AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

[nightgloom85]

I don't know why so many sites insist on listing the MSRP as the value definition when its clearly not the street price for the items at all.
Show me where you can get an i9-9900K for 488$ 😛

Ryzen 7 2700X on the other hand is actually going for lower than the listed MSRP here.

Its really hard for me to see how the value in this article can be a TIE if you manufacture in all the other costs you have to consider right now if you're buying Intel.

I used to like coming to Toms for good information but lately many of the articles seem pretty half-assed and not thought through...its not only Toms though, many other sites also review the i9-9900K with the MSRP while its clearly not the truth...

 

[Peter Martin]

Well. I need many cores and many threads. Ht is a joke. AMD all the way fo me

 

[emeralds1000000]

The funny thing about this bs comparison is that almost all the readers agree it is BS lol...

Intel is losing.

 

[average joe]

I have an ivy bridge era I7 that runs @ 3.3ghz and a 970 card. I recently bought a ryzen 3 g2200 on a lark with 50 dollar motherboard. I cannot really tell the difference and if I drop 970 in it its framerates are a bit higher due to being faster base clock. this benchmark shows that single core frequency is still king of gaming. the I9 wins because it has two core single boost. Allegedly, with DX12 and Windows 10 multicore performance is supposed to replace single core turbo in the future. So far it hasn't been true but if so than AMD might be the better bang for the buck long term value while intel will always be faster but not quite as good a value. Plus historically AMD lets you reuse your motherboard a couple times between socket changes.

 

[richardvday]

Other than some chastisement from a moderator (where he still did not actually comment on the veracity of the article) Toms has not responded to this articles seemingly clear bias in any way that I have seen.
Are all of these people wrong and you are the only one that is right ? Clearly that is not the case here. Waiting....

I see a lot of comments that don't accurately reflect the content of the article. There are a lot of mentions of 9900K vs. the 2700X, but perhaps we should go back and revisit what we actually said about the 9900K and the 2700X:

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

Ryzen 7 2700X remains a formidable option for heavily-threaded workloads, such as rendering and encoding. Intel’s i7-9700K ($374/£336.04) is faster at single-threaded tasks and gaming, but it will cost you an extra $50 to $60 for the extra performance that the i7 has to offer--and you'll need to bring your own cooler. If you primarily work with Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite or other photo editing software, the Core i7-9700K would be a good purchase, as it outpaces the Ryzen 7 2700X by a significant margin in those tasks.

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

Gaming:

In our tests, Intel’s 9th Generation offerings routinely outpaced our Ryzen 7 2700X. But keep in mind Intel's gaming advantage is most prominent at lower resolutions like 1080p. Once you start stepping above that, graphics tends to be more of a bottleneck, evening out performance. And once you get to 4K, performance is pretty much even between comparable AMD and Intel chips.

Also, perhaps we should rehash what the article says about pricing for the 9th gen processors:

If Intel's new chips remain at their current high prices and AMD continues to offer its chips below their launch prices--and particularly if that divide increases rather than decreases--that could tip the balance back in AMD's favor--particularly for those who place more importance on build budgets rather than absolute performance regardless of cost.

Now, I know as well as you do that it is kinda silly just to copy/paste what is written in the article already, but it seems that a few of us haven't bothered to read the content.

I DID read the article. I have been coming here since Tom still owned this joint and sometimes there is perceived bias towards one vendor or the other but lately there have been some REALLY egregious cases of bias seemingly.
You can point to this line or that paragraph to argue about it but the SUMMATION or the real message from this article is dont buy AMD buy Intel. Just read all of these comments. Your readers are speaking to you.

 

[dribblextx]

I'm gonna leave this right here. As this article wont let me leave a poop emoji.
principled technologies

 

[vMax]

The answer is simple...Whatever you can afford. Both CPU's are really good and at there respective price points provide choice. If you are looking for the best bang for buck, then the 2700X is a no brainer, however if you just want the outright best performance, then the 9900K is without match...There is no wrong decision as whatever choice the buyer makes, it's the right choice for him or her...

