The latest results show Zen 3 performing just a bit better than Intel's 10th generation on tests.
The latest results show Zen 3 performing just a bit better than Intel's 10th generation on tests.
Previous chips with high core counts often sacrificed boost speed due to power or heat constraints—most Xeons now cap around 3GHz. Ryzen handles this better. Regarding your claim about "most people," it mainly depends on affordability. Once a few hundred dollars were needed for an 8-core workstation CPU, it became accessible to many more users. Rivalry has driven improved value overall. Your 8700K launched for over $350, but today similar performance fits under $200 with better boards. The real driver behind CPUs is the shift from just 4 cores to more, making options more plentiful. Even older models like the i7 7700, which was a strong choice back then, now face challenges unless Intel releases updates—otherwise they’re limited to older platforms. More choices always mean better performance.
Ryzen continues to face issues with clock speeds. Comparing Ryzen to Xeons is essentially a tough effort to find any positive points. The same applies when discussing the 8700k—it wasn’t developed by AMD, it took over two years and was released long before any Ryzen CPU appeared. This isn’t related to AMD at all. Still, based on what I see, it seems you’re not taking the discussion in a factual direction. I’d prefer to focus on actual information rather than speculation.
P.S.: If you really consider it, the i7 5820k was a six-core, twelve-thread CPU launched in 2014 for $400 and outperforms the R5 1600 in gaming. That’s just a side note.
8700k seemed like a solid choice back then. It was still one of the top gaming CPUs, offering great performance and stable temperatures after use. It handled workloads well. My dad opted for the 7600k, but he chose Intel thinking it was superior. Recently, my dad switched to AMD.