In Battlefield 6, the Core i9-10900 is slightly faster than the Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i9-10900
- Up to 14% faster in Battlefield 6 – 88 vs 77 FPS
- Up to 14% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 1 year and 6 months newer – Apr 30, 2020 vs Oct 03, 2018
- Is 1 year and 6 months newer
- Consumes up to 64% less energy – 65 vs 180 Watts
- Consumes up to 64% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
No clear advantages
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Core i9-10900 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2920X: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
Oct 3rd, 2018
Average FPS
77 FPS
88%
Min 1% FPS
58 FPS
88%
Price, $
$229.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.98/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i9-10900 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2920X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i9-10900 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2920X in core CPU performance specifications
Core i9-10900
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
10-core
83%
L3 Cache
20 MB
62%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2933 MHz
100%
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
Oct 3rd, 2018
Cores
12-core
100%
L3 Cache
32 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.3 GHz
83%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2933 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i9-10900 Apr 30th, 2020 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Oct 3rd, 2018 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Apr 30th, 2020 | Released | Oct 3rd, 2018 |
$483.00 | MSRP | $649.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1200 | Socket | SP3r2 |
65 W | Power Consumption | 180 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2933 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 2933 MHz (DDR4) |
UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