 

[vMax]

The funny thing about this bs comparison is that almost all the readers agree it is BS lol...

Intel is losing.

The bias and FUD is simply breathtaking...let's take the 'Intel is losing' comment. Intel just released there Q4 results:

Record fourth-quarter revenue was $17.1 billion and record full-year revenue was $62.8 billion.

I hope you can understand what 'record' results actually mean...

I am not one to favour one company over another, just whatever tech suits my specific budget for my use case, and in this scenario around CPU's, I have gone from Intel, to AMD and back to Intel. I am more than happy AMD have returned with a great set of CPU products with Ryzen and Threadripper once again bringing much needed competition to this market...lest we forget that sad state of affairs for the last 7 odd years with Bulldozer and Piledriver which certainly was not Intel's fault...Lets also give them a pass for stating that Vega would blow everything out of the water only for it to beaten badly by Nvidia...Thus the sad state of affairs in the GPU market...But these are business and I think a lot of people, especially us so called enthusiasts who seem to live in a blinding bubble can't seem to understand the concept of business and seem to think these companies are either really good or really evil which of course is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny anymore......

Those that buy the 9900K are not, I repeat not making a bad decision, just a buying decision that they are happy with (and there is nothing wrong with that) and as to so called value for money and the higher cost of the 9900K, why do people buy better cars, watches, fridges, sneakers etc. etc...ad infinitum...It is because we have a choice...funny thing that choice or would you prefer Intel die of and we have only one CPU manufacturer!

Rapping this around the Tom's article which only stated the truth!!! The 9900K is the best in it's class for both gaming and productivity and yes it costs double that of the 2700X...so! That does not make the 2700X less of a processor and in fact for the value argument, of course it makes the 2700X the better buy..the 2700X is a great CPU for the money...

 

[redgarl]

Without addressing this specific article, in our (Moderators') experience, no matter which way an article seems to be (or may actually be) biased, someone is going to accuse the writer, or the site in general, of a general bias, or even being some kind of shill. This is not at all useful. If half the vendors were paying half of us half the money some people seem to think, we'd all be able to retire rich. I've never known a "rich" tech writer, and the Moderators are unpaid volunteers who like tech and helping people get better at it.
Please consider each article for the data it presents. Add what you find valuable to your "personal index" of information, and discard the rest. Insults aren't necessary, and accusations of outright dishonesty tend to enrage (some more than others; some have a lot more pull than Moderators). Thanks.

As to the article, I recall what another writer said about graphics cards a few years ago, "There are no longer any bad graphics cards, only bad prices." Imho, whatever you are doing, Intel and AMD both make CPUs that can do that. Whichever you choose, you're not likely to fall flat on your face. Pay more than you had to, yes; make sacrifices in some other part of the build, maybe; end up with a dud? Highly unlikely. Any really bad combinations will be called out if you start a build thread in the forums to ask your questions.

I am sorry, but what toms did, if it was Project Management, was defining the requirements for the win. They cherrypick the aspect they wanted so Intel could win because they wanted Intel to win. In reality, the 9900k is a joke. It got the worst value, the worst power consumption, the worst thermal and tie in gaming performances at 1440p and above.

There is no way to justify that price for 10-15% of performances in games. If productivity is the matter, at that price you go HEDT with TR.

Basically, Toms was shopping for an Intel wins, and we get a debatable article that should be labeled as OPINION.

This is as low as the Just Buy it and the Principled Technologies fiasco.

 

[redgarl]

How many computer owners read articles such as these, appreciate the intricate details of this article, comb through and compare its benchmarks, and game at 1080P?

A lot still game at 1080P however 1080P is still the best to see a CPU performance. Once you move beyond that you start to hit a GPU bottleneck.

fake price I9-9900K in Poland cost 900$ the Ryzen 2700X 329$ so sure AMD ryzen most win

Its not a fake price. MSRP is MSRP. What retailers set pricing at is not MSRP but price gouging.

