Except that in the link you posted, the 3900X still suffers at low latencies.RealReasonHead wrote: ↑13 Aug 2019Not anymore! The 3900X is at least on par and in some tests even ahead of the 9900K.EnochLight wrote: ↑13 Jul 2019To be clear, all of the Ryzen/Zen generation CPU’s work 100% fine at lower latencies. It’s just that Intel chips will offer slightly more plugins at low latencies (64 samples, etc). But the difference isn’t massive IIRC...
The 3900X has the noted performance latency still, although it seems to vary between applications and we don’t see that occurring with either the Reaper or Cubase test on the Intel side. I wouldn’t normally be happy with seeing anything drop out at 70% or 80% load but there is certainly an argument that it still offers reasonable value as even then it exceeds the 9900K which is currently sat around the same price.
Until I am thoroughly familiar with some random YouTuber’s testing methods, I’d still default to CPUbenchmark’s results. The results are industry tested and sample based from various user builds.RealReasonHead wrote: ↑13 Aug 2019cpubenchmark might not be the best website to compare CPUs for your purpose. Some tech youtubers (Steve from Gamers Nexus in particular) even say it's absolute garbage at comparing anything. CPU performance depends on a lot of variables (but mainly paired RAM and application). The single core performance of the 3000 chips is in some cases even better than the Intel's 9th gen (Cinebench scores, for example). A use case specific benchmark like the dawbench link I've linked above makes for a better comparison, imo.zagrad wrote: ↑09 Aug 2019You seem to mention Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz a lot if I've seen correctly, so I made a comparison to that one.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AM ... 3494vs3334
That said, it looks like the 3900X is still outperforming the Intel 9900K, which is pretty bad ass.