@MegaFalloutFan You forget that while intel you have to buy a z490 mobo to make full use of a k series cpu that is not the case with amd so the amd processor is cheaper as well as the mobo being way cheaper there is no comparison in cost to performance amd wins by a landslide at least where i live pls just stop with these troll comments. Intel has a great product but unfortunately the value just isn't there and there's nothing that can change that until they slash prices.

MegaFalloutFan:

As far as Prices go: Good x570 mobo + CPU will cost more then equivalent z490 + CPU or in same ballpark

You can run a Ryzen 9 3900X on a $70 B450 motherboard and have all features except PCIe Gen 4 avaiable..... Or you can use an $80 B550 motherboard and get PCIe Gen 4 as well.... Either way, you can enable XMP without voiding warranty, run memory above 2933mhz and overclock.... Things you can't do on B460, H470, Q470 or W480...... There really isn't much reason to buy x570 anymore since B550 is available. There's no real-world benefit for most users.

MegaFalloutFan:

As far as rendering goes, its not like Intel is stuck in 1990, the rendering time is in same area, but unlike Gaming where you need all the FPS you can get, waiting an extra minute or even 4 doesn't change anything, it has zero effect, its not like AMD renders 10 minutes and Intel 1 hour, the difference in most projects is seconds and minutes..

In a production environment, those minutes and seconds matter....

sykozis:

You can run a Ryzen 9 3900X on a $70 B450 motherboard and have all features except PCIe Gen 4 avaiable..... Or you can use an $80 B550 motherboard and get PCIe Gen 4 as well.... Either way, you can enable XMP without voiding warranty, run memory above 2933mhz and overclock.... Things you can't do on B460, H470, Q470 or W480...... There really isn't much reason to buy x570 anymore since B550 is available. There's no real-world benefit for most users. In a production environment, those minutes and seconds matter....

B550 boards are not 80$ but 125$ for the cheapest asus prime. Also, with most b450 boards you can forget the overclocking 3900x so that cpu will stay stock.

MegaFalloutFan:

[spoiler] [URL='https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/21.html']13 First places in FHD = Intel 11 first places in 1440p = Intel 11 first places in 4K = Intel[/URL] [/spoiler] You have nothing to be proud about, The only reason AyMD is somewhat valid for 1440p and 4K gaming is due to GPU bottlenecking, as 720p and 1080p proves, when there is no GPU bottlenecking, Intel is undeniable leader. With new Faster NVIDIA GPUs incoming, Intel lead will widen, the faster the GPU the better for Intel CPUs.

So your saying AMD is acceptable and adequate at 1440p and 4K gaming because due to GPU bottlenecking. AMD is just as good as Intel at PC gaming ,great point and I agree 100%. Or you saying people who use AMD CPU's are scumbags,that sounds more like what your actually trying to say. Are you also suggesting buy new Nvidia card when they come out and reduce your PC gaming resolution to 720p and 1080p for the best Intel/Nvidia experience. Trying to discredit people who use AMD CPU's. This is just nonsense from you and other's on forums.I personally do not agree 100% at all with you. Since I only game at 1440p and 4K and use a AMD CPU for my PC gaming,lets take a closer look at the number's posted in the links provided by you. (Sorry HH ,not trying to promote another site ,as your reviews I personally rely on for my PC gaming Needs.) Also let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ,since I am from Canada will go with CAD dollars. ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme- $999 CAD 10900K at 5.3 GHZ-$749 CAD Total- $1748 CAD Let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ ASRock X570 Taichi-$489 CAD AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ-$279 CAD Total-$768 CAD So $749 Intel CPU vs $279 AMD CPU Serious question,in reality which one would you pick for the following test below posted by you and I am sure you own INTEL/AMD machines the same as me. Intel is not the only PC gaming choice out there no matter what anyone say's,just my 2 cent's 😀 1440 game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=1364.8 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=1318.4 Intel 46.4 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 77.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 76.3 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 145.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 139.3 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 158.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 155.6 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 144.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 112.9 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 120.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 113.8 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 102.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 103.0 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 135.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 143.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 131.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 130.0 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 140.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 138.2 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 208.8 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 205.8 [/spoiler] 4K game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=816 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=805.4 Intel 10.6 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 48 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 46.8 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 92.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 90.5 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 108.2 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 110 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 82.1 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 73.7 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 71.2 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 51.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 51.9 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 83.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 80.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 69.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 68.8 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 83.9 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 121.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 119.7 [/spoiler]