Q. Is GPU bottleneck a real Use Case?
A. Yes it is.
Q. Is GPU bottleneck a common thing?
A. Yes it is for 95% of the people if not more.
Q. Why are reviewer still only concentrating on CPU bottleneck?
A. Because they are disconnected from the reality of Joe Blow. Yeah the CPU is better at gaming at low resolution and low settings, but you will never use it THIS WAY!!
Q. How much cost a 9900k in store?
A. 580$ in USA, and way more everywhere else.

Seriously, the only way to be CPU bottleneck is with more than 1000$ of hardware at 1080p.

CPU bottleneck is greatly overrated in today's reality.

 

[redgarl]

How many computer owners read articles such as these, appreciate the intricate details of this article, comb through and compare its benchmarks, and game at 1080P?

A lot still game at 1080P however 1080P is still the best to see a CPU performance. Once you move beyond that you start to hit a GPU bottleneck.

fake price I9-9900K in Poland cost 900$ the Ryzen 2700X 329$ so sure AMD ryzen most win

Its not a fake price. MSRP is MSRP. What retailers set pricing at is not MSRP but price gouging.

1. Yes, I remember read an article from digital trends (if correct) that around 76% gamers on steam are gaming in 1080p or lower resolution.

2. The i9-9900k MSRP is for 1K unit, it's not the "real" MSRP.

1. However they don't host 1080 GTX and above for GPU... so they are still GPU bottleneck at 1080p. SOmething that Intel doesn't want you to know at all.

 

[redgarl]

Other than some chastisement from a moderator (where he still did not actually comment on the veracity of the article) Toms has not responded to this articles seemingly clear bias in any way that I have seen.
Are all of these people wrong and you are the only one that is right ? Clearly that is not the case here. Waiting....

I see a lot of comments that don't accurately reflect the content of the article. There are a lot of mentions of 9900K vs. the 2700X, but perhaps we should go back and revisit what we actually said about the 9900K and the 2700X:

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

Ryzen 7 2700X remains a formidable option for heavily-threaded workloads, such as rendering and encoding. Intel’s i7-9700K ($374/£336.04) is faster at single-threaded tasks and gaming, but it will cost you an extra $50 to $60 for the extra performance that the i7 has to offer--and you'll need to bring your own cooler. If you primarily work with Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite or other photo editing software, the Core i7-9700K would be a good purchase, as it outpaces the Ryzen 7 2700X by a significant margin in those tasks.

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

Gaming:

In our tests, Intel’s 9th Generation offerings routinely outpaced our Ryzen 7 2700X. But keep in mind Intel's gaming advantage is most prominent at lower resolutions like 1080p. Once you start stepping above that, graphics tends to be more of a bottleneck, evening out performance. And once you get to 4K, performance is pretty much even between comparable AMD and Intel chips.

Also, perhaps we should rehash what the article says about pricing for the 9th gen processors:

If Intel's new chips remain at their current high prices and AMD continues to offer its chips below their launch prices--and particularly if that divide increases rather than decreases--that could tip the balance back in AMD's favor--particularly for those who place more importance on build budgets rather than absolute performance regardless of cost.

Now, I know as well as you do that it is kinda silly just to copy/paste what is written in the article already, but it seems that a few of us haven't bothered to read the content.

I DID read the article. I have been coming here since Tom still owned this joint and sometimes there is perceived bias towards one vendor or the other but lately there have been some REALLY egregious cases of bias seemingly.
You can point to this line or that paragraph to argue about it but the SUMMATION or the real message from this article is dont buy AMD buy Intel. Just read all of these comments. Your readers are speaking to you.

They don't want to listen. GamerNexus, AdoredTV, HardwareUnboxed... name them, they led the charge after the Just Buy it satire.

If Toms doesn't want to understand to not take their readers as idiots, at least the other tech publisher don't miss an opportunity to put Toms back when they do.

