So lets see what the differences are and find out how they perform in games and applications both at stock and while overclocked. Lets start out with the specs.. The major difference between the two is that the AMD 3700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel 9700K is 8 cores and 8 threads. It doesnt have hyperthreading like the more expensive 9900K. Based on this were expecting the 3700X to come out ahead in multicore performance due to the higher thread. Count., Both CPUs have the same base clock. While the 9700K has a higher boost. Clock, though, as both are based on different architectures, this cant really be directly compared.. Otherwise, the 3700X has more cache and both are unlocked for overclocking. Im. Comparing these two CPUs, because theyve both got 8 cores and while the price points are roughly the same, the Intel chip costs more.. The 3700X is launching at 329 USD while at the time of recording the 9700K is going for 365 USD.. While there should be a cheaper KF version available without the integrated graphics it either wasnt available or cost more at the stores I checked in the US., There was recently news that Intel may lower prices, though so check the description for updated pricing. Both CPUs were tested In the same system, however, Ive obviously had to change motherboards. For the AMD 3700X Ive tested with the MSI X570 ACE motherboard, and for the Intel 9700K Ive used the MSI Z'0 ACE motherboard.

, The rest of the components were otherwise the same Ive tested with 16gb of Ddr4 3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.. Although the 3700X comes with a cooler included in the box, I havent tested with it. Ive, used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT H1 paste for both CPUs. So we can get an apples to apples. Comparison. Testing was completed with the latest version of Windows and Nvidia drivers, along with all BIOS updates, available, installed. Ive tested both CPUs at stock and with the 9700K overclocked to 5.1GHz and 3700X overclocked to 4.3GHz. So we can see how overclocking helps improve performance with both.. With that in mind, well, first check out the differences in various applications as well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions. Afterwards, then finish up by comparing some performance per dollar metrics. Lets start out with Cinebench R20. Ive got the overclocked results on the upper half of the graph, while the stock results are on the lower half.. As expected, the 3700X is coming out ahead in the multicore workload due to the higher thread count as the 9700K has no hyperthreading. At stock. The 3700X was actually slightly ahead when it came to single core. However, the score went down once it was overclocked to 4.3GHz. On all cores., This is a trend well see as we continue. Basically, the 3700X would boost higher than this in single core at stock, so by manually overclocking.

All 8 cores to this speed were actually lowering single core performance, but well see later how precision boost overdrive helps improve this., While Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the newer R20 just covered. I wanted to also include the results of this one too. Again. The 3700X is beating the 9700K in the multicore score, though this time the 9700K was ahead in single core performance. While again, the 3700X saw a lower single core result due to the 4.3GHz all core overclock. Ive tested the Blender, BMW and Classroom benchmarks and as a test that works better with more threads, its another clear win for the 3700X. At stock. The 3700X is completing the BMW test 32, faster than the 9700K and 36 faster in the Classroom. Test., This gap closes a little once we overclock both CPUs with the 3700X reduced to a 27 lead in the BMW test, while coming out 33 ahead for the Classroom. Test. Handbrake was used to convert a 4K file to 1080p and then a different 1080p file to 720p.. This is another workload that benefits from more threads, so at stock settings were seeing the 3700X complete the 4K conversion 27 faster than the 9700K and 30 faster. For the 1080p file. Again once overclocked, the gap narrows in a bit with the 3700X now 22 ahead for the 4K conversion and 26 faster for the 1080p file. Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review, videos at 1080p and the results between the Two CPUs were very close in this particular test.

At stock. The 3700X was completing the task around 4 faster than the 9700K, and while overclocked this lowers to a 2.5 lead due to the higher overclock on the 9700K. However, Id expect 4K results to show a larger gap. Ive also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere. Basically, this processes, a video file to smooth it out and in this test the 3700X was 9.5 faster than the 9700K. Once both are overclocked, though the playing field evens out, the 3700X only speeds up by 2 seconds, while the 9700K saw a much more impressive. 16. Second improvement due to its better overclock, putting the 3700X now just 2 ahead. Ive used 7 Zip to test compression and decompression speeds, and this test saw the largest difference between these two chips. Out of all applications, tested. With stock configurations, the 3700X was performing compression operations. 34, faster than the 9700K and a massive 50 faster for decompression. Once overclocked, the the 3700X is now 40 ahead for compression speed, as the overclock appears to have negatively affected the 9700K.. Meanwhile, the 3700X performed worse at decompression with the overclock. So the difference there drops down to a 41 lead over the 9700K. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and in this test the 3700X was ahead of the 9700K. An interesting result. Considering the 9900K beat the '00X in this test.. The Intel chip did see an improvement once overclocked, though, while the 3700X backtracked slightly.

