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 $414 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 35.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 140W, a 45W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen Threadripper 1920 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1920 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.8% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌47.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $414 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 35.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 140W, a 45W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen Threadripper 1920 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.8% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1920 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌47.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen Threadripper 1920 better than Core i7-9700K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 9.8% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the better fit. You are getting 53.3% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is 107.5% more expensive on MSRP at $799 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.8% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-9700K only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 35.4% better value on paper (37.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

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

Core i7-9700K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2017). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 Threadripper 1920 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	308 FPS	175 FPS
medium	278 FPS	156 FPS
high	231 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	143 FPS
medium	221 FPS	121 FPS
high	178 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	65 FPS
medium	140 FPS	59 FPS
high	108 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	360 FPS	398 FPS
medium	321 FPS	357 FPS
high	291 FPS	304 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	252 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	339 FPS
medium	282 FPS	309 FPS
high	258 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	219 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	217 FPS
medium	221 FPS	197 FPS
high	208 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	360 FPS	552 FPS
medium	360 FPS	539 FPS
high	360 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	552 FPS
medium	360 FPS	464 FPS
high	360 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	420 FPS
medium	360 FPS	334 FPS
high	360 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	252 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	360 FPS	552 FPS
medium	360 FPS	552 FPS
high	360 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	552 FPS
medium	360 FPS	552 FPS
high	360 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	423 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	444 FPS
medium	360 FPS	408 FPS
high	360 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

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 Threadripper 1920

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,066 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 25.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 42.1% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	12 / 24+50%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+29%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+12%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	14,397	22,066+53%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Socket	LGA1151	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1920). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 debuted at $799. On MSRP ($385 vs $799), the Core i7-9700K is $414 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 27.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — making the Core i7-9700K the 30.1% better value option.