anayman_k7 wrote3900x is not what you should get if you only want to game, Ryzen 5 3600x is the choice for that, for 250$ (including a cooler) it matches the i7 8700k that is more expensive and require more cost for a cooler
The most majority of gamers are not willing to pay 900$ for CPU / Z Mobo / WaterCoooler to be able to game at the end, AMD has won a huge amount of the market because of that. Intel is struggling even to get 10nm in the market and their price cuts shows that they are struggling in competing with AMD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0uB17Io2is
Check This Out
AMD has confirmed that Ryzen processors have a mix of fast and slow cores. Well That Sucks Again and Teach You That Riding " Hype Trains" and " Pre Release Marketing" Slides is Jeopardizing vs Actual Reality.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-turbo-boost-frequency-analysis,6253.html
In Other Terms ,
When You are you down on the boost clock of 4.6 Ghz (max on all Zen 2 Family) on the 1st Core only of the R9 3900x that already struggles to hit and downgrading clock speeds beneth the 1st core clock frequency & beyond. + You add a 25% IPC boost on Zen + vs the i9 9900k that reaches easy 5Ghz easy without IPC increase.
5Ghz on the 1st & 2nd Cores
4.8Ghz in the 3rd & 4th CoresĀ
4.7Ghz on the on 5th , 6th , 7th , and 8th Core
This balances the IPC boost & you see Coffe Lake Refreshers are still ahead on tightly threaded & lightly threaded situations.
Zen 2 should have created the major gap if it hitted 5ghz + the 25% IPC , not lower the core clocks + add IPC increase. Which indeed very disappointing for 7nm die shrink lithography
Lower Clocks + 25% IPC on par or got beaten by High clocks across all cores + 0% IPC , and on a 14nm too.