At stock. The 3700X was performing encryption operations 20 faster than the 9700K and 22 faster in terms of decryption., With both overclocked. The margin drops a fair bit with the 3700X now 9 and 10 ahead in decryption and encryption respectively.. The V Ray benchmark is another that relies on thread count to boost performance and, as a result, the 3700X is 26 faster than the 9700K at stock and then with both CPUs overclocked, its just slightly further ahead with almost a 27 lead., The Corona benchmark uses the Cpu to render out a scene and as another test that scales well over multiple threads, its giving us one of the highest improvements with the 3700X with a 37 lead over the 9700K at stock., With both overclocked, though the 9700K narrows the gap, as the 3700X is 34 ahead now, and we can see the overclock only sped up the 3700X by 4 seconds, while the 9700K saw a larger 9 second improvement.. These are the differences between the 3700X and 9700K CPUs in all of these applications. As we can see, it really depends on the specific workload. At stock. In almost all cases, the 3700X is coming out ahead, as most of these tests are multi core workloads. On average, over all of these tests, the 3700X was almost 23 ahead of the 9700K.. Once overclocked things change a little, these are the differences between both CPUs with the 3700X overclocked to 4.3GHz on all cores and 9700K overclocked to 5.

1GHz on all cores.. In most cases, the gap between them narrows a bit as were able to squeeze out more performance from the overclocked 9700K. However, the 3700X is still 19 faster on average. In these specific tests. Ive also measured total system power draw from the wall while running the Blender benchmark. At stock. The 3700X is using almost 12 less power, and this is while its completing the task 32 faster. So this seems to be showing off Zen2s efficiencies. Once both are overclocked. The 9700K needs much more power, though, to be fair, it is also a higher overclock. While overclocked. The 3700X is using 28 less power than the 9700K, but is still completing the Blender test. 27. Faster than the 9700K., These are the CPU temperatures with the same blender tests running., Both at stock and while overclocked the AMD chip was running a little warmer, and this was despite it using less power. Its worth, remembering that these blender tests are completing 32 faster at Stock on the 3700X and 27 faster once overclocked, so its getting more work done, which to me seems to justify the slightly warmer temperatures. Lets get into the gaming results. Next Ive tested these games at all setting levels at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions and just as a reminder, Im also using a 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as I can. Well start off with stock results, then look at overclocked and precision boost overdrive, Results: afterwards.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark. In all upcoming gaming graphs, Ive got Intels 9700K shown by the blue bars and AMDs 3700X shown by the red. Bars. Ive also tested all setting levels which are shown on the left hand side of the graph. In this game. The 9700K was ahead at all setting levels and at highest settings. This equates to a 9 improvement over the 3700X at 1080p.. Stepping up to 1440p and the difference at higher settings closes in between them. Presumably, as we get more GPU bound. At highest settings, theres just a single frame difference, but a wider gap at lower settings. Assassins. Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark and the Intel CPU was ahead in all regards here.. This test saw the largest boost with the 9700K, which was scoring 18 higher average FPS at ultra high settings, with also a larger 21 boost to 1 low.. At 1440p, the results dont really drop down too far. However, there is less of a difference between the two now, with the 9700K now less than 14 ahead at maximum settings and even smaller 12 increase to 1 low. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode. I prefer testing this, as I can more precisely perform the same test run with less variance. However, multiplayer does seem to be more CPU intensive.. Overall, at 1080p, there wasnt too big of a difference in 1 low performance, while at ultra settings the 9700K was 9 ahead of the 3700X in average FPS.

At 1440p. The 1 lows are even closer together now and the average frame rates too, for that matter with the 9700K now just 3 ahead in terms of average frame rate at max settings., Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built in benchmark and at 1080p were seeing The second largest improvement with the 9700K out of all games tested. At ultra settings. The 9700K was 15 ahead of the 3700X in terms of average FPS, while the 1 low was 17 higher.. When we move up to 1440p. This difference narrows in a bit with the 9700K now 12 ahead of the 3700X. With regards to average FPS, though, the difference was larger at lower settings with a 16 lead by the 9700K at low settings. Watch. Dogs 2 is a game that loves CPU power. Yet is a game that I can personally play just fine with a stable, 30 FPS, so from a practicality perspective, either CPU is giving insane performance and I honestly couldnt notice a difference while actually playing the game. Were here for the details, though so at ultra settings There was a 10 higher average FPS from the 9700k, then at 1440p the gap actually widened further with the 9700k now, with a 16 lead over the 3700X, but again both still completely playable no problem. CSGO is a game. Thats well known for performing better on Intel. Cpus, so I just had to try it out. Ive tested it with the Ulletical FPS benchmark and there wasnt that big of a difference in terms of 1 lows while low and medium settings were quite close in average FPS too.

