Have a look at the Handbrake score for 3900X and 3700X and then look at the power consumption numbers compared to the 9900K. The gaming performance will be 50/50.. some games Intel will have the edge, other games they won't. It'll depend on whether or not the game utilizes multi cores efficiently. This will improve in the next few years as well. I'm curious to see the numbers in Battlefield V, as that one utilizes high core count CPU's quite well. I imagine the Intel will be ahead but by a small margin compared to the 2700X. But then look at the power consumption and combine that with "CPU tasks" like encoding. The 3700X and 9900K is an apples to apples comparison.. with one clocked way higher (using 100W more power).. and it's slower in Handbrake. Ouch. The 3900X completely craps all over it and STILL uses less power. The resolution thing is to exaggerate the differences, I really don't see what's worth arguing about. In 1080p, there'll a difference in some games. In 1440p, there will be little difference between them. But the main thing for me, is that I encoded probably 1000 hours of Handbrake last year, probably 3 months straight of 24/7 usage.. and trust me.. 100W matters when it comes to the power bill. 235W running 24/7 will save quite a bit on the bill, compared to 330W, plus the Intel costs more in the first place. Intel at this point is really only an option if you use your PC like an Xbox.. and using it with the highest graphics cards like 2080ti at 1080p. Otherwise.. in pretty much every other way, AMD is now the option. I've been with Intel for 10 years, but only recently switched to AM4 in the last month. And to me, these benchmark figures are in line with expectations. They aren't going to reach 5Ghz (they never were).. but they've got good IPC, decent pricing (for the value options) and great multicore performance. The 4000 series will be even better, and those will be the ones that hold their value the most on the used market in the next 5 years.