There's NO anger in my responses. None. Actually I was laughing as I wrote it, because I knew from the other article that you'd say something just like that. If you truly wanted "one" machine to game and stream on, then 3900x is it. There wasn't a single game where the 9900k beat it, really. On the close games, they were neck and neck, with NO discernible difference. On 0ther games the 3900x beat the 9900k badly. So IF you truly did want one machine to do it all, you would be happy about this. That's why I called bs on you. Because it appears you just wanted to invent a reason to complain about AMD, and belittle what is a great accomplishment to the other 99%.
That´s while streaming at the same time. Did you read what I said? I wanted a 1 PC only BUT at purely gaming 3900x still doesn´t beat Intel. It beats Intel at gaming + streaming. But that´s with already less performance than using Intel only for games.
For example:
Battlefield V with 9700k = 220fps
Battlefield V with 9700k + streaming x264 = 120fps (8c/8t completly wrecked by game + Obs)
Battlefield V with 3900x = 160fps
Battlefield V with 3900x + streaming x264 = 160fps (12 cores 24 threads, streaming do not even affect the game performance)
See what I mean? Altho 3900x completly wrecks Intel chip while streaming, it still is not as good as using the Intel chip for gaming only, thus the 1 Gaming PC + 1 Streaming PC approach still delivers more performance. And this is what I use and I would only switch to 3900x IF it could have as much fps as Intel. Becuase on that case I would still have the same performance I do right now, plus I wouldn´t need a secondary system to handle the streaming. This is what I kept saying on every AMD article on this website, not my fault you didn´t see it.