Core i9-10900KF vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920

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 i9-10900KF

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $290 less on MSRP ($509 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 58.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($509 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 140W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 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

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900KF across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,066 vs 22,231).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 43.7 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $509 MSRP).

Core i9-10900KF

2020

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $290 less on MSRP ($509 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 58.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($509 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 140W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900KF across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,066 vs 22,231).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 43.7 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $509 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-10900KF better than Ryzen Threadripper 1920?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-10900KF 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, Core i9-10900KF is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 17.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-10900KF is the better fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core i9-10900KF is the smarter buy today. Core i9-10900KF is $290 cheaper on MSRP at $509 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it gives you a 17.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 58.1% better value on MSRP (43.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i9-10900KF is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2017) and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 20 threads instead of 12/24. 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 i9-10900KF Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1920 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	280 FPS	175 FPS
medium	247 FPS	156 FPS
high	207 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	178 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	241 FPS	143 FPS
medium	190 FPS	121 FPS
high	156 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	167 FPS	65 FPS
medium	133 FPS	59 FPS
high	103 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i9-10900KF Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	556 FPS	398 FPS
medium	523 FPS	357 FPS
high	429 FPS	304 FPS
ultra	386 FPS	252 FPS
1440p
low	556 FPS	339 FPS
medium	475 FPS	309 FPS
high	391 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	335 FPS	219 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	217 FPS
medium	285 FPS	197 FPS
high	265 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i9-10900KF Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	556 FPS	552 FPS
medium	556 FPS	539 FPS
high	556 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	556 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	556 FPS	552 FPS
medium	556 FPS	464 FPS
high	556 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	492 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	420 FPS
medium	496 FPS	334 FPS
high	445 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	374 FPS	252 FPS

Open Core i9-10900KF Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	556 FPS	552 FPS
medium	556 FPS	552 FPS
high	556 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	556 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	556 FPS	552 FPS
medium	556 FPS	552 FPS
high	556 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	556 FPS	423 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	444 FPS
medium	556 FPS	408 FPS
high	510 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i9-10900KF Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-10900KF and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Core i9-10900KF

The Core i9-10900KF is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 22,231 points. Launch price was $509.

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 i9-10900KF packs 10 cores / 20 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core i9-10900KF versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 31.1% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900KF (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i9-10900KF uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-10900KF scores 22,231 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i9-10900KF. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900KF vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Feature	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Cores / Threads	10 / 20	12 / 24+20%
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+37%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+16%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB+60%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	22,231	22,066
Geekbench 6 Single	1,767	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	9,261	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-10900KF uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Socket	LGA1200	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2933	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-10900KF) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1920).

Feature	Core i9-10900KF	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i9-10900KF launched at $509 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 debuted at $799. On MSRP ($509 vs $799), the Core i9-10900KF is $290 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-10900KF delivers 43.7 pts/$ vs 27.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — making the Core i9-10900KF the 45.1% better value option.