You keep going to the price argument and applying it unfairly (which is what got you labelled as a Fanboi, IMO). You wanted the 3800X ($380 (Amazon)) to be compared against the 9900K ($465 (Amazon)), when it is priced similar to the 9700K ($400 (Amazon)). The 3900X is priced against the 9900K.
The 9700K will whoop its a$$ in games too.
That was a 8/16 vs 8/16 comparison to show that, even while the 9900K costs a little more, it makes up for it by whooping the 3700X and 3800X in games although they have the same core/thread count.
And the person who called me a fanboy is obviously a clown, no one cares what people like that have to say.
I never said Ryzen wasn't a good buy, or very impressive.
It's just average when it comes to gaming, and it takes AMD's absolute best, more expensive chip to hang with Intel's 4th or 5th best gaming CPU when talking gaming.
Sorry this bothers you, its the truth, so tough sh!t.
The whimpering is annoying, deal with it.
As per a previous TechSpot review the 3900X is 6% slower than the 9900K (1080p Gaming) and they are the same price. The 3900X is faster at EVERYTHING else. The difference in gaming performance narrows even further when you go to 1440p, which is what people with $400+ CPUs will be using.
The 3900X is a $500-600 CPU that loses to a $350 CPU in gaming.
Who cares about everything else? Nobody.
The market share tipped a little bit, but people I speak to, which are mostly gamers, are quite happy with their Intel's and don't plan on jumping ship.
Ryzen is great, but not that great and worse/below average in gaming performance.
The $350 9700K is matching/beating AMD's best effort in that costs 3-4 times more.
More importantly, the 9900K is slower than the 3900X while gaming and streaming simultaneously.
First I have heard of this.
You don't seem to realise that you are saying this on a 9900KS article . . . the 9900KS already MCEs to 5GHz . . . most people are silicon max'ed at 5.1GHz . . . that's 100MHz of overclock potential!!!
5.1GHz is not the limit, many folks are running 8700K, 9700K's and 9900K's @ 5.2/5.3GHz.
Finally, you are flat out wrong when you say "NOBODY" cares about file compression performance. .
Okay not everyone, just by far the majority.
Ryzen is a great bargain, but for gaming, its below average and to be perfectly honest, not that impressive when you compare them core for core, thread for thread, like comparing the 3700X/3800X to a 9900K.
Even in non gaming benchmarks the 9900K bests the 3700K/3800K in a few tests, about matches them in all, and SMOKES THIER COOKIES in gaming benchmarks.
If your a gamer, its worth the extra $60.
Techspot had trouble admitting it, but for raw gaming performance they came through and gave the 9900K its due.
The 9700K is not far behind.
A 6-8% average is massive.
Yes in some games, that means only a 5PS difference, in others its 18FPS.