Undying:

B550 boards are not 80$ but 125$ for the cheapest asus prime. Also, with most b450 boards you can forget the overclocking 3900x so that cpu will stay stock.

$79.99 https://www.newegg.com/asrock-b550m-hdv/p/N82E16813157953 $94.99 if you want something beefier https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-b550m-ds3h/p/N82E16813145210 $120.99 if you want something better https://www.newegg.com/asrock-b550-phantom-gaming-4/p/N82E16813157935 And all support up to 3950X and upcoming 4950X. Cheapest Z490 at $129.99 and not the best board if you want to overclock the 10900K/KA/KF/F/ https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157918?Item=N82E16813157918&Description=z490&cm_re=z490-_-13-157-918-_-Product&quicklink=true As for "3900x so that cpu will stay stock", shows ignorance of how AMD cpus work/overclock. All core overclock on AMD cpus is counter productive and only for those who want all core load 100% of the time. Light loads (aka gaming) better leave the CPU alone and tweak some of the settings. My 3900X was boosting on 2 cores at 4.65Ghz at stock (1 core 4.72Ghz) with the last V2 1002 AGESA bios came out for motherboard a month ago settings at 100% load (gaming) with just CPPC & Preferred Cores ON and PBO OFF with 1usmus power plan with just a D15. The rest of the cores are between 4350-4575 load depending. Same settings the 3950X now does 2 cores at 4.73Ghz and 1 at 4.8Ghz rest of cores varying. No manual overclock etc. And both CPUs operating at 3800C14 with 1900 IF.

Undying:

B550 boards are not 80$ but 125$ for the cheapest asus prime. Also, with most b450 boards you can forget the overclocking 3900x so that cpu will stay stock.

ASRock B550M-HDV is currently $79.99. I looked up the price, quite literally, minutes before posting..... ASRock B550M-HDV (currently on back-order, but listed price has been $79.99 for as long as I've been watching it) ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4 is $120.... That's $15 cheaper than the cheapest Asus Prime B550 board Asus Prime B550M-A/CSM is currently $135....and it's the cheapest listed Asus board. When I quote prices, I've actually verified the prices I'm quoting within a few minutes of posting.....

Does the KA stand for Kick A$$? Next we have Intel KMS edition. 😉

I'm expecting the Intel BLM edition to drop any day now.

sykozis:

You can run a Ryzen 9 3900X on a $70 B450 motherboard and have all features except PCIe Gen 4 avaiable..... Or you can use an $80 B550 motherboard and get PCIe Gen 4 as well.... Either way, you can enable XMP without voiding warranty, run memory above 2933mhz and overclock.... Things you can't do on B460, H470, Q470 or W480...... There really isn't much reason to buy x570 anymore since B550 is available. There's no real-world benefit for most users. In a production environment, those minutes and seconds matter....

Yes you can, with low memory clock and dont hitting the boost clock losing to i5 10600 Ryzen 3000 have a good gains when running at 1:1 if clock and you need a x570 chipset to hit that

icedman:

@MegaFalloutFan You forget that while intel you have to buy a z490 mobo to make full use of a k series cpu that is not the case with amd so the amd processor is cheaper as well as the mobo being way cheaper there is no comparison in cost to performance amd wins by a landslide at least where i live pls just stop with these troll comments. Intel has a great product but unfortunately the value just isn't there and there's nothing that can change that until they slash prices.

