Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i9-10900F outperforms the more expensive Ryzen Threadripper 1920X on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i9-10900F is 994 days newer than the more expensive Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 15% better in Starfield than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 63 vs 55 FPS
- Up to 9% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $244.77 vs $270.0
- Up to 21% better value when playing Starfield than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $3.89 vs $4.91 per FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 65 vs 180 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i9-10900F - 24 vs 20 threads
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
63
100%
Value, $/FPS
$3.89/FPS
100%
Price, $
$244.77
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $244.77 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349818 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
55
87.3015873015873%
Value, $/FPS
$4.91/FPS
79.22606924643586%
Price, $
$270
90%
Buy for $270 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349819 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
70.04773269689738%
Multi-Core
6976
82.79136007595538%
Intel Core i9-10900F | 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 |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |