Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900 outperforms the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1920X on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-10900 is 994 days newer than the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900
- Performs up to 3% better in Battlefield 1 than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 246 vs 239 FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 65 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
- Up to 78% cheaper than Core i9-10900 - €82.0 vs €370.47
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i9-10900 - 24 vs 20 threads
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €370.47 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 265 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
239
97.15447154471545%
Value, €/FPS
Price, €
€82
100%
Buy for €82 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 265 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Single-Core
1174
68.89671361502347%
Multi-Core
6976
82.84051775323596%
Intel Core i9-10900 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
Core i9 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Comet Lake | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
10 | Cores | 12 |
20 | Threads | 24 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |