No current need for an Intel CPU.
No current need for an Intel CPU.
Only when you genuinely require that extra 10% boost in single-threaded speed, or if your scenario demands QuickSync features, should you consider it. For most desktop users, AMD is the superior option, though there are still scenarios where the reverse might be preferable.
The 9900ks offers a minor advantage in gaming compared to AMD's top options, though the difference is small and mainly relevant if you focus solely on games. The 3900X performs noticeably better if you also consider streaming or content creation, with only slight delays for gaming. For your budget, a 3700X seems reasonable, giving you more room to invest in the GPU. If you're considering the 3600, it's not worth it—Intel doesn't match its performance. Most reviews praise this chip as exceptional, and I highlighted the 3700X because of its extra cores and affordability.
I meant to clarify that point. The 3700X is indeed pricier than the 3600, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you save more money overall. It’s important to consider your specific needs and budget. Regarding the ideal GPU budget share, there isn’t a fixed percentage—what matters most is balancing performance with your financial goals.
Maybe simpler construction is possible. The Ryzen components seem to have several problems, which could lead to a smoother experience. It might also offer marginally improved gaming performance. I remember being drawn to Intel after the mixed results with the Ryzen 2200G, but I’m budget-conscious, so I chose the Ryzen 3600 instead (already missing out on an 8-core option).
don't choose Intel, it's not good quality, if I had your money, a 3700x and an RTX 2070 with 16GB RAM would work perfectly.
It would really work well! I'm not claiming the Ryzen CPU is bad, just that my 3600 might struggle a bit in the same time next year. I wish I could have an 8-core processor, but everyone I asked said the 3600 is okay. It's hard to see how it will handle next-gen games.