Key Differences
In short — Core i9-14900F outperforms the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1900X on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-14900F is 2321 days newer than the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-14900F
- Performs up to 23% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 223 vs 181 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 32 vs 16 threads
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Up to 62% cheaper than Core i9-14900F - £199.67 vs £522.46
- Up to 53% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i9-14900F - £1.1 vs £2.34 per FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2024
FPS
223
100%
Value, £/FPS
£2.34/FPS
47%
Price, £
£522.46
38%
FPS Winner
Buy for £522.46 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 509 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
181
81%
Value, £/FPS
£1.1/FPS
100%
Price, £
£199.67
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £199.67 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 510 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2024
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-14900F | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Jan 8th, 2024 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
Core i9 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Raptor Lake | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
24 | Cores | 8 |
32 | Threads | 16 |
2.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
5.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
Not Available | TDP | 180 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |