Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900 outperforms the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1920X on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900 is 994 days newer than the cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
- Up to 2% cheaper than Core i9-10900 - $270.0 vs $275.98
- Up to 1% better value when playing Control than Core i9-10900 - $1.34 vs $1.36 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i9-10900 - 24 vs 20 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900
- Performs up to 1% better in Control than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 203 vs 201 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
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
201
99%
Value, $/FPS
$1.34/FPS
100%
Price, $
$270
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $270 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7226 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
203
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.36/FPS
98%
Price, $
$275.98
97%
FPS Winner
Buy for $275.98 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7225 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X | vs | Intel Core i9-10900 |
---|---|---|
Aug 10th, 2017 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | Core i9 |
Whitehaven | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket SP3r2 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
12 | Cores | 10 |
24 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
180 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |