**The CPU Showdown: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X vs Intel Core i9-11900K**

When it comes to choosing a CPU for your next build, there are many factors to consider. One of the most important decisions you'll make is whether to go with an AMD or Intel processor. In this article, we'll be comparing two high-performance CPUs from each company: the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and the Intel Core i9-11900K.

**Overclocking Performance**

One way to compare these CPUs is by looking at their overclocking performance. We ran a series of benchmarks on both processors with and without overclocks applied. In the case of the Ryzen 9 5900X, we saw a significant improvement in performance once overclocked, with the v8 benchmark showing an increase of 6% compared to stock settings. The Intel Core i9-11900K also showed impressive overclocking capabilities, with the v8 benchmark improving by 5%. However, when we looked at the PC Mach 10 benchmark, which tests a variety of tasks in different scenarios, the results were more mixed. With no overclocks applied, the Ryzen 9 5900X was still ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900K, but once overclocked, the gap narrowed to just 1%. The 9900K eventually surpassed the 2700 X by a margin.

**Temperature Comparison**

Another important factor to consider when choosing a CPU is its temperature performance. In our tests, we found that the Ryzen 9 5900X was able to run at higher temperatures than the Intel Core i9-11900K, even with cooling applied. This was especially true in applications like Blender, where the 9900K's thermal throttle kicked in to prevent overheating.

**Power Consumption**

Despite its higher power draw, the Ryzen 9 5900X actually consumed less system power than the Intel Core i9-11900K when running our blender benchmark. However, this was likely due to the differences in cooling between the two processors, as both systems were run with the same motherboard and other components.

**Value for Money**

When it comes to value for money, the Ryzen 9 5900X is clearly the better option. With a price tag of around $305, it offers significantly more performance per dollar than the Intel Core i9-11900K, which starts at around $580. While the 9900K may offer higher raw performance in certain applications, its higher cost means that it simply isn't worth the extra money.

**Gaming Performance**

In terms of gaming performance, the results were more mixed. When running games like Fortnite, we saw a significant improvement in frame rates with the Ryzen 9 5900X, but not as much with the Intel Core i9-11900K. However, when looking at other applications like F1 2022, we found that the Intel Core i9-11900K was actually faster.

**Dollar per Frame**

When we looked at the dollar-per-frame figure for each processor, we saw some interesting results. The Ryzen 9 5900X offered a significantly better value in most games and applications, but the Intel Core i9-11900K closed the gap at lower frame rates.

**Conclusion**

Ultimately, the choice between the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and the Intel Core i9-11900K comes down to your specific needs and priorities. If money isn't an issue and you're looking for raw performance above all else, then the Intel Core i9-11900K is the better option. However, if value for money is more important to you, or you're running applications that don't push the limits of these processors as hard, then the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is the clear winner.

**Which CPU Would You Choose?**

So, which one would you choose between these two high-performance CPUs? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below! Don't forget to subscribe for more tech articles and videos like this one.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enintel's i $9.99 hundred k cpu brings us eight cores and 16 threads to their mainstream lineup that AMD got there first sometime ago let's compare the new 9900 k against the risin 2700 x to see what kind of fight it can put up at a lower price point in gaming and various applications let's start with the specs bertha 8 cores 16 thread parts one of the main reasons I was so interested in comparing the two against each other however as we can clearly see the brass and chip is running at low clock speeds both chips are also unlocked so we'll cover overclocking - and they're both using soldered thermal interface material something Intel's finally gone back to with their ninth generation it's probably not worth paying any attention to the listed TDP either as this will change once they start boosting up to see how these differences practically affect games and applications I've tested them both in as identical systems as possible aside from the differences in CPUs the only differences of course the motherboards from the 2700 X I'm using an MSI x4 70 gaming per carbon motherboard and for the 9900 K I'm using an msi said 390 gaming Pro carbon motherboard both with the latest BIOS versions available at the time of testing otherwise the rest of the system specs are exactly the same I've got 16 gig of T Force Nighthawk seal 16 memory running at ddr4 3200 which was kindly provided by tame Bert and for the graphics I'm using my EVGA for the win - 1080 as it's the best graphics card I've got available yes there are better graphics cards out there I don't own any and I haven't bought one just to do testing with if you've got a problem with this then feel free to send me a better one for the calling of both CPUs I'm using my fractal s 36 360 millimetre all-in-one liquid cooler with the same knock to her nth one thermal paste so the exact same PC was used for testing I've just swapped out the motherboards and CPUs as required as that whilst apples as I could make it with that in mind let's check out the games first followed by CPU specific benchmarks afterwards I've tested all games at 1080p and most at 1440p where it made sense unlike my 9700 KD verse 8700 cake paracin I haven't bothered with 4k as we saw there was near zero difference as ideally I'd be using a 2080 TI for that otherwise the same Nvidia drivers Windows updates and game updates are installed with no overclocking applied at this point I'll also note that I had separate clean windows installations for each platform the same one was not used between them MCA was disabled on the 9900 k and precision boost overdrive was not enabled on the 2700 X let's start with ashes of the singularity because what kind of CPU comparison video would be complete without it at 1080p with max settings there was only a 0.8 percent improvement to average frame rates with the 9900 cade there were larger 5.3 percent improvement to 1% lows although in every other setting level the frame rates of faster on the 2700 X and for the most part the averages are pretty close between the two chips until the lowest setting levels fortnight was tested using the same replay at 1080p there's not too much difference at max settings as we're more GPU bound just a 2.6 percent improvement to average FPS at epic settings but this gap widens further apart as we lower the setting levels down moving up to 1440p the results moving closer together as we start to become more GPU bound and the difference in CPU starts to matter less again almost no different in mac settings while the 9900 ke pulls further in front at the lower levels shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built-in bench mark and at 1080p the results weren't really that far apart at medium settings or above with the 9900 K averaging 4 percent above the 2700 X at the highest settings vary this rises to 19 percent at the lowest settings due to less GPU limitations at 1440p the results move in closer together as expected with the 9900 K just 3 percent ahead of the 2700 X at the highest settings and 8 percent ahead at the lowest settings Assassin's Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built-in benchmark tool and at 1080p the 9900 K is out in front again as expected performing 6 percent better in average FPS at max settings increasing to a 12% improvement to low settings at 1440 PE or frame rates drop back a little once again squeezing closer together as we start a line more on the GPU at this resolution the 9900 K is just 2 ahead of the 2,700 x at max settings increasing to 11% ahead at low settings far cry 5 was again tested using the built-in bench mark and at 1080p the night 900k was further ahead compared to other games tested so far 16% ahead of the 2700 exit ultra settings increasing up to 21% better average frame rates at low settings at 1440p the results get much closer together due to the graphics becoming the bottleneck with the 9900 K now only 2% ahead of the 2,700 exit ultra settings and just 3% ahead at low settings so quite different compared to 1080p / which was tested playing in the practice range and is a good example of the CPU not really making very much difference at all the game caps out at 300 FPS which were able to hit with both CPUs at high settings or lower although the frame times are a little better with the 900 K although realistically I think 200 FPS 1% lows are already insane enough and impossible with either CPU at 1440p the results are again extremely close together especially at epic settings while the 9900 K has a lead on the 2700 X in 1% lows which rises up as the settings get lower Rainbow six siege was tested using the built-in benchmark and the differences at 1080p between the two CPUs weren't as high as I was expecting in this game the 9900 K was just 3% ahead of the 2,700 exit ultra settings in terms of average frame rates and 1% lows at 1440p the results are still pretty close together no major differences with either CPU and you can clearly get a great experience with either csgo was tested using the elliptical benchmark and at 1080p either 99 hundred K was providing a 19% improvement to average frame rates over the 2,700 X with all settings maxed out and a 12 percent boost to 1% lows something that's probably more important for competitive players and this difference rises further apart at the lowest setting levels at 1440p there's still some fair differences between the two less so in terms of 1% lows but the gaps in averages are still a fair way apart with the 9900 K 13% ahead in terms of average frame rates of max settings dota 2 was only tested at 1080p and I've used an intense replay which does not represent real world gameplay so expect higher frame rates actually playing the game this is supposed to represent a worst-case scenario even with all settings maxed out the 9900 K is almost 20% ahead of the 2,700 X so again like csgo for competitive players that need all the frames they can get the Intel CPU may make more sense pub G was tested using the same replay and at 1080p there's very minor differences in ultra settings but bigger changes in lower settings at very low settings for example the 9900 K is 32% ahead of the 2,700 X for the 1% low result and 23% ahead on the averages so definitely nicer if you're playing competitively there realistically for the casual player I think the 2,700 X is still delivering fairly high frame rates at 1440p we're pretty much looking at the same results just lower frame rates all around with the 9900 K just four percent better than the 2700 X at Ultra settings on the average frame rates but a larger 13% improvement at very low settings watchdogs to was tested as I found it to be a game that uses quite a lot of CPU and while at 1080p there's a fair improvement seen with the 900k performing 16% ahead of the 2700 exit ultra settings and the averages and 21% better for the 1% lows there was a game that I don't think personally needs a high frame rate to enjoy either CPU would be plenty at higher resolutions like 1440p there's less of a difference between the two as the GPU starts to take over the majority of the work with the 9900 K now just 8% ahead of the 2,700 X at Ultra settings on the averages and 9% better in terms of 1% lower results The Witcher 3 wasn't seeing too big of a difference between the two CPUs and the averages but the frame times are much better with the 9900 K as shown by the 1% lows at Ultra settings for instance although the averages are very close with the 2,700 X actually just ahead there's a huge 43 percent improvement the 1% lower a similar result was also noted at the 1440p resolution the averages are fairly close together that at Ultra settings the one percent lows with the 9900 K at 26% ahead of the 2700 X a pretty big difference Ghost Recon was tested with the built-in benchmark and i only bothered testing 1080p as even at this resolution we're already fairly GPU bound there's not much difference between the two CPUs at all setting levels compared to most other games with a ninety nine hundred K three point five percent ahead of the 2700 X and average frame rates at Ultra settings and just two percent faster for the one percent low results as expected the 99 hundred K is coming out ahead in pretty much old tests primarily due to the higher clock speeds with that said though I still think in all of the games tested we're saying nice frame rates with the 2,700 X definitely still playable I think I'd have a hard time telling you in a blind test which was which though I don't think I'm particularly sensitive to high frame rates so that might just be me if you're looking at playing at high settings or high resolutions then the CPU starts to matter less and less you'd be better off putting your money into better graphics instead in the games tested at max settings there was also a larger boost to the frame times shown as the 1% low results with 9900 K over the 2,700 X at least compared to averages while I could have tested more CPU specific games I wanted to test a range of different titles to try and give a more real-world sample size including games people actually play rather than focusing on things like turn times in Civilization 6 as for overclocking I was able to get my 2700 X to 4.2 gigahertz on all eight cores at one point 3 5 volts while I can only get my 9900 K to 4.9 gigahertz on all 8 cores at one point 3 6 volts I was able to push to 5 gigahertz at one point for 4 volts but didn't really want to run that on such an already hot chip however it is worth mentioning that I may have just been unlucky with the silicon lottery as others are able to get 5 or 5 point 1 gigahertz with voltages that I can't even bear Windows with let's see however clocking affected gaming will start with ashes of the singularity ivory tested it at 1080p and we can say that although the 900 K has better averages here the 2700 X actually has higher 1% lows although the overclock on the 9900 K makes a larger difference compared to the overclock on the 2700 X Fortnight was retested at all setting levels with these overclock supplied to both CPUs and you're going to have to excuse the rainbow colors there's a lot of daughter and only so many choices anyway I've got the 20 700 exit stock in Reds 2700 X overclocked in greens 9900 k-8 stuck in purples and 900k overclocked in blues for the most part overclocking doesn't seem to really be helping the 2700 X at epic or high settings while the 9900 K is saying more of a benefit here at epic settings the overclock on the 900 K is improving the average frame rates by 4.4 percent but perhaps more importantly an 8.5% improvement to the 1% learn pretty similar when we move up to 1440p 3 the you have a clock on the 2700 X is even less useful this time around while the overclock on the 900 K is giving us an improvement at all setting levels with again similar 4% average FPS increases of epic and 8% boosts to 1% learn larger improvements to the frame rate seem to be typical as we start to become more GPU bound at high resolutions and setting levels these are the percentages that the 9900 K was ahead of the 2700 X in this particular game at stock we can see the difference lessons at 1440p as we start becoming more GPU bound here are the differences with both CPUs overclocked in general the gap starts to widen further apart with the 9900 k performing better when overclocked at least in this specific game now let's check out some CPU specific benchmarks I've tested both CPUs at stock speed and with the you ever clocks previously mentioned starting out with Cinebench its stock speeds the 900 K is scoring 15 percent higher than the 2700 X at stock speeds in the multi core test and then with the overclock supplied to both CPUs the gap low is very slightly to 14.6% Adobe premier was tested using the newest CC 2019 version I've just exported one of my laptop reviews of 1080p using the built-in high bitrate preset and the 9900 K is completing the task 12% faster than the stock 2700 X but this lowers to around a 7% difference once overclocking both of them as the 2700 X is seeing a bigger performance boost out of the 2 while overclocked in this test for the first time I've also tested using warp stabiliser an effect in Adobe Premiere that's used to stabilize shaky footage in this test we're actually seeing slightly worse performance with the 2700 X overclocked and this was consistently the case at first I thought this may have been due to the o'clock reducing single-core speeds but that should be happening to the 900k too and the overclock is boosting the performance their blender was tested using the BMW and classroom benchmarks and that was minimal difference from the 900k once overclocking it just a 3% boost in the BMW test for example while this doubled to 6% of an increase in the same test when overclocking the 2700 x at stock speeds the 900 K is complaining the classroom benchmark 22% quicker than the 2700 exit stock and 17% faster when it comes to the BMW tested stock 7-zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds at stock speeds the 900 K is 8% ahead of the stock 2700 extra compression and just under 4% ahead in decompression once both are overclocked the 99 hundred K jumps out to 11% ahead in compression but interestingly you certainly just 2% ahead and decompression as the 2700 X overclocked is actually beating the stock nine and enter K in this decompression test veracrypt was used to test IES encryption and decryption speeds and at stock the 2700 X was 16% ahead of the stock 9900 K for encryption and 12% ahead for decryption strangely though in this test the results of the 2700 X dropped down with the overclocked applied and there's almost no change to the 9900 K once overclocked handbrake was used to convert a 4k video to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p at stock speeds the 9900 K is completing the 4k task just 12% faster than the stock 2700 X and 21% better on the 1080p file with both overclocked the gap widens a bit with the overclocked to 9900 K now completing the 4k task 13% faster than the overclocked 2700 X and still 21% faster with a 1080p file the corona benchmark uses the CPU to render a scene and fairly similar results to what we've already seen with the 9900 K at stock completing the task 22% quicker than the 2700 X and then same results between the two with the overclocks in place the v8 benchmark gave us very similar results to what we just saw in corona the overclock on the 2700 X improves performance by 6 percent and around a 5 percent improvement to the 900k once overclocked PC Mach 10 a benchmark that performs different tests that cover a variety of tasks performed in the workplace at stuck speeds the 9900 K is 16% ahead of the 2700 X but then once boy overclocked to the 9900 K is almost 21% ahead I've attempted to summarize this information here to try and give you an idea of the differences in these specific applications tested the first graph shares how much the 9900 K at stock was ahead of the 2700 exit stock on average the 9900 K was 12% better in these tests if we then go on to compare the overclocked night 900k against the overclocked 2700 X this Rises slightly to the 900 K now being 13% better remember that this is only based on my results in the applications I've tested and is even specific to my overclock so I was able to gain on my chips these are the temperatures of both CPUs in stock and while overclocked running a blender benchmark with an ambient room temperature of 20 degrees Celsius I've included two readings in purple and red with the fans on my 360 millimeter a IO running at different speeds this was required as the 99 hundred K with thermal throttle while overclocked otherwise it gets pretty warm compared to the 2700 X under the exact same cooling so worth keeping in mind as you'll probably need good cooling for the 900 k especially if you're planning on overclocking I've measured total system power draw from the wall and the results actually weren't er different the only changes to the system of the motherboard and CPUs otherwise the exact same blender benchmark was running on both and in my tests the 99 hundred K was just a couple of what's ahead in terms of performance per what the 99 hundred K does appear to have a clear advantage here at least based on my own numbers that I've recorded for updated pricing vary the CPU check the links in the description in the US the 2700 X goes for around three hundred and five US dollars on sale while the 99 hundred K is about five hundred and eighty US dollars so a large a ninety percent increase in price there in terms of value that 2700 X is the clear winner here on average in the games tested we're seeing a seven percent improvement at 1080p and a 3% at 1440p which at least to me doesn't justify a 90 percent price premium to be fair this is the difference of max settings where we may be more GPU bound but I figure if you either of these CPUs you'll probably be looking to play at higher settings the applications tested fared a little bit better than the games with a 12% performance boost on average with the 9900 K if we look at the performance in terms of dollar per frame we see some interesting results I've used my fortnight data as that's the year in the game I tested all settings with and with overclocking and at max settings the 2700 X is giving us a much better dollar per frame value compared to the 9900 K though this gap closes quite a bit at the lowest setting levels as in this particular game at least the 9900 K frame rate was very high but this will of course vary between games it's also important to remember that the 1900 K doesn't come with any cooling the dollar per frame figure is based on CPU price only you have to pay more money still to get a decent cooler with a 99 hundred K as we've seen even with my 360 all-in-one cooler it still gets quite warm especially once overclocked granted I did test my 2700 X with the same color just to keep things even it does come with the capable air cooler which you can still use even while overclocked until the advertising the 9900 K is the best gaming CPU and while strictly speaking they're not wrong in terms of raw performance but it's losing in pretty much all other areas such as thermals and value-for-money the iron is basically what you pick if money isn't an issue or if you just want the best performance over anything else you can pretty much do it all there and fast while the 2700 X is still a very capable chip and much better value for the money though not quite as fast in most games and applications so which of these two CPUs would you guys pick the 900 K or 2700 X let me know your thoughts down in the comments and don't forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this oneintel's i $9.99 hundred k cpu brings us eight cores and 16 threads to their mainstream lineup that AMD got there first sometime ago let's compare the new 9900 k against the risin 2700 x to see what kind of fight it can put up at a lower price point in gaming and various applications let's start with the specs bertha 8 cores 16 thread parts one of the main reasons I was so interested in comparing the two against each other however as we can clearly see the brass and chip is running at low clock speeds both chips are also unlocked so we'll cover overclocking - and they're both using soldered thermal interface material something Intel's finally gone back to with their ninth generation it's probably not worth paying any attention to the listed TDP either as this will change once they start boosting up to see how these differences practically affect games and applications I've tested them both in as identical systems as possible aside from the differences in CPUs the only differences of course the motherboards from the 2700 X I'm using an MSI x4 70 gaming per carbon motherboard and for the 9900 K I'm using an msi said 390 gaming Pro carbon motherboard both with the latest BIOS versions available at the time of testing otherwise the rest of the system specs are exactly the same I've got 16 gig of T Force Nighthawk seal 16 memory running at ddr4 3200 which was kindly provided by tame Bert and for the graphics I'm using my EVGA for the win - 1080 as it's the best graphics card I've got available yes there are better graphics cards out there I don't own any and I haven't bought one just to do testing with if you've got a problem with this then feel free to send me a better one for the calling of both CPUs I'm using my fractal s 36 360 millimetre all-in-one liquid cooler with the same knock to her nth one thermal paste so the exact same PC was used for testing I've just swapped out the motherboards and CPUs as required as that whilst apples as I could make it with that in mind let's check out the games first followed by CPU specific benchmarks afterwards I've tested all games at 1080p and most at 1440p where it made sense unlike my 9700 KD verse 8700 cake paracin I haven't bothered with 4k as we saw there was near zero difference as ideally I'd be using a 2080 TI for that otherwise the same Nvidia drivers Windows updates and game updates are installed with no overclocking applied at this point I'll also note that I had separate clean windows installations for each platform the same one was not used between them MCA was disabled on the 9900 k and precision boost overdrive was not enabled on the 2700 X let's start with ashes of the singularity because what kind of CPU