 

[seancp31]

I upgraded my msi b350 from the ryzen 1300 to the 2600x and put in faster memory and I only spent $280(I didn't need a new operating system because it was just a normal upgrade and not a full re-install for microsoft). To upgrade my wifes i3 8100 intel system to the 9600 so she gets the same performance boost I am it's going to cost me almost $800. I have to buy a new processor, cooler for it, ram, motherboard, operating system. AMD definately has intel beat hands down on their normal end user upgrade options and pricing. With the money I am saving on my AMD system I'm going from a RX480 video card and giving it to my wife and buying myself a Nvidia 1080 if I can find one under $500.

 

[Redneck5439]

While Tom's gives a 5 to 4 score in favor of Intel, Amazon's top CPU sellers meanwhile reveals: 1st: Ryzen 2600, 2nd: Ryzen 2700X, 3rd: i7 9700K and the 9600K at 10th place. The 9900K isn't even on the top 50 list. Good to see that people are becoming more conscious towards basing purchasing decisions on value these days.

To be 100% fair, and I think that is what we are all driving towards being fair on both sides, the reason the i9 9900K isn't listed in the top 50 best sellers is because it isn't even available on Amazon right now. Due to Intel, for whatever reason, not being able to produce enough 14nm there is a shortage especially in the high yield that the 9900K would require. Its hard to sell what you don't have.

 

[Redneck5439]

I upgraded my msi b350 from the ryzen 1300 to the 2600x and put in faster memory and I only spent $280(I didn't need a new operating system because it was just a normal upgrade and not a full re-install for microsoft). To upgrade my wifes i3 8100 intel system to the 9600 so she gets the same performance boost I am it's going to cost me almost $800. I have to buy a new processor, cooler for it, ram, motherboard, operating system. AMD definately has intel beat hands down on their normal end user upgrade options and pricing. With the money I am saving on my AMD system I'm going from a RX480 video card and giving it to my wife and buying myself a Nvidia 1080 if I can find one under $500.

If you don't want to wait for Black Friday sales then this is the best deal I've seen:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369700-REG/evga_08g_p4_5670_kr_geforce_gtx_1070_ti.html

You "clip" coupon it instantly takes $150 off and you have a 1070ti for $350. Yes I know its not a 1080, but the 1070ti can usually be overclocked to match the performance of the 1080 and would be a nice upgrade over your RX480. I was actually going to pick one of these up, but then the wife's phone died... Now I have to buy her a new phone instead.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

<snip>

I DID read the article. I have been coming here since Tom still owned this joint and sometimes there is perceived bias towards one vendor or the other but lately there have been some REALLY egregious cases of bias seemingly.
You can point to this line or that paragraph to argue about it but the SUMMATION or the real message from this article is dont buy AMD buy Intel. Just read all of these comments. Your readers are speaking to you.

Tom's Hardware Best Gaming CPUs: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

Three of the four entries are AMD. One being the Ryzen 7 2700X. Bias? Against which company?

Tom's Hardware's Best CPUs for Applications: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-performance-cpus,5683.html

A clean AMD sweep. Five AMD processors. Zero Intel. Bias? Again, against which company?

I understand there will be differences in opinions, etc, and we do listen to readers.

Words have meaning. That's why I pointed to the actual words in the article.
The message of the article is not "just buy Intel."

The majority of these comments center around the 9900K, which we do not recommend unless money isn't a concern. The "summation" is apparently subjective, as in the actual summation we listed more reasons not to but the 9900K than we do reasons to buy it.

 

[DavidDisciple]

The chip that costs 2x as much wins. I wonder how awesome a chip AMD could make for $600.