At maximum settings, though the 9700K was 7, ahead of the 3700X. At 1440p, I saw this difference rise to an 11 lead with the 9700K, though I dont think this is a great game in terms of representing what to expect in a general sense., Ive also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with the built In benchmark. At 1080p were looking at almost a 10 higher average frame rate at ultra settings with the 9700K, but a higher 17 1 low, arguably more important for a first person shooter like this.. Once we go to 1440p, the difference in terms of percentage was quite similar with a lower 8 higher average frame rate at ultra settings with the 9700K. Now, with bigger margins, seen at lower setting levels. Out of all 7 games tested were looking at an 11 higher average frame rate with the 9700K at highest setting levels at 1080p., Some CPU heavy games like Assassins Creed Odyssey, saw a massive improvement with the 9700K, while Others, like CSGO, were much more minimal. It really varies by game. At 1440p, as we typically start to become more GPU bound. The difference between the two CPUs lowers slightly to around a 9.5 improvement with the 9700K. But again it really depends on the specific game and even how it was tested. Thats stock settings. So what about with both CPUs overclocked As testing? Every single setting level takes a long time. Ive just picked one setting to test overclocked results at 1080p.

, Ive also tested the 3700X with Precision boost overdrive, enabled noted as PBO onwards, which essentially boosts power. Limits. Speeds of each core are also controlled for us here. So in general we should see better single core performance when compared with our manual 4.3GHz, all core overclock, which was better for the workloads that smashed all cores previously, but generally less useful for gaming. Assassins. Creed Odyssey saw a nice improvement to 1 low with the 9700K. At stock. The 9700K was 9.5 ahead of the 3700X. However, once we overclock the 9700K, it goes further ahead., Even with the best case result from the 3700X, with PBO enabled its now 11 faster though PBO did at least improve upon our manual overclock. Battlefield 5 saw nice improvements from both the AMD and Intel CPUs. Once overclocked, particularly in terms of 1 low, however, the 9700Ks 1 low rose up a lot more in my test. In terms of average frame rate at stock. The 9700K was 10 ahead of the 3700X, but then once overclocked the gap closes in a bit as the 9700K is now 8 faster than the 3700X, with PBO enabled., Far Cry New Dawn. Didnt really see a difference with or without overclocking. In both instances, the 9700K was around 14 faster in terms of average frame rate.. Its worth, noting that I did use the built in benchmark here, Ive seen that the difference in actual game play varies a bit more. Shadow of the Tomb Raider didnt change too much with and without the overclocks.

Just a one to three FPS boost with the 3700X and a three FPS boost to the 9700K, so either stock or overclocked. The 9700K was close to 14 faster than the 3700X. Watch. Dogs. 2 was another game that didnt really see a change to the 3700X. The manual overclock and PBO were just a few FPS ahead of the stock result, while the overclock on the 9700K saw a much larger increase to frame rate in comparison. In CSGO were seeing a much larger improvement with the overclock on the 9700K and again PBO with The 3700X was performing better than my manual overclock in this game.. The higher single core speed from the 9700K made quite a large difference here at stock. The 9700K was just 2.5 ahead of the 3700X in average FPS. Then, when overclocked, this rises to a 7.5 lead. Rainbow, Six Siege saw basically no change between the 3700X at stock. Compared to my manual overclock, however, PBO was able to give us a little boost, a larger boost compared to the overclock on the 9700K at least.. These are the differences between these games at stock shown by the purple bars and, with best case modifications shown by the red bars, so the 5.1GHz overclock on the 9700K and the 3700X, with PBO enabled., With PBO, enabled we saw equal or better performance in games from The 3700X compared to our manual overclock, so it appears to make more sense to just turn that on in games.

