Choose between the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Intel Core i7-9700F based on your needs.
Choose between the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Intel Core i7-9700F based on your needs.
I mean, was the 3770 much better than a 2700? Was a 4770 much better than a 3770? Not really... I agree, the 8700 to 9700 was the worst intel has done in years. But, I get it. And the 9700k for instance does still run at 4.9 GHz on a single thread workload, and 4.6 on on core. That really isn't too bad. I am just saying, take the chip for what it is. It stands on its own two feet and performs well. Its not a great step up from the 8700k, but that happens sometimes. The 8700k was a great chip, I had one and loved it. I still would if my mobo VRM didn't poo itself and take that chip out which still bugs me. 5 GHz @ 1.300v was pretty fantastic on my 8700k, and I only went to a 9900k vs a 9700k because I agree, I didn't feel like the 9700 was a worthwhile "upgrade", hell it was a side grade at best and you can't find 8700k's much anymore. So 9900k I have. But, that was an abnormal situation, anyone upgrading from sub 8700 would see fine to great performance gains with a 9700.
The flawed remark was mainly crafted to stir emotion and highlight my strong disapproval of their marketing move. So treat it accordingly. I’ll own that it’s similar to placing a vegan candy inside a water bottle. It’s been this way for a long time, but it reinforces my argument. The benefit of my viewpoint is that it comes from a consumer standpoint. I don’t care about Intel’s profits since I’m not a shareholder. Concerning their reasoning for launching a new segment to rebrand the i7 as an i9 just to stay afloat doesn’t matter to me. That’s okay because it lets me decide what I want to purchase as a buyer.
It's not about being significantly improved... It's about moving on to the next generation chip in the naming area without needing to wonder if it's truly better. You shouldn't be questioning whether it's an upgrade. It should always feel like an improvement, no matter how small. Don't settle for just "most of the time." Otherwise, it's similar to upgrading from a Phenom II to an FX chip—something that felt disappointing. At least they didn't reuse the same name. The 9700k performs well in isolation, but when compared to its rivals and predecessors, it falls short as a product.
I understand your perspective too. It's true that many companies have faced similar situations. While it's considered poor practice, people often criticize it. Still, it seems like a realistic approach. As you mentioned, if you're not convinced, your purchasing decisions matter. For me, Intel has always stood out. When my 8700k failed, they sent me a $370 replacement—just because they couldn't ship a new chip. I used that money to upgrade to the 9900k, which suits my needs for gaming, photo editing, and Lightroom. Their handling of my return (the check was deposited, the part arrived quickly, and I haven’t received confirmation yet) really demonstrated their reliability. It kept me engaged with them. I still wanted an AMD CPU, but the decision to go with AMD came down to other factors like avoiding a new waterblock and their good service during the process.
AMD performed worse compared to Phenom II versus FX. Nvidia largely followed Intel's approach regarding the original RTX release and its pricing/branding. However, considering the upcoming 10th generation’s clear segmentation, it seems even Intel recognized they made a poor choice with the 9700.
This discussion strongly opposes Intel, which is impressive. I don’t personally love them, but I understand the i7 9700 specs are clear. The buyer decides based on what matters most. In gaming, the i7 9700 edges out the Ryzen 3700. That’s a confirmed fact and a solid reason for some users who upgrade every couple of years and play consistently. Is it worth the investment? Not necessarily. Intel has made mistakes, but AMD and Nvidia have faced more significant problems. The Spectre and Meltdown issues from Intel were isolated and never exploited. AMD encountered legal trouble over the FX series naming, accusing them of misleading claims. Names like Radeon 5670 outperformed others, and Nvidia’s GTX models were intentionally limited in VRAM to boost performance before it dropped. The GTX 970 was advertised with 4GB VRAM but delivered only 3.5GB—this was settled in court.
For gaming, the Ryzen 7 3700X offers better performance and efficiency compared to the i7 9700F.
I wouldn't invest right now. I'd pick a Ryzen 3600 and wait another two years for an upgrade. Both models cost over $300, which is almost double the price of the 3600, and they probably only boost FPS by about 15%. Better save up for a real upgrade later.
It will become more important as time passes if paired with good memory. The raw frames per second from a 9700kf won’t matter much because these chips probably face the same problems as today’s i5 processors—like timing issues with high-end GPUs. Get a 3700x unless you intend to keep it for over two years and switch to a 2080 ti.