 

[DavidDisciple]

Wins what?? More frame rates that your eye can't see?? Like I said, there are bullets that are faster than others, but can you see them come out of a gun?? Try to visually discern between 100 FPS and 200 FPS. You can't. There comes a point in FPS where it just doesn't matter to the eye and once you are at that point, FPS means nothing except saying "Hey, I get more FPS even though I visually can't see the difference." Wow, that's a winner alright. A winner of nothing that visually makes a difference. Oh, BTW, you better make sure you have a monitor that is able to take advantage of all those FPS, at least better than 60 Hz or all those FPS stop right there at your video port, whatever you use. But, I guess if you want to drive a Corvette to Church on Sunday, that's your choice. Have fun blowing your money on more FPS you will never notice.

 

[San Pedro]

Other than some chastisement from a moderator (where he still did not actually comment on the veracity of the article) Toms has not responded to this articles seemingly clear bias in any way that I have seen.
Are all of these people wrong and you are the only one that is right ? Clearly that is not the case here. Waiting....

I see a lot of comments that don't accurately reflect the content of the article. There are a lot of mentions of 9900K vs. the 2700X, but perhaps we should go back and revisit what we actually said about the 9900K and the 2700X:

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

Ryzen 7 2700X remains a formidable option for heavily-threaded workloads, such as rendering and encoding. Intel’s i7-9700K ($374/£336.04) is faster at single-threaded tasks and gaming, but it will cost you an extra $50 to $60 for the extra performance that the i7 has to offer--and you'll need to bring your own cooler. If you primarily work with Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite or other photo editing software, the Core i7-9700K would be a good purchase, as it outpaces the Ryzen 7 2700X by a significant margin in those tasks.

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

Gaming:

In our tests, Intel’s 9th Generation offerings routinely outpaced our Ryzen 7 2700X. But keep in mind Intel's gaming advantage is most prominent at lower resolutions like 1080p. Once you start stepping above that, graphics tends to be more of a bottleneck, evening out performance. And once you get to 4K, performance is pretty much even between comparable AMD and Intel chips.

Also, perhaps we should rehash what the article says about pricing for the 9th gen processors:

If Intel's new chips remain at their current high prices and AMD continues to offer its chips below their launch prices--and particularly if that divide increases rather than decreases--that could tip the balance back in AMD's favor--particularly for those who place more importance on build budgets rather than absolute performance regardless of cost.

Now, I know as well as you do that it is kinda silly just to copy/paste what is written in the article already, but it seems that a few of us haven't bothered to read the content.

I think what a lot of people about is what is not in the article, especially in terms of value, and value in gaming context.

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

So you stepped down from the top Intel chip to compare prices with top tier AMD chip, where as you could have compared the Core i5 to maybe the Ryzen 5 chips, like the 2600, which would enable consumers to use the money saved to buy the next tier GPU, which would make it a better gaming value.

 

[vMax]

Wins what?? More frame rates that your eye can't see?? Like I said, there are bullets that are faster than others, but can you see them come out of a gun?? Try to visually discern between 100 FPS and 200 FPS. You can't. There comes a point in FPS where it just doesn't matter to the eye and once you are at that point, FPS means nothing except saying "Hey, I get more FPS even though I visually can't see the difference." Wow, that's a winner alright. A winner of nothing that visually makes a difference. Oh, BTW, you better make sure you have a monitor that is able to take advantage of all those FPS, at least better than 60 Hz or all those FPS stop right there at your video port, whatever you use. But, I guess if you want to drive a Corvette to Church on Sunday, that's your choice. Have fun blowing your money on more FPS you will never notice.

Well you have summed it up in the 'if you want to drive a Corvette' comment which makes it clear you have a real problem with how other people spend there money...Of course you have never bought anything in your life that functionally works but costs more...a watch tells the time, do you use the sun to tell time?....it is cheaper after all!!!!

 

[leslie.satenstein]

Why did you leave off the coolers as a cost burden.
Add in the cooler costs, and at the same time, the
equivalent motherboard (functionality wise).

Ram and GPU costs wash out, but not the above.

 

[nobspls]

<snip>
....
Words have meaning. That's why I pointed to the actual words in the article.
The message of the article is not "just buy Intel."
....