This is the excuse that I always hear, telling me to buy an ancient B450/X470 mobo that stuck with PCIe gen 2.0 from the chipset and has very few features, this is not a solution. Ryzen doesn't really overclock, and Intel is faster in video games even on NON-K CPUs, so you dont need a Z, you can do with H or B and still beat Ryzen Based on the benchmarks I posted by that respectable site, not wcctech mind you, a simple 10400F [NON-K] is faster then all Ryzen CPUs in all resolutions, 1440p and 4K including, faster then 3900X. Actually even simple Intel 10300 was faster then all Ryzen CPUs in 1440p and even cheapo Intel 10100 was faster then ALL Ryzen CPUs in 4K. So here you go, need 6 cores? Get 10400F + H or B mobo, you have PCIe Gen 3.0 from CPU AND motherboard [unlike B450 and X470] and you beat Ryzen in video games. Have a hobby and compress movies? Anime? Pron? Get 10400K + H or B and you have QuickSync encoder that beats even 10/12 core CPU encoding. In case you want good modern build, say 10700K+z490 or Ryzen 3800XT + X570, the X570 will be more expensive, you also forced to buy more expensive RAM and for what? To have Less FPS in games, why? Whats the point? I can completely Understand buying 3950x and above for WORK, yes that logical, but when you buying home PC and compare performance in games, then Ryzen not only slower but lacks iGPU, which is has QuickSync and can compress media faster then CPU can So Ryzen loses its advantage even here, and the most important is that Intels Chipsets and motherboards RARELY have any issues and bugs like AMD do, people alsways have issues with AMD drivers, chips, SATA controllers, USB and so on, especially on non x570 mobos where everything made by Assmedia. People always try to avoid using Assmedia SATA controllers and Assmedia USB if their mobos have any, they slow, bugy and outright bad and here you have a full motherboard made by them, Assmedia SATA, Assmedia USB, Assmedia PCIe.

sykozis:

ASRock B550M-HDV is currently $79.99. I looked up the price, quite literally, minutes before posting..... ASRock B550M-HDV (currently on back-order, but listed price has been $79.99 for as long as I've been watching it) ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4 is $120.... That's $15 cheaper than the cheapest Asus Prime B550 board Asus Prime B550M-A/CSM is currently $135....and it's the cheapest listed Asus board. When I quote prices, I've actually verified the prices I'm quoting within a few minutes of posting.....

Sorry thats honestly Trash level hardware, both sides have it BTW, not just AMD and quoting the cheapest possible hardware is not honest, thats just for people looking to buy the bare minimum, most people come here to Guru love hardware and I assume build at least middle to high level builds. Me personally, I needed a mobo for home NAS [unRAID] the minimum I allowed myself to go is ROG STRIX Z490-H GAMING, which is among the best [feature-wise] home server boards and BTW building a home server I considered Ryzen, yet it lost to Intel due to being near twice more expensive and more then twice power hungry. I dont need a GPU for my NAS, my 10700K is all I need, but if you go the Ryzen route, you either stuck with Quad core APU or spending on GPU, which not always possible due to PCIE availability in the server that used for SAS and 10G networking cards

gerardfraser:

