The Core i9-9900KS scores up to 12% lower in 3DMark than the Ryzen 9 3900X; 9% less than the Ryzen 7 3700X too

[Redaktion]

Launched at Computex 2019, the Core i9-9900KS is a 5 GHz all-core variant of the Core i9-9900K that also has a 4 GHz base clock. Sounds great for gamers, right? Well, a recent 3DMark Fire Strike posting suggests otherwise, with the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X enjoying a healthy lead over the upcoming Coffee Lake chip. Clearly, clock speed isn't everything.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Core-i9-9900KS-scores-up-to-12-lower-in-3DMark-than-the-Ryzen-9-3900X-9-less-than-the-Ryzen-7-3700X-too.428946.0.html

[Antilag]

That "average 3900x" result is running a 2080ti with a core clock at 2190. That's hardly average. The average air cooled 2080ti is going to clock ~15% lower than that. This is more of a gpu comparison than a cpu comparison unless you provide a link to the 9900ks result.

[Antilag]

Ok link is at the bottom, and that 9900ks is running a 2080ti at 1995mhz. The 3900x has a 10% faster gpu.

[Delta333]

"Clearly, clock speed isn't everything" I think most of us are aware of that and that comment is a bit cringe when you stop to realize what chips are currently toping the charts at 3dmark. Ill give you a hint, its not anything made by AMD.... Anyway I didn't want to sound fanboyish, just facts.

[user13255432]

What does this synthetic 3dmark benchmark even tell? 9900k is on top on every single real world game benchmark FPS wise. Just google or watch on youtube. Especially on 1080p resolution. So I am not sure why this article tries to promote ryzen 3900x on gaming. But intel is still clearly a king in gaming.

[Cassla]

Just look at the physic scores retards, holy s***, how can you be so stupid. Btw, who ever buys the KS won't run it stock I guess. My normal 9900k does 5.1 GHz on air, didn't even test more so if the KS is binned I bet it will do more, only problem will bethe temps.