I'm using an Intel i9, 9900KF processor in mama's gaming rig, and it's pretty stout. It cranks right up to 5ghz in turbo, does not need water cooling and even with 4K gaming, it's really never taxed.
I like that the AMD Ryzen 5000 series has amazing specs and now claims to be the best gaming processor. I won't believe it until a year has passed. Quite often initial hype and initial "test results" don't match real world experiences. Last year AMD claims failed to materialize and the Ryzen 7 and 9 ended up being almost 10% slower than the Intel competition in gaming tests. Nor were they money saving choices. However, I do like the fact that Ryzen offers 16 core processors.
She is using the Nvidia 2080RTX video card and that is not really good enough. Turn on ray tracing and it starts to stutter. Plus it runs stupidly hot all the time. The gaming bottleneck remains the video cards.
Please show us some benchmarks that clearly show where Ryzen is slower than Intel, in what games, and in what applications. I don't side with either and I run both. Granted, I use AMD Threadripper and Intel X Series CPUs (Socket LGA 2066). AMD eats Intel's lunch when it comes to productivity and security. Because of all the security flaws in Intel CPUs, VM performance has dropped for me at least by 20%. This is just some of the stuff that Intel fanboys conveniently don't want to talk to. I paid for my Intel CPUs, and as such, I don't have to defend them. If anything, I am very critical of their screw-ups.
I can tell you for sure that AMD is playing hardball. They could have released the Zen 3 architecture found in the 5000 series three years ago on 14nm. They didn't do it because their roadmap includes incremental improvements. If they deliver 15% to 20% improvements with every release, it ensures that everyone upgrades, and because they maintain motherboard compatibility (unlike Intel), it ensures that everyone keeps upgrading.
All