So your saying AMD is acceptable and adequate at 1440p and 4K gaming because due to GPU bottlenecking. AMD is just as good as Intel at PC gaming ,great point and I agree 100%. Or you saying people who use AMD CPU's are scumbags,that sounds more like what your actually trying to say. Are you also suggesting buy new Nvidia card when they come out and reduce your PC gaming resolution to 720p and 1080p for the best Intel/Nvidia experience. Trying to discredit people who use AMD CPU's. This is just nonsense from you and other's on forums.I personally do not agree 100% at all with you. Since I only game at 1440p and 4K and use a AMD CPU for my PC gaming,lets take a closer look at the number's posted in the links provided by you. (Sorry HH ,not trying to promote another site ,as your reviews I personally rely on for my PC gaming Needs.) Also let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ,since I am from Canada will go with CAD dollars. ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme- $999 CAD 10900K at 5.3 GHZ-$749 CAD Total- $1748 CAD Let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ ASRock X570 Taichi-$489 CAD AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ-$279 CAD Total-$768 CAD So $749 Intel CPU vs $279 AMD CPU Serious question,in reality which one would you pick for the following test below posted by you and I am sure you own INTEL/AMD machines the same as me. Intel is not the only PC gaming choice out there no matter what anyone say's,just my 2 cent's 😀 1440 game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=1364.8 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=1318.4 Intel 46.4 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 77.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 76.3 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 145.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 139.3 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 158.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 155.6 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 144.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 112.9 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 120.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 113.8 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 102.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 103.0 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 135.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 143.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 131.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 130.0 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 140.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 138.2 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 208.8 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 205.8 [/spoiler] 4K game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=816 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=805.4 Intel 10.6 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 48 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 46.8 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 92.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 90.5 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 108.2 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 110 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 82.1 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 73.7 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 71.2 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 51.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 51.9 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 83.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 80.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 69.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 68.8 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 83.9 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 121.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 119.7 [/spoiler]

Is this post a joke? You pick up the most expensive Intel parts vs. trash level ryzen. OK, lets do it your way, now we will take a trash level cheapo Intel i3-10300 vs Ryzen 3900x in 1400p and 4K Measured as % slower then 10700 non K Stock. 1440p Intel 10300 = 96.9% vs Ryzen 3900x 96.4% 4K Intel 10300 = 99.7% vs Ryzen 3900x 98.5% You dont need to pick anything that benchmark already sorted everything, if you want to beat ALL Ryzen CPUs in 4K gaming, you can buy as low as i3-10100 > i3-10300 > i5-10400F > i5-10600K > i7-10700 > i7-10700K > i9-10900 All of these were faster in 4K benchmarks based on totals, so whats your point? You can have a nice 6C/12T build from Intel 10400F + any mobo you want, even cheap B or H and it will outperform Ryzen 3900x + 700$ x570 mobo in video games, be it in 1440p or 4K Also that benchmark wasn't about 10900K, it was about 10700 [non K] and showing that this CPU with slight power "overclocking" [Unlocking constant boost, its a 65W CPU] can perform better then stock 10700K and 10900K in video games That whats the article was about.

gerardfraser:

So your saying AMD is acceptable and adequate at 1440p and 4K gaming because due to GPU bottlenecking. AMD is just as good as Intel at PC gaming ,great point and I agree 100%. Or you saying people who use AMD CPU's are scumbags,that sounds more like what your actually trying to say. Are you also suggesting buy new Nvidia card when they come out and reduce your PC gaming resolution to 720p and 1080p for the best Intel/Nvidia experience. Trying to discredit people who use AMD CPU's. This is just nonsense from you and other's on forums.I personally do not agree 100% at all with you. Since I only game at 1440p and 4K and use a AMD CPU for my PC gaming,lets take a closer look at the number's posted in the links provided by you. (Sorry HH ,not trying to promote another site ,as your reviews I personally rely on for my PC gaming Needs.) Also let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ,since I am from Canada will go with CAD dollars. ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme- $999 CAD 10900K at 5.3 GHZ-$749 CAD Total- $1748 CAD Let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ ASRock X570 Taichi-$489 CAD AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ-$279 CAD Total-$768 CAD So $749 Intel CPU vs $279 AMD CPU Serious question,in reality which one would you pick for the following test below posted by you and I am sure you own INTEL/AMD machines the same as me. Intel is not the only PC gaming choice out there no matter what anyone say's,just my 2 cent's 😀 1440 game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=1364.8 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=1318.4 Intel 46.4 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 77.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 76.3 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 145.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 139.3 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 158.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 155.6 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 144.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 112.9 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 120.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 113.8 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 102.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 103.0 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 135.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 143.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 131.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 130.0 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 140.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 138.2 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 208.8 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 205.8 [/spoiler] 4K game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=816 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=805.4 Intel 10.6 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 48 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 46.8 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 92.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 90.5 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 108.2 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 110 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 82.1 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 73.7 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 71.2 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 51.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 51.9 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 83.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 80.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 69.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 68.8 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 83.9 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 121.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 119.7 [/spoiler]

gerardfraser:

