Ryzen 5 2600X vs Ryzen 9 3900

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 3900
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
19.39
+121%
Ryzen 5 2600X
2018
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
8.76

Ryzen 9 3900 outperforms Ryzen 5 2600X by a whopping 121% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking289863
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.989.21
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Matisse (Ryzen 3000 Desktop)AMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency28.238.73
Architecture codenameMatisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date24 September 2019 (5 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900 has 117% better value for money than Ryzen 5 2600X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores12 (Dodeca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads2412
Base clock speed3.1 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz4.25 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data36
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache64 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 12 nm12 nm
Die size2x 74 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors7,600 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, Precision Boost 2SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/A-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X.

PCIe version4.03.0
PCI Express lanes2420

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen 9 3900 19.39
+121%
Ryzen 5 2600X 8.76

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Ryzen 9 3900 30802
+121%
Ryzen 5 2600X 13908

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Ryzen 9 3900 1680
+34.6%
Ryzen 5 2600X 1248

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Ryzen 9 3900 9557
+80.7%
Ryzen 5 2600X 5288

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Ryzen 9 3900 5700
+15%
Ryzen 5 2600X 4958

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Ryzen 9 3900 44191
+47.5%
Ryzen 5 2600X 29954

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Ryzen 9 3900 31
+113%
Ryzen 5 2600X 15

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 9 3900 2804
+109%
Ryzen 5 2600X 1341

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 9 3900 197
+20.9%
Ryzen 5 2600X 163

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 9 3900 2.22
+22.7%
Ryzen 5 2600X 1.81

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 9 3900 10.4
+30%
Ryzen 5 2600X 8

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 9 3900 132
+63.9%
Ryzen 5 2600X 81

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 9 3900 256
+23.2%
Ryzen 5 2600X 207

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 9 3900 7145
+55.4%
Ryzen 5 2600X 4599

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 9 3900 10190
+67.2%
Ryzen 5 2600X 6094

Blender(-)

Ryzen 9 3900 179
Ryzen 5 2600X 352
+96.6%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 9 3900 1246
+8.9%
Ryzen 5 2600X 1145

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 9 3900 5134
+19.6%
Ryzen 5 2600X 4293

7-Zip

Ryzen 9 3900 75612
+128%
Ryzen 5 2600X 33222

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 9 3900 227
+22%
Ryzen 5 2600X 186

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.39 8.76
Recency 24 September 2019 19 April 2018
Physical cores 12 6
Threads 24 12
Chip lithography 7 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 95 Watt

Ryzen 9 3900 has a 121.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 9 3900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 2600X in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 2600X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 9 3900
Ryzen 9 3900
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Ryzen 5 2600X

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 623 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 2318 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2600X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 9 3900 or Ryzen 5 2600X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.