comparison video would be complete without it at 1080p with max settings there was only a 0.8 percent improvement to average frame rates with the 9900 cade there were larger 5.3 percent improvement to 1% lows although in every other setting level the frame rates of faster on the 2700 X and for the most part the averages are pretty close between the two chips until the lowest setting levels fortnight was tested using the same replay at 1080p there's not too much difference at max settings as we're more GPU bound just a 2.6 percent improvement to average FPS at epic settings but this gap widens further apart as we lower the setting levels down moving up to 1440p the results moving closer together as we start to become more GPU bound and the difference in CPU starts to matter less again almost no different in mac settings while the 9900 ke pulls further in front at the lower levels shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built-in bench mark and at 1080p the results weren't really that far apart at medium settings or above with the 9900 K averaging 4 percent above the 2700 X at the highest settings vary this rises to 19 percent at the lowest settings due to less GPU limitations at 1440p the results move in closer together as expected with the 9900 K just 3 percent ahead of the 2700 X at the highest settings and 8 percent ahead at the lowest settings Assassin's Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built-in benchmark tool and at 1080p the 9900 K is out in front again as expected performing 6 percent better in average FPS at max settings increasing to a 12% improvement to low settings at 1440 PE or frame rates drop back a little once again squeezing closer together as we start a line more on the GPU at this resolution the 9900 K is just 2 ahead of the 2,700 x at max settings increasing to 11% ahead at low settings far cry 5 was again tested using the built-in bench mark and at 1080p the night 900k was further ahead compared to other games tested so far 16% ahead of the 2700 exit ultra settings increasing up to 21% better average frame rates at low settings at 1440p the results get much closer together due to the graphics becoming the bottleneck with the 9900 K now only 2% ahead of the 2,700 exit ultra settings and just 3% ahead at low settings so quite different compared to 1080p / which was tested playing in the practice range and is a good example of the CPU not really making very much difference at all the game caps out at 300 FPS which were able to hit with both CPUs at high settings or lower although the frame times are a little better with the 900 K although realistically I think 200 FPS 1% lows are already insane enough and impossible with either CPU at 1440p the results are again extremely close together especially at epic settings while the 9900 K has a lead on the 2700 X in 1% lows which rises up as the settings get lower Rainbow six siege was tested using the built-in benchmark and the differences at 1080p between the two CPUs weren't as high as I was expecting in this game the 9900 K was just 3% ahead of the 2,700 exit ultra settings in terms of average frame rates and 1% lows at 1440p the results are still pretty close together no major differences with either CPU and you can clearly get a great experience with either csgo was tested using the elliptical benchmark and at 1080p either 99 hundred K was providing a 19% improvement to average frame rates over the 2,700 X with all settings maxed out and a 12 percent boost to 1% lows something that's probably more important for competitive players and this difference rises further apart at the lowest setting levels at 1440p there's still some fair differences between the two less so in terms of 1% lows but the gaps in averages are still a fair way apart with the 9900 K 13% ahead in terms of average frame rates of max settings dota 2 was only tested at 1080p and I've used an intense replay which does not represent real world gameplay so expect higher frame rates actually playing the game this is supposed to represent a worst-case scenario even with all settings maxed out the 9900 K is almost 20% ahead of the 2,700 X so again like csgo for competitive players that need all the frames they can get the Intel CPU may make more sense pub G was tested using the same replay and at 1080p there's very minor differences in ultra settings but bigger changes in lower settings at very low settings for example the 9900 K is 32% ahead of the 2,700 X for the 1% low result and 23% ahead on the averages so definitely nicer if you're playing competitively there realistically for the casual player I think the 2,700 X is still delivering fairly high frame rates at 1440p we're pretty much looking at the same results just lower frame rates all around with the 9900 K just four percent better than the 2700 X at Ultra settings on the average frame rates but a larger 13% improvement at very low settings watchdogs to was tested as I found it to be a game that uses quite a lot of CPU and while at 1080p there's a fair improvement seen with the 900k performing 16% ahead of the 2700 exit ultra settings and the averages and 21% better for the 1% lows there was a game that I don't think personally needs a high frame rate to enjoy either CPU would be plenty at higher resolutions like 1440p there's less of a difference between the two as the GPU starts to take over the majority of the work with the 9900 K now just 8% ahead of the 2,700 X at Ultra settings on the averages and 9% better in terms of 1% lower results The Witcher 3 wasn't seeing too big of a difference between the two CPUs and the averages but the frame times are much better with the 9900 K as shown by