So your saying AMD is acceptable and adequate at 1440p and 4K gaming because due to GPU bottlenecking. AMD is just as good as Intel at PC gaming ,great point and I agree 100%. Or you saying people who use AMD CPU's are scumbags,that sounds more like what your actually trying to say. Are you also suggesting buy new Nvidia card when they come out and reduce your PC gaming resolution to 720p and 1080p for the best Intel/Nvidia experience. Trying to discredit people who use AMD CPU's. This is just nonsense from you and other's on forums.I personally do not agree 100% at all with you. Since I only game at 1440p and 4K and use a AMD CPU for my PC gaming,lets take a closer look at the number's posted in the links provided by you. (Sorry HH ,not trying to promote another site ,as your reviews I personally rely on for my PC gaming Needs.) Also let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ,since I am from Canada will go with CAD dollars. ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme- $999 CAD 10900K at 5.3 GHZ-$749 CAD Total- $1748 CAD Let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ ASRock X570 Taichi-$489 CAD AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ-$279 CAD Total-$768 CAD So $749 Intel CPU vs $279 AMD CPU Serious question,in reality which one would you pick for the following test below posted by you and I am sure you own INTEL/AMD machines the same as me. Intel is not the only PC gaming choice out there no matter what anyone say's,just my 2 cent's 😀 1440 game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=1364.8 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=1318.4 Intel 46.4 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 77.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 76.3 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 145.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 139.3 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 158.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 155.6 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 144.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 112.9 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 120.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 113.8 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 102.9 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 103.0 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 135.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 143.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 131.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 130.0 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 140.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 138.2 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 208.8 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 205.8 [/spoiler] 4K game in posted links. Intel Total Frames at 1440P=816 AMD Total Frames at 1440P=805.4 Intel 10.6 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested. [spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler][/spoiler][spoiler] AC Odyssey Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 48 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 46.8 BF5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 92.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 90.5 Civilization VI Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 108.2 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 110 Far Cry 5 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 82.1 Metro Exdous Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 73.7 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 71.2 Rage 2 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 51.6 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 51.9 Sekiro Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 83.3 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 80.5 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 69.1 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 68.8 The Witcher 3 Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.5 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 83.9 Wolfenstein II Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 121.0 AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 119.7 [/spoiler]

Why are you pairing the 10900K with one of the most expensive motherboards on the market? There are Z490 boards for $200 USD like the Z490 Tomahawk that perform just as well as that $750 USD Maximus XII Extreme. And are those numbers coming from an overclocked 10900K? The all core turbo on a 10900K is 4.8 GHz, not 5.3 GHz unless overclocked. 5.3 GHz would definitely be pushing higher frames than that. Then that's not even mentioning that the 10600K overclocked can match the performance of a stock 10900K in gaming for almost half the price.

K.S.:

@MegaFalloutFan still curious to know what an "AyMD" is.... 😛 - Written on my Intel Core i5-7Y57 vPro, "built for 4K" ah' 😎:D 🙄 "Now now Timmy, be a good boy & behave" you know we'll release the BBW edition when we're good & ready 😕

Timmy!

MegaFalloutFan:

You started it.

Perhaps but I am a PC gamer and yeah I don't really give a frack about Intel's new line up. It has nothing to do with speed, power usage or those 5 extra FPS for an extra £100bucks it comes down to the reality that AMD killed it when they needed to. I bought in to their hardware when I was looking to upgrade (3700x), as I imagine a fair few did and it doesn't matter what Intel does now they aren't doing anything that is significant enough to make someone who invested in Ryzen hardware turn round and dump it in favour of buying in to one of Intel's CPUs. All Intel are doing is tiny iterative updates to try and keep them on par / relevant. Besides IF pure performance is the thing PC gamers are looking as you claim, then gamers aren't going to give a frack as they've released a variation of their CPUs that are slightly slower for an even slightly lesser price.