You can not speak the truth to the AMD partisans on these forums. They get mad and rage if anything indicates their beloved AMD is the NOT only winner in every case. What is with the false self-indignation? It is like someone called their baby ugly or something.

As much as hate Intel getting away with bloody murder on pricing. Th 2700x is still way overpriced. Especially since you can get an R5 1600 for essesntially $100. (get a $30 mobo discount) See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/478826/ryzen-5-1600-32ghz-6-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

This here is real value. Overclock the 1600 to 4.0Ghz and it more than adequate for any budget build. If people are going to spend more than $500 on a video card/GPU, and going all out, it does not make any sense to cut corners on the CPU to get a mediocre build and gimp the expensive GPU.

 

[The_King]

Wow just wow!. It is so great to see people are not blindly following whatever hardware review sites are spitting out today. So many well-informed consumers in this comment section. Just plan facts are hard truth. In fact, I come here to see the comment section more than that articles. ;-D

 

[PapaCrazy]

A $400+ saving when going with a 2700X over a 9900K. And that doesn't even include the fact that some folks might need beefier PSU's as the 9900K spikes at 430W..... Ouch.

As frustrated as we are, facts still matter or we're as bad as Intel.The 9900k does not spike at 430w, its max OCed TDP is ~250w. That's still extraordinarily high, you don't have to go exaggerating it. Maybe you are using misleading system-wide power specs (which could range for any given build). A 9900k would not run stable at 430w no matter the clock speed.

 

[DavidDisciple]

Other than some chastisement from a moderator (where he still did not actually comment on the veracity of the article) Toms has not responded to this articles seemingly clear bias in any way that I have seen.
Are all of these people wrong and you are the only one that is right ? Clearly that is not the case here. Waiting....

I see a lot of comments that don't accurately reflect the content of the article. There are a lot of mentions of 9900K vs. the 2700X, but perhaps we should go back and revisit what we actually said about the 9900K and the 2700X:

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

Ryzen 7 2700X remains a formidable option for heavily-threaded workloads, such as rendering and encoding. Intel’s i7-9700K ($374/£336.04) is faster at single-threaded tasks and gaming, but it will cost you an extra $50 to $60 for the extra performance that the i7 has to offer--and you'll need to bring your own cooler. If you primarily work with Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite or other photo editing software, the Core i7-9700K would be a good purchase, as it outpaces the Ryzen 7 2700X by a significant margin in those tasks.

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

Gaming:

In our tests, Intel’s 9th Generation offerings routinely outpaced our Ryzen 7 2700X. But keep in mind Intel's gaming advantage is most prominent at lower resolutions like 1080p. Once you start stepping above that, graphics tends to be more of a bottleneck, evening out performance. And once you get to 4K, performance is pretty much even between comparable AMD and Intel chips.

Also, perhaps we should rehash what the article says about pricing for the 9th gen processors:

If Intel's new chips remain at their current high prices and AMD continues to offer its chips below their launch prices--and particularly if that divide increases rather than decreases--that could tip the balance back in AMD's favor--particularly for those who place more importance on build budgets rather than absolute performance regardless of cost.

Now, I know as well as you do that it is kinda silly just to copy/paste what is written in the article already, but it seems that a few of us haven't bothered to read the content.

I think what a lot of people about is what is not in the article, especially in terms of value, and value in gaming context.

The Intel Core i9-9900K ($499/£432.59) isn’t going to win any value awards any time soon, but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers. The new Core i5 can regularly outpace AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99) in gaming workloads, for quite a bit less money. If you’re not worried about obtaining maximum performance in rendering, encoding, compression, and other workstation tasks, the i5-9600K is fantastic bang for the buck.

So you stepped down from the top Intel chip to compare prices with top tier AMD chip, where as you could have compared the Core i5 to maybe the Ryzen 5 chips, like the 2600, which would enable consumers to use the money saved to buy the next tier GPU, which would make it a better gaming value.