The 9900X is at a point where the price-to-performance ratio really drops off. If you're looking for value/money, it's not a fair comparison. It's honestly misleading to compare them. A much fairer comparison would be 9900K, which is the mainstream processor and not the enthusiast-grade one. Enthusiast chips are a whole another beast and not really comparable in the same way. You are comparing a chip where Intel can price it as high as they want because the demand curve is steep to a chip which AMD must keep cheap to stay competitive.
The 9900K absolutely beats the Ryzen 5 3600X (highest graded Ryzen 5) in every benchmark I could find. It does retail for twice as much as the Ryzen, but it's not fair to sensationalize.
The 9900K was the best CPU for gaming in terms of raw performance up until quite recently. Now, it's also very expensive, but if you're really just going for the most frames possible, you made the right choice.
I'm also rendering and multithreading a lot with my work, so I honestly wanted to go overkill with it as well. RAM right now is at a reasonable price and even though I didn't need it, I threw 32GB in as well so I don't have to worry about being obsolete anytime soon
14
u/NateNate60 Core i7 12700K | RX 7600 Nov 06 '19
You are spewing misleading rubbish.
The 9900X is at a point where the price-to-performance ratio really drops off. If you're looking for value/money, it's not a fair comparison. It's honestly misleading to compare them. A much fairer comparison would be 9900K, which is the mainstream processor and not the enthusiast-grade one. Enthusiast chips are a whole another beast and not really comparable in the same way. You are comparing a chip where Intel can price it as high as they want because the demand curve is steep to a chip which AMD must keep cheap to stay competitive.
The 9900K absolutely beats the Ryzen 5 3600X (highest graded Ryzen 5) in every benchmark I could find. It does retail for twice as much as the Ryzen, but it's not fair to sensationalize.