Popcorn for this thread 😀

Tres Waters:

Why are you pairing the 10900K with one of the most expensive motherboards on the market? There are Z490 boards for $200 USD like the Z490 Tomahawk that perform just as well as that $750 USD Maximus XII Extreme. And are those numbers coming from an overclocked 10900K? The all core turbo on a 10900K is 4.8 GHz, not 5.3 GHz unless overclocked. 5.3 GHz would definitely be pushing higher frames than that. Then that's not even mentioning that the 10600K overclocked can match the performance of a stock 10900K in gaming for almost half the price.

DId you read the post,no you did not.

MegaFalloutFan:

You started it. AMD is not cheaper vs. Intel its a myth, and same goes for temps and power usage. They dont like it here when people post links to otehr tech web site for some reason, but there are enough tests, even here on Guru3D 10700K review, all of them except 10900K are on par with AMD in temps and power usage. As far as Prices go: Good x570 mobo + CPU will cost more then equivalent z490 + CPU or in same ballpark I posted links to Techpowerup's aggregated benchmarks, Intel is not faster just in FHD, but first 11 places in 1440p and 4K also belongs to Intel. As far as rendering goes, its not like Intel is stuck in 1990, the rendering time is in same area, but unlike Gaming where you need all the FPS you can get, waiting an extra minute or even 4 doesn't change anything, it has zero effect, its not like AMD renders 10 minutes and Intel 1 hour, the difference in most projects is seconds and minutes. https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_10700k_processor_review,5.html 9900K has better power usage then 3800XT, 2700X, 3950X 3900X and 3900XT If you look at that link, only 10900K has high power usage, all otehr intels are head to head or better then Ryzens and Temps come from power usage. Also, you love to ignore the fact that Ryzens dont clock as high as Intel, so of course an all core 4Ghz CPU will have lower temps vs. 4.8+ all core turbo CPU. Lets see Ryzens Temp when it actually manages to do all core 5Ghz.

1st, check what thermal density means. Then check what kind of cooling is efficient for monolithic die intel uses and what is efficient for Zen 2 chiplet based CPUs. Then reiterate about power draw which you tend to extrapolate from temperature which has such a poor correlation between 2 completely different CPU manufacturing processes. If you fail horribly, just compare 2 available numbers from very link you posted: 3900x system has some 15% higher MT power draw than 9900K. 3900x system has some 45% higher MT performance than 9900K. If it still does not click, remember fact that 3900X system actually came cheaper than 9900K system.

The Laughing Ma:

Perhaps but I am a PC gamer and yeah I don't really give a frack about Intel's new line up. It has nothing to do with speed, power usage or those 5 extra FPS for an extra £100bucks it comes down to the reality that AMD killed it when they needed to. I bought in to their hardware when I was looking to upgrade (3700x), as I imagine a fair few did and it doesn't matter what Intel does now they aren't doing anything that is significant enough to make someone who invested in Ryzen hardware turn round and dump it in favour of buying in to one of Intel's CPUs. All Intel are doing is tiny iterative updates to try and keep them on par / relevant. Besides IF pure performance is the thing PC gamers are looking as you claim, then gamers aren't going to give a frack as they've released a variation of their CPUs that are slightly slower for an even slightly lesser price.

Again with the more expensive Intel, it isnt and as far as old or new, it doesn't matter, what matters is the result, I dont care how my CPUs made, what I care about is how they perform and how good the tech support is and driver quality and lack of bugs. Before X570 and TRsx there wont be even micro chance of me buying Ryzen, due to assmedia doing the chipsets and everything else, thats the worst there is. When you build a PC you invest in the whole package and so far Intels hardware is ironed up, zero issues with SATA, USB and so on, unlike AMD that has either driver issues or hardware issues and lets 3rd parties known to be one of the worst to develop the chipsets for them.

