Atom C3858 vs i9-9900KF

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-9900KF
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 95 Watt
11.50
+289%
Atom C3858
2017
12 cores / 12 threads, 25 Watt
2.96

Core i9-9900KF outperforms Atom C3858 by a whopping 289% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking6751642
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.410.96
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i9Intel Atom
Power efficiency11.4611.21
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Goldmont (2016−2017)
Release date8 January 2019 (5 years ago)15 August 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$488$332

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i9-9900KF has 776% better value for money than Atom C3858.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads1612
Base clock speed3.6 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed5 GHz2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data20
L1 cache64K (per core)672 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)12 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)12 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °C83 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151FCBGA1310
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssistno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Key++
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® ME-
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4: 2400
Maximum memory size128 GB256 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858.

PCIe version3.03
PCI Express lanes1616
USB revisionno data3
Total number of SATA portsno data16
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data16
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data4x10/2.5/1 GBE

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.

i9-9900KF 11.50
+289%
Atom C3858 2.96

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.

i9-9900KF 18261
+288%
Atom C3858 4707

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.50 2.96
Recency 8 January 2019 15 August 2017
Physical cores 8 12
Threads 16 12
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 25 Watt

i9-9900KF has a 288.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 33.3% more threads.

Atom C3858, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores, and 280% lower power consumption.

The Core i9-9900KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3858 in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-9900KF is a desktop processor while Atom C3858 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-9900KF and Atom C3858, 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.


Intel Core i9-9900KF
Core i9-9900KF
Intel Atom C3858
Atom C3858

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.


3.8 505 votes

Rate Core i9-9900KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Atom C3858 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-9900KF or Atom C3858, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.