Choose between Intel or AMD.
Choose between Intel or AMD.
Upgrading from a 9900k to the 10900k or a new-gen Ryzen is quite a leap. AMD states only about a 7% boost versus a standard 10900k with its latest generation. It seems there isn’t a massive gap in gaming performance when clock speeds are taken into account, like with the coffeelake (8700k) at 5GHZ. At those frequencies, the numbers around 9700k, 9900k, 10600k, and 10900k should roughly match. Unless you’re playing a few specific titles that really use more cores.
I understand, but that isn't really important. He’s not overly concerned about costs because he’s aiming for a 3090. (The price gap from the 3080 could cover a 5800X, X570 motherboard, plus the top RAM for the setup.) Comparing stocks is the only fair way to evaluate CPUs, since overclocking isn’t guaranteed on either side. Also, a 7% difference works for many, particularly if they intend to sell or pass it along. As noted, overclocking never comes with certainty. Intel’s top performance (near its limits) matches AMD’s second-best, but the latter needs a significantly pricier board (AMD boards start at $80, Intel at $120) to even support it. (AMD offers it on all compatible boards.) If you’re starting fresh, AMD is roughly $90 cheaper for similar results than Intel’s best option. (Using the lowest prices and MSRP figures)
If I were to purchase an AMD system, I wouldn’t settle for the most affordable components either. It’s great that there’s flexibility in choosing parts, but personally it doesn’t add any real advantage for me. Even though you’re compelled to opt for larger boards with Intel, you still get extra features like additional USB ports or PCIe slots, more PCB layers, and enhanced RGB options—things that aren’t essential and often come at an extra cost. On the other hand, AMD offers a solid alternative if you value quality out of the box.
Intel boards tend to be more comprehensive. Every build I make teaches me something new, and from my current setup, I’ve learned that I prefer an overclocking board with just two RAM slots. This allows me to push higher RAM speeds, a feature that hasn’t been fully realized on AMD yet but is improving rapidly. For the next generation of Ryzen processors, this setup will give me a significant edge compared to older models.
However, when it comes to 2DIMM only or overclocking boards, options are limited. On Intel’s side, the Asus APEX XII (€500), MSI MEG Z490i UNIFY (€250), and EVGA z490 DARK/Kingpin (€550+) are the main contenders. These seem to be the only choices I’d seriously consider.
In summary, Intel is better suited for those who enjoy customization and pushing performance limits. AMD stands out as the superior choice for maximizing potential right from the start. If I wanted a top-tier experience, I’d go for an overclocking board with minimal RAM slots. As for the 10900K, I wouldn’t bother much—my priority is getting a reliable build without needing constant upgrades.
The 5000 series shares the same memory controller as the 3000 series, and it doesn’t negatively affect performance significantly. When we move to DDR5, things will change, but for DDR4 it’s safe to say speeds won’t exceed 3600 on either platform. (Improvements beyond that drop below 1% compared to 3600-4400, and prices jump sharply above those speeds.) That said, Intel limits overclocking to only enthusiast-grade boards, implying they believe such efforts should be reserved for those willing to invest more in components than their better-performing rivals. AMD, on the other hand, has always been built for users who like customizing their builds, offering a wider range of choices across all price ranges than Intel. Intel also cancels warranty coverage if you enable XMP or overclock on an overclocking motherboard, while AMD does not do that on any board.