With AMD, I can get newer models on my board until they stick with AMD 4, and there are no rumors that AMD will change the socket anytime soon.
I mentioned that? They resolved it using Zen+: But they had already tackled this before with Zen, why are they repeating it again? One might assume they'd be better prepared this time. Also, older hardware still faces challenges. A friend's office uses Threadripper, X299, mainstream Ryzen, and mainline Intel CPUs—especially the 9900K models. Ranking by trouble: Threadripper first, then X299, then Ryzen, and generally the 9900Ks are trouble-free. The earlier ASUS Rampage V Extreme for X99 had bad mobos that drained power and damaged chips. From what I know about Zen 2, it's more about CPU design and Windows handling than hardware changes. Most fixes came from AGESA updates, chipset drivers, and software tweaks. AMD could have handled this earlier since they dealt with similar issues before. Currently, Zen still struggles with higher clocked RAM and some capture cards. Most reports say Zen 2 isn't failing due to boards but rather the CPUs themselves and how Windows manages boost settings.
Most improvements come from AGESA patches for the chips, plus driver updates from the OS side. If you're planning to encode, it's usually the CPU that handles encoding smoothly—unless you're heavily multithreaded (like with Destiny 2), then more cores matter. A 3900X would likely outperform others thanks to its core count, even if clock speeds are similar.
They changed the Threadripper socket for upcoming models, and rumors suggest Zen 3 will move to a different socket on AM5. At best you'll stick with what you have or wait for updates. You can still get a 3950X eventually, though it's not the most efficient option compared to newer chips.
If you're using older hardware, you might prefer sticking with it rather than adding more cores just for speed unless you really need performance gains. The 9900KS is solid, but newer CPUs offer better single-core performance. Upgrading to a 3900X or 3950X would be worth considering if you want more cores and better efficiency.
For games, encoding on the CPU usually works fine—unless you're doing heavy multithreaded content. If you're concerned about performance, check your specific titles; some run better with one CPU over another. If not, pick the cheaper option or go for attractive motherboards.
Zen 2 has seen its share of problems, especially with RAM speeds and certain cards. Most fixes have been software-based, so AMD could have anticipated some solutions earlier. Overall, it's a mix of hardware evolution and software support that shapes what works best.