PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $114 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 31,251).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 62.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +47.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 67.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 62.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌
29.6% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $114 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +47.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 67.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 62.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 31,251).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 62.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Trade-offs

❌
29.6% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 better than Core i7-9700K?

Yes. Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 47.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 117.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 47.5% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is the better fit. You are getting 117.1% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is 29.6% more expensive on MSRP at $499 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 47.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 67.5% better value on MSRP (62.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2018), 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
1080p
low	308 FPS	188 FPS
medium	278 FPS	150 FPS
high	231 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	156 FPS
medium	221 FPS	121 FPS
high	178 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	83 FPS
medium	140 FPS	69 FPS
high	108 FPS	54 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
1080p
low	360 FPS	589 FPS
medium	321 FPS	510 FPS
high	291 FPS	414 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	368 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	506 FPS
medium	282 FPS	446 FPS
high	258 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	317 FPS
medium	221 FPS	283 FPS
high	208 FPS	256 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	229 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
1080p
low	360 FPS	781 FPS
medium	360 FPS	690 FPS
high	360 FPS	615 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	539 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	664 FPS
medium	360 FPS	540 FPS
high	360 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	419 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	471 FPS
medium	360 FPS	370 FPS
high	360 FPS	327 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	264 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
1080p
low	360 FPS	781 FPS
medium	360 FPS	781 FPS
high	360 FPS	781 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	706 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	781 FPS
medium	360 FPS	710 FPS
high	360 FPS	609 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	538 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	574 FPS
medium	360 FPS	516 FPS
high	360 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	398 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

The Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 30 September 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB. L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 31,251 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.3 GHz on the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 — a 13% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900's 31,251 — a 73.8% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 64 MB on the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	12 / 24+50%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+14%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+16%	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	6 MB+2300%
Process	14 nm	7 nm, 12 nm-50%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	14,397	31,251+117%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	17,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,688
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	10,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 24 (Ryzen 9 PRO 3900) — the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and X570,B550,X470,B450 (Ryzen 9 PRO 3900).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Socket	LGA1151	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	24+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 9 PRO 3900). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 targets Professional Content Creation. Direct competitor: Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 rivals Core i9-10900.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Desktop	Professional Content Creation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 debuted at $499. On MSRP ($385 vs $499), the Core i7-9700K is $114 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 62.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 — making the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 the 50.5% better value option.