Fox2232:

1st, check what thermal density means. Then check what kind of cooling is efficient for monolithic die intel uses and what is efficient for Zen 2 chiplet based CPUs. Then reiterate about power draw which you tend to extrapolate from temperature which has such a poor correlation between 2 completely different CPU manufacturing processes. If you fail horribly, just compare 2 available numbers from very link you posted: 3900x system has some 15% higher MT power draw than 9900K. 3900x system has some 45% higher MT performance than 9900K. If it still does not click, remember fact that 3900X system actually came cheaper than 9900K system.

Our discussion is about gaming, so None of this is even remotely relevant, there is no need to complicate it and stop picking up the most expensive Intel CPUs when even the cheap ones beat the most expensive Ryzens in Gaming. You are being dishonest, thats not how you compare electronics: to compare two brands you need to pick the cheapest part that can beat the more expensive part of the otehr brand and thats called $$$ Value. Whats relevant are the actual numbers: 10400F is faster then 3900x in both 1440 and 4K? Yes [BTW if it beats 3900x in gaming it for sure beats 3950x in gaming too] 10400F power usage under gaming is 365W and 3900x is 385W. [R3600 = 368W, R3600X = 372W, so even these cheaper CPUs also use more power under gaming while performing worse] 10400F wins in gaming performance and wins in power usage even vs 3600, case closed. Also, irrelevant but should be said, 10400 non F will have iGPU and will win in video encoding too using QuickSync and provide free iGPU, so you never stuck with dead PC even if your GPU shipped for repair Its not that complicated and thats what regualr people are looking at, just like I mentioned earlier, someone that uses his PC to game and entertainment, he doesn't care how his CPU is made or how old the technology is, the final result matters, is it faster? Yes or No? Power usage? [this part is actually not important for most people, for me its outright something I never cared about, im not living on generators, we have stable electricity where im from and im sure you do to] Thats it. P.S. If you interested in production scenario, its COMPLETELY different discussion and I wont say that Intel is better, because it isn't, BUT only if you buy the GOOD Ryzen parts, and avoid assmedia outright: x570 or TRX40 If I send you a picture of what im building [mainly just because and for gaming really] youll be extremely surprised. My 10700K + ROG STRIX Z490-H GAMING will be used for NAS, right now they my PC untill im done with my main build and they fine, zero issues, before that I had 10700 which was ok, but getting the K version was just small extra so why not, and before that i had 9600K for 3 months which sucked and 9900K for a year which was amazing and 8700K which was great too. My First CPU was P100mmx and Intel been good for me ever since, I had AMD bunch of times and gave them chances, yet they always disspaointed me, even when their CPU were faster then Intel [during P4], their SATA and USB parts were broken and if you look at benchmarks from that era, Intels sata was outright faster and thats with HDD connected to it.

K.S.:

I want to know what AyMD s is all about. It's starting to make me cringe & squint.

Its a meem, they even created a reddit for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/ Ay from ouch, burns, so you got AMD and got burned, it was especially relevant during Phenom

I commend some of you for trying to talk some sense to this ........ but the fact is, you shouldn't feed the troll. It won't stop. If you've read some of the other threads and responses, this has been done many times for this bloke. It is futile to continue. I guess at the very least if someone else comes along and reads this, maybe they will have better reading comprehension skills.

MegaFalloutFan:

Again with the more expensive Intel

Yes more expensive, 8 core 16 thread over 50quid more. When I purchased my 3700x all Intel had then was the 9700K with 8 cores and 8 threads or the 9900k if I wanted 8 cores with 16 threads and the price difference was nearly 100quid and 150quid more respectively for a chip that at the time was being hammered for having security flaw after security flaw while also having a higher TDP and the only benefit for someone gaming at 1080p was upwards of 10FPS in games that were at minimum cranking out over 100FPS anyway, while the AMD chips was killing the 9900K at just about every other multi-tasking job.