Gaming performance is best in the market, no doubt about that. I am surprised how many MT tasks the 10900k loses to the 3900X though. I would have thought 10c @ 5 GHz would be enough to push through 12c @ 3.9 GHz, but I guess not.
So we have a CPU that's "competitive" with the closest equivalent AMD chip, draws nearly twice the power, and is on store shelves nearly a year later. Yikes.
Seems like a tough sell for Intel. No pcie 4.0, and shady support for it in the future with Z490. Very high power consumption requiring expensive cooling for high clocks (5ghz+).
But hey, if you play at low resolutions and need 450fps instead of 420fps, don't care about cooling costs and power consumption or pcie 4.0 and don't think Zen 3 is going to crush these into the ground, it is a thing. These are not going to stop AMD's current dominance that is for sure.
The 10900k seems as irresponsible as that infamous 5Ghz FX chip from AMD. Yes, its fast but the power usage double its competition... This is why CPUs stay below 4.5ghz. As overclockers could have told them over and over, the power requirement to get over 4.5ghz per 0.1ghz is exponential. Physics don't change because the company's name is Intel.