AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K faceoff — Intel’s Raptor Lake platform continues to be relevant in 2026

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D retail box with an Intel Core i9-14900K box
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
23

AMD once again reset the bar for gaming CPUs by introducing the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. It replaces the Ryzen 7 9800X3D as AMD’s fastest gaming CPU, thanks to its 3D V-cache design and slight increase in boost clock speeds. For readers interested specifically in how big that jump is, we recently did an in-depth comparison between the 9850X3D and the 9800X3D.

While Intel still doesn’t have a solid chip that can compete with AMD’s 3D V-cache tech, the Core i9-14900K is still a formidable and a powerful offering from Team Blue. Notably, this CPU takes a different path as it leans heavily on clock speeds and a large core count to excel in productivity workloads moreso than gaming.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Kunal Khullar
News Contributor

Kunal Khullar is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware.  He is a long time technology journalist and reviewer specializing in PC components and peripherals, and welcomes any and every question around building a PC.

With contributions from
  • Gururu
    Didn't need to go over all the details if you were going to ignore all the details.
    Reply
  • jp7189
    I still use a 13900k as a workhorse because it's more stable / hits higher clocks with 4x48GB config. On everything else that can live with 1DPC, I stick with AMD. The 9950 does most (not all) things faster than the 13900k and for less power.
    Reply
  • jaspoo
    The most meaningful article I seen was published by this site recently: 9850x3x vs Intel *WITH* DLSS. Only the 14700k was tested, but - while no one would guess this - the 9850x3d "performance dominance" disappeared when upscaling is used. At 4K DLSS QUALITY the 14700k is (technically) faster; 4k DLSS PERFORMANCE the 14700k "loses" 111.36 to 110.45.

    Gamers use DLSS - the stats are out there. These tests shown here are meaningless to the vast majority of readers: the 1080p results don't scale, and more importantly - even at the same rendering resolution (1080p) the 9850x3d performs DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT with upscaling enabled.

    I wish outlets would get with the times and perform analysis that is actually meaningful to readers. You test CPUs with a 5090... people do not play at 1080p. Give me the HW Unboxed response and I'd respond: that would be fine *if* the results scaled.

    Testing at 1080p, with no DLSS, helps noone. It causes the customers/readers of these outlets to overspend on the "best gaming CPU in the world," when 1. They are unlikely to see any benefit bc of GPU bottlenecking; 2. It is not even the fastest CPU! Maybe this is why the 14900k wasn't used in the DLSS test... the 14700k's 5.6ghz boost is A LOT less that the 14900k's 6ghz. I think we all understand what that outcome would have been.

    And the 14900k hit $350. Is feel rather foolish if I payed a whole bunch more money for a chip that is slower in actual gaming, and not even in the conversation when it comes to anything else.
    Reply
  • Gururu
    jaspoo said:
    The most meaningful article I seen was published by this site recently: 9850x3x vs Intel *WITH* DLSS. Only the 14700k was tested, but - while no one would guess this - the 9850x3d "performance dominance" disappeared when upscaling is used. At 4K DLSS QUALITY the 14700k is (technically) faster; 4k DLSS PERFORMANCE the 14700k "loses" 111.36 to 110.45.

    Gamers use DLSS - the stats are out there. These tests shown here are meaningless to the vast majority of readers: the 1080p results don't scale, and more importantly - even at the same rendering resolution (1080p) the 9850x3d performs DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT with upscaling enabled.

    I wish outlets would get with the times and perform analysis that is actually meaningful to readers. You test CPUs with a 5090... people do not play at 1080p. Give me the HW Unboxed response and I'd respond: that would be fine *if* the results scaled.

    Testing at 1080p, with no DLSS, helps noone. It causes the customers/readers of these outlets to overspend on the "best gaming CPU in the world," when 1. They are unlikely to see any benefit bc of GPU bottlenecking; 2. It is not even the fastest CPU! Maybe this is why the 14900k wasn't used in the DLSS test... the 14700k's 5.6ghz boost is A LOT less that the 14900k's 6ghz. I think we all understand what that outcome would have been.

    And the 14900k hit $350. Is feel rather foolish if I payed a whole bunch more money for a chip that is slower in actual gaming, and not even in the conversation when it comes to anything else.
    can you link the article?
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Admin said:
    The Ryzen 7 9850X3D now leads AMD’s gaming lineup, but Intel’s Core i9-14900K remains a powerful choice for productivity-focused users. We tested both in a head-to-head battle to see which CPU comes out on top.

    AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K faceoff — Intel’s Raptor Lake platform continues to be relevant in 2026 : Read more
    Seriously guys, after the whole stability issues intel enforced mobo makers to have intel default settings and you are still hitting the CPU with 300W+ and pretending that this is out-of-the-box and not intentionally lowering the performance by forcing thermal throttling while simultaneously lowering efficiency by using 20-25% more power than what intel allows.
    Reply
  • King_V
    jaspoo said:
    The most meaningful article I seen was published by this site recently: 9850x3x vs Intel *WITH* DLSS. Only the 14700k was tested, but - while no one would guess this - the 9850x3d "performance dominance" disappeared when upscaling is used. At 4K DLSS QUALITY the 14700k is (technically) faster; 4k DLSS PERFORMANCE the 14700k "loses" 111.36 to 110.45.
    And now you've turned it into a GPU test rather than a CPU test.
    Reply
  • King_V
    TerryLaze said:
    Seriously guys, after the whole stability issues intel enforced mobo makers to have intel default settings and you are still hitting the CPU with 300W+ and pretending that this is out-of-the-box and not intentionally lowering the performance by forcing thermal throttling while simultaneously lowering efficiency by using 20-25% more power than what intel allows.
    So, are you saying that Kunal and Jake have changed the Intel default settings on the Intel mobo?
    Reply
  • Greg7579
    I built my high-end (at the time) PC 27 months ago (Dec 2024) using the 14900K and am astounded that over two years later I still have the top-end chip for my productivity (I don't game). I'm surprised that chip is still even in the discussion. Normally, I would be obsolete at the top end by now. With my DDR5 96 GB of RAM and several M.2 PCIe 4 & 5 8TB SSDs (5 of them) packed on that ASUS Dark Pro Motherboard, the rig I built for 6 grand back then would be over 10 grand to build now (because of the dramatic increase in those ram and SSD prices).
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    King_V said:
    And now you've turned it into a GPU test rather than a CPU test.
    It's a real world test, which is all that really matters. Any test that doesn't mirror a use case demonstrating how people will actually use a product is useless beyond arguing on the internet.
    Reply
  • Gururu
    King_V said:
    And now you've turned it into a GPU test rather than a CPU test.
    Since its the same GPU its more like a CPU vs CPU with the same GPU test. If you wanted a pure CPU vs. CPU test, then test them without a dGPU. If you wanted a GPU test, then test two different GPUs with the same CPU.
    Reply