If you need more powerful CPU and don't mind spending 80€ more for it, then instead of buying a 9900k for $470 you should look at the 3900x, which has 8 more threads and same single-threaded performance for just $30 more. That's 50% more threads for ~8% more money. Or, you know, save $70 and pick a 3800x that should perform about the same as a 9900k, since <5% performance delta is imperceptible in the real world. Also, your statement of "lower latency" (compared to what?) and "hassle with finding high frequency memory kits" is pretty silly. Here is one kit I found in 5 seconds: https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Vengeance-3200MHz-Desktop-Memory/dp/B016ORTNI2?th=1 Please stop making things up to complain about. If stock Ryzen performs close/the same as a 9900k @5ghz, then what's the point of comparing overclockability? It's literally the same performance with less/same hassle. You could argue that the 9900k can go to 5.2ghz, but that's only 200mhz as well, and we don't know how much further Ryzen can clock, but AMD has stated that with good cooling their Precision Boost can easily add another 100mhz to those Zen2 processors, so that's pretty much the same performance again, and with no manual overclock. Intel released many new chipsets with far less features, and even broke compatibility between generations for no good reason (Skylake to Coffee-lake). So x570 is far more relevant than many other historical chipset launches. All the leaks point at the 3800x either being as fast as the 9900k or slightly faster/slower. So I don't know how you got to this "barely scratched" conclusion, since we're talking about two processors that perform about the same with a $70 price difference. Choice here is pretty obvious.