the 1% lows at Ultra settings for instance although the averages are very close with the 2,700 X actually just ahead there's a huge 43 percent improvement the 1% lower a similar result was also noted at the 1440p resolution the averages are fairly close together that at Ultra settings the one percent lows with the 9900 K at 26% ahead of the 2700 X a pretty big difference Ghost Recon was tested with the built-in benchmark and i only bothered testing 1080p as even at this resolution we're already fairly GPU bound there's not much difference between the two CPUs at all setting levels compared to most other games with a ninety nine hundred K three point five percent ahead of the 2700 X and average frame rates at Ultra settings and just two percent faster for the one percent low results as expected the 99 hundred K is coming out ahead in pretty much old tests primarily due to the higher clock speeds with that said though I still think in all of the games tested we're saying nice frame rates with the 2,700 X definitely still playable I think I'd have a hard time telling you in a blind test which was which though I don't think I'm particularly sensitive to high frame rates so that might just be me if you're looking at playing at high settings or high resolutions then the CPU starts to matter less and less you'd be better off putting your money into better graphics instead in the games tested at max settings there was also a larger boost to the frame times shown as the 1% low results with 9900 K over the 2,700 X at least compared to averages while I could have tested more CPU specific games I wanted to test a range of different titles to try and give a more real-world sample size including games people actually play rather than focusing on things like turn times in Civilization 6 as for overclocking I was able to get my 2700 X to 4.2 gigahertz on all eight cores at one point 3 5 volts while I can only get my 9900 K to 4.9 gigahertz on all 8 cores at one point 3 6 volts I was able to push to 5 gigahertz at one point for 4 volts but didn't really want to run that on such an already hot chip however it is worth mentioning that I may have just been unlucky with the silicon lottery as others are able to get 5 or 5 point 1 gigahertz with voltages that I can't even bear Windows with let's see however clocking affected gaming will start with ashes of the singularity ivory tested it at 1080p and we can say that although the 900 K has better averages here the 2700 X actually has higher 1% lows although the overclock on the 9900 K makes a larger difference compared to the overclock on the 2700 X Fortnight was retested at all setting levels with these overclock supplied to both CPUs and you're going to have to excuse the rainbow colors there's a lot of daughter and only so many choices anyway I've got the 20 700 exit stock in Reds 2700 X overclocked in greens 9900 k-8 stuck in purples and 900k overclocked in blues for the most part overclocking doesn't seem to really be helping the 2700 X at epic or high settings while the 9900 K is saying more of a benefit here at epic settings the overclock on the 900 K is improving the average frame rates by 4.4 percent but perhaps more importantly an 8.5% improvement to the 1% learn pretty similar when we move up to 1440p 3 the you have a clock on the 2700 X is even less useful this time around while the overclock on the 900 K is giving us an improvement at all setting levels with again similar 4% average FPS increases of epic and 8% boosts to 1% learn larger improvements to the frame rate seem to be typical as we start to become more GPU bound at high resolutions and setting levels these are the percentages that the 9900 K was ahead of the 2700 X in this particular game at stock we can see the difference lessons at 1440p as we start becoming more GPU bound here are the differences with both CPUs overclocked in general the gap starts to widen further apart with the 9900 k performing better when overclocked at least in this specific game now let's check out some CPU specific benchmarks I've tested both CPUs at stock speed and with the you ever clocks previously mentioned starting out with Cinebench its stock speeds the 900 K is scoring 15 percent higher than the 2700 X at stock speeds in the multi core test and then with the overclock supplied to both CPUs the gap low is very slightly to 14.6% Adobe premier was tested using the newest CC 2019 version I've just exported one of my laptop reviews of 1080p using the built-in high bitrate preset and the 9900 K is completing the task 12% faster than the stock 2700 X but this lowers to around a 7% difference once overclocking both of them as the 2700 X is seeing a bigger performance boost out of the 2 while overclocked in this test for the first time I've also tested using warp stabiliser an effect in Adobe Premiere that's used to stabilize shaky footage in this test we're actually seeing slightly worse performance with the 2700 X overclocked and this was consistently the case at first I thought this may have been due to the o'clock reducing single-core speeds but that should be happening to the 900k too and the overclock is boosting the performance their blender was tested using the BMW and classroom benchmarks and that was minimal difference from the 900k once overclocking it just a 3% boost in the BMW test for example while this doubled to 6% of an increase in the same test when overclocking the 2700 x at stock speeds the 900 K is complaining the classroom benchmark 22% quicker than the 2700 exit stock and 17% faster when it comes to the BMW tested stock 7-zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds at stock speeds the 900 K is 