I have no idea why you think comparing core for core, thread for thread is more important. You are very definitely the outlier here. Most people on this forum compare price for price: 3900X against 9900K.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.
No. The 9900K doesn't "about match them in all". It is 20% slower across most applications than a 3800X, which is $85 cheaper.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.
Again, you are speaking in absolutes. To you an 8% FPS difference is massive. The biggest variance in this test was 15 FPS, and I would bet a $1000 that you couldn't reliably tell the difference in a blind test between the Intel 177 FPS vs the AMD 162FPS in Metro Exodus, mainly because I'm betting you haven't upgraded to a 240Hz monitor yet. I still don't think you could tell the difference even on a 240Hz monitor.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.