, These results depend on the game. Some saw the gap narrow once the 3700X has PBO enabled, while other games preferred the overclock on the 9700K.. When it comes down to it, I dont think were seeing that big of a difference in gaming performance at stock. To be fair. I have only tested 7 games here, however, from what Im seeing you can get decent gaming performance with both, I honestly cant say I personally was able to notice the extra FPS from the 9700K while testing.. Despite this, though, it was the clear winner in the games tested in terms of raw performance.. If you only care about gaming, then at first glance it appears that the 9700K is the better choice. However, we need to factor in overall costs.. These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p, averaged out over all 7 games tested at maximum settings. Ive got the 3700X shown up the top in red with a couple of different options for the 9700K in blue.. The bottom bar represents the CPU. Only, however, it doesnt come with a cooler, so is essentially useless. Like this., The 3700X comes with a decent stock cooler, which is a great advantage here., Even without the cooler, though, in terms of dollar per frame value, the 3700X is ahead, but the 9700K falls further behind. Once we add on even a cheaper cooling option., I havent added the 9700KF here, while thats meant to be a cheaper solution on paper at the time of recording it actually costs more in the US than the 9700K and doesnt make sense.

. Here are the results with both CPUs overclocked.. In general, we saw the overclock from the 9700K. Give us better performance compared to the 3700X, so were seeing the dollar per frame values from it close in. Again. The 9700K is still more money per frame in games, even without a cooler, while the additional cooler cost again makes it cost more. Using PBO with the 3700X either gave equal or better performance in gaming to our manual 4.3GHz, all core overclock and were seeing that reflected Here, though, only very slightly. Its not all about gaming, though, as we saw earlier, many applications benefit more from the extra threads with the 3700X compared to gaming.. These are the cost per frame values while exporting a 4K video file to 1080p, with Handbrake. Ive chosen. This particular test, as it completed 27 faster on the 3700X, which was quite close to the 24 average improvement that we got from all applications tested, plus its a very real and common workload.. The 3700X is giving us far better value here due to those extra 8 threads., While this appears to have made less of a difference with gaming, its a huge improvement to multithreaded applications like this. Once both CPUs are overclocked. We see the 9700K results improve more than the 3700X due to the higher levels of performance we were seeing from the 9700Ks overclock.. Despite this, though, the 3700X is the clear winner here in terms of value and performance and its worth mentioning that, if you plan on running the 9700K at 5.

1GHz under a workload like this, I wouldnt be at all surprised. If you need to spend more than 50 for a good cooling solution, so take the 50 example as a best case for illustrative purposes, but better cooling will of course make the 9700K more expensive.. With that said, I do acknowledge that the cooling Im using with the 3700X is most likely better than the stock cooler. So, with the stock cooler, we may see slightly different results, but I wouldnt expect them to be wildly different. Its likely that the 8 cores on offer from either CPU are going to be enough for gaming for the foreseeable future. However, if youre someone that also uses your machine for productivity tasks, as we saw earlier, the higher thread count from the 3700X does have some nice advantages. Speaking of the future. Its also worth mentioning that AMDs AM4 socket will also support the 12 core 24 thread. '00X. Cpu and 16 core 32 thread '50X CPU. So there are some further upgrade paths, not even including anything we may get next year.. The 9700K, on the other hand, can be upgraded to the 8 core 16 thread 9900K. However, at this time, its not clear if Intel will be progressing beyond this without requiring either a new socket or chipset., If you need higher core counts for productivity tasks, the AMD lineup is definitely looking a lot better in terms of value and performance.. If you only care about gaming and want the best performance in terms of raw FPS, then youre, of course, better off getting the 9700K, though it does cost more for the CPU alone.

Before you even begin factoring in the necessary cooling to run it.. If you overclock it with a decent cooler, the performance per dollar does get a bit better. However, the 3700X is still winning in this regard in both gaming, then, with a much larger gap in productivity workloads that better utilize its additional threads making the 3700X a better. Well rounded CPU in my opinion. For me personally, the frame rates I was getting from both CPUs were high enough, and the games were playing well with either. Id be more than happy to sacrifice on average 11 FPS in gaming and take the better performance in more Threaded applications but thats just me. Its also possible that over time we may see the 3700X start performing better in terms of gaming performance as future titles and game updates continue to make better use of more threads. So perhaps a revisit in a year or two would be worthwhile.. Let me know which CPU youd pick and why? Down in the comments Intels i7, 9700K or AMDs Ryzen 7 3700X Im really interested to hear which youd go. For. Ive got more CPU comparisons on the way.