AMD and Intel’s latest mainstream flagships are two different takes on the same idea: for around $500, you can have a 16-thread CPU that the mainstream didn’t have access to before. And thanks to Amazon, we had them both in the office to run the numbers.
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D relies on 3D-stacked cache to boost game performance, while Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285K dials in raw core counts and high clocks for scorching throughput in a broad array of creator workloads. Here’s how they compare, and which you should get for your own build.
A brief comparison of Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Core Ultra 9 285K
The Ryzen 9 9950X3D offers 16 cores and SMT for a total of 32 threads, with a turbo frequency that reaches up to 5.7GHz. Its secret weapon is second‑generation 3D V‑Cache: an additional 64MB stacked on-die for a total of 128MB of L3, bookended by an arsenal of 16MB of L2. That huge last‑level cache holds more of the game’s critical data near the cores, cutting down on memory trips and smoothing out frame delivery.
The Core Ultra 9 285K, as you’d expect, blends eight high‑performance P‑cores (up to 5.7GHz) with up to sixteen efficiency cores that can range roughly from 2GHz to around 4.6GHz, for a total of 24 physical cores. Hyper‑Threading further boosts throughput on compatible cores, helping the chip sprint through heavy multitasking.
The Core Ultra 9 285K has 36MB of L3 cache, while Intel makes up for some of that by providing a fairly generous 40MB of L2 that can be beneficial in certain compute‑heavy workloads with fast but smaller working sets.
Productivity Benchmarks And Creator Workloads
According to Maxon’s Cinebench 2024, which produces a single‑threaded CPU score that helps stratify applications like rendering, single‑threaded scores are identical with the Core Ultra 9 285K just coming out ahead. The delta increases further when parallelism kicks in: multithreaded results place Intel roughly 5% faster, representing the better position of its 24 physical cores in long‑run throughput tasks.
Blender’s official benchmark, though, serves as a reminder that architecture and cache can upend the script. The Classroom scene is a bit of a wash, but the Junkshop scene runs almost 17% faster on the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, an instance of 3D V‑Cache bringing performance closer to mixed workloads where scene data is local. Performance is practically a draw in HandBrake video transcoding, indicating that contemporary encoders are equally well tailored to both designs.
POV‑Ray’s ray‑tracing tests go the other direction: the Core Ultra 9 285K completes both main runs about 12% faster. Fueling this is a core trait most creators in code compiles, simulation, and multi‑stage renders will also experience: Intel often completes long, repeatable tasks more quickly, thanks largely to its larger population of physical cores and robust L2 hierarchy.
Bottom line for productivity: if most of your day consists of batch exports, compiles, and CPU‑bound rendering, Intel’s consistent throughput advantage does mount up. The farther you get from clean, broadly accessing workloads, the closer AMD gets to Intel—and sometimes moves ahead.
Gaming Results & High Refresh Observations
At 4K on ultra settings, the heavy lifting is done by today’s GPUs, so both of these chips feel similar. Slide down to 1440p or 1080p and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D starts to show its legs. In recent tests across titles such as F1 24 and Cyberpunk 2077, AMD has been posting higher frame rates at these CPU‑restricted resolutions, with particularly big gains at 1080p where games start being more core‑to‑cache bound.
The gap expands as you pursue higher refresh rates. Competitive players pushing 240Hz or 360Hz panels will find the 9950X3D’s V‑Cache helping to smooth frame‑time spikes and raise minimums—things that can result in tangible improvements (smoother gameplay) in titles like fast FPS or racing sims. Intel is more than fine for a typical 60Hz–120Hz user, but AMD is the chip that can really leverage higher‑end GPUs at lower resolutions.
Platform costs, power requirements, and upgrade paths
MSRP matters. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D is priced at $699, and the Core Ultra 9 285K comes in at $589. (That $110 delta can be reinvested in a better graphics card or more memory—the wiser gaming move in many cases.) On motherboards, both platforms are DDR5‑only, providing PCIe 5.0 connectivity as well—expect premium boards to command a premium price, particularly on newer chipsets.
Cooling remains critical. Both should be used with high‑end air or 240mm‑and‑larger liquid coolers. Gameplay is traditionally helped by X3D chips reining in power draw thanks to the cache, not just clocks, because more data is kept on‑die—potentially translating to cooler and quieter gaming. Under a sustained all‑core load, Intel’s many cores will use what the cooler is capable of providing; plan accordingly.
Which CPU should you choose for gaming or creation
Opt for the Ryzen 9 9950X3D if you’re a gamer, particularly at 1080p and 1440p with a high‑refresh monitor. Its 3D V‑Cache transforms flagship GPUs into predictable frame‑rate machines that also smooth out frame‑time variance in ways you can feel.
If your day is all about heavy multi‑core production work (3D renders, giant compiles, simulation runs) and gaming’s a secondary hobby, pick the Core Ultra 9 285K. It’s usually faster in raw CPU throughput and cheaper, which provides more budget for a GPU or storage upgrade.
The expert take: both are among the best, but each is geared toward different triumphs. If you game and create, then Intel’s performance is good enough to not be left behind. For those of us who make things, AMD’s cache‑first approach means buttery frames don’t have to come at the expense of productivity. Choose where you spend your time, and the right winner is clear.