8% ahead of the stock 2700 extra compression and just under 4% ahead in decompression once both are overclocked the 99 hundred K jumps out to 11% ahead in compression but interestingly you certainly just 2% ahead and decompression as the 2700 X overclocked is actually beating the stock nine and enter K in this decompression test veracrypt was used to test IES encryption and decryption speeds and at stock the 2700 X was 16% ahead of the stock 9900 K for encryption and 12% ahead for decryption strangely though in this test the results of the 2700 X dropped down with the overclocked applied and there's almost no change to the 9900 K once overclocked handbrake was used to convert a 4k video to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p at stock speeds the 9900 K is completing the 4k task just 12% faster than the stock 2700 X and 21% better on the 1080p file with both overclocked the gap widens a bit with the overclocked to 9900 K now completing the 4k task 13% faster than the overclocked 2700 X and still 21% faster with a 1080p file the corona benchmark uses the CPU to render a scene and fairly similar results to what we've already seen with the 9900 K at stock completing the task 22% quicker than the 2700 X and then same results between the two with the overclocks in place the v8 benchmark gave us very similar results to what we just saw in corona the overclock on the 2700 X improves performance by 6 percent and around a 5 percent improvement to the 900k once overclocked PC Mach 10 a benchmark that performs different tests that cover a variety of tasks performed in the workplace at stuck speeds the 9900 K is 16% ahead of the 2700 X but then once boy overclocked to the 9900 K is almost 21% ahead I've attempted to summarize this information here to try and give you an idea of the differences in these specific applications tested the first graph shares how much the 9900 K at stock was ahead of the 2700 exit stock on average the 9900 K was 12% better in these tests if we then go on to compare the overclocked night 900k against the overclocked 2700 X this Rises slightly to the 900 K now being 13% better remember that this is only based on my results in the applications I've tested and is even specific to my overclock so I was able to gain on my chips these are the temperatures of both CPUs in stock and while overclocked running a blender benchmark with an ambient room temperature of 20 degrees Celsius I've included two readings in purple and red with the fans on my 360 millimeter a IO running at different speeds this was required as the 99 hundred K with thermal throttle while overclocked otherwise it gets pretty warm compared to the 2700 X under the exact same cooling so worth keeping in mind as you'll probably need good cooling for the 900 k especially if you're planning on overclocking I've measured total system power draw from the wall and the results actually weren't er different the only changes to the system of the motherboard and CPUs otherwise the exact same blender benchmark was running on both and in my tests the 99 hundred K was just a couple of what's ahead in terms of performance per what the 99 hundred K does appear to have a clear advantage here at least based on my own numbers that I've recorded for updated pricing vary the CPU check the links in the description in the US the 2700 X goes for around three hundred and five US dollars on sale while the 99 hundred K is about five hundred and eighty US dollars so a large a ninety percent increase in price there in terms of value that 2700 X is the clear winner here on average in the games tested we're seeing a seven percent improvement at 1080p and a 3% at 1440p which at least to me doesn't justify a 90 percent price premium to be fair this is the difference of max settings where we may be more GPU bound but I figure if you either of these CPUs you'll probably be looking to play at higher settings the applications tested fared a little bit better than the games with a 12% performance boost on average with the 9900 K if we look at the performance in terms of dollar per frame we see some interesting results I've used my fortnight data as that's the year in the game I tested all settings with and with overclocking and at max settings the 2700 X is giving us a much better dollar per frame value compared to the 9900 K though this gap closes quite a bit at the lowest setting levels as in this particular game at least the 9900 K frame rate was very high but this will of course vary between games it's also important to remember that the 1900 K doesn't come with any cooling the dollar per frame figure is based on CPU price only you have to pay more money still to get a decent cooler with a 99 hundred K as we've seen even with my 360 all-in-one cooler it still gets quite warm especially once overclocked granted I did test my 2700 X with the same color just to keep things even it does come with the capable air cooler which you can still use even while overclocked until the advertising the 9900 K is the best gaming CPU and while strictly speaking they're not wrong in terms of raw performance but it's losing in pretty much all other areas such as thermals and value-for-money the iron is basically what you pick if money isn't an issue or if you just want the best performance over anything else you can pretty much do it all there and fast while the 2700 X is still a very capable chip and much better value for the money though not quite as fast in most games and applications so which of these two CPUs would you guys pick the 900 K or 2700 X let me know your thoughts down in the comments and don't forget to subscribe for future tech videos like this one\n"