
Core i9-11900F
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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 i9-11900F
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (22,052 vs 22,066).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.
Ryzen Threadripper 1920
2017Why buy it
- ✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-11900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $799 MSRP, while Core i9-11900F mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
Core i9-11900F
2021Ryzen Threadripper 1920
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (22,052 vs 22,066).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 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 i9-11900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $799 MSRP, while Core i9-11900F mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i9-11900F better than Ryzen Threadripper 1920?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 286 FPS | 175 FPS |
| medium | 256 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 217 FPS | 129 FPS |
| ultra | 187 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 235 FPS | 143 FPS |
| medium | 189 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 155 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 164 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 103 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 91 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 398 FPS |
| medium | 507 FPS | 357 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 304 FPS |
| ultra | 390 FPS | 252 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 339 FPS |
| medium | 473 FPS | 309 FPS |
| high | 407 FPS | 265 FPS |
| ultra | 346 FPS | 219 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 386 FPS | 217 FPS |
| medium | 328 FPS | 197 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 179 FPS |
| ultra | 263 FPS | 145 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 551 FPS | 539 FPS |
| high | 551 FPS | 501 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 442 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 551 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 504 FPS | 418 FPS |
| ultra | 433 FPS | 367 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 420 FPS |
| medium | 445 FPS | 334 FPS |
| high | 396 FPS | 303 FPS |
| ultra | 332 FPS | 252 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| high | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| ultra | 551 FPS | 528 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 551 FPS | 552 FPS |
| high | 551 FPS | 493 FPS |
| ultra | 551 FPS | 423 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 444 FPS |
| medium | 551 FPS | 408 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 367 FPS |
| ultra | 435 FPS | 318 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-11900F and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Core i9-11900F
Core i9-11900F
The Core i9-11900F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 22,052 points. Launch price was $299.


Ryzen Threadripper 1920
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 i9-11900F packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i9-11900F versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 29.2% clock advantage for the Core i9-11900F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i9-11900F uses the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-11900F scores 22,052 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 0.1% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920. L3 cache: 16 MB (total) on the Core i9-11900F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.
| Feature | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 16 | 12 / 24+50% |
| Boost Clock | 5.1 GHz+34% | 3.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz+28% |
| L3 Cache | 16 MB (total) | 32 MB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Rocket Lake (2021) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 22,052 | 22,066 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i9-11900F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i9-11900F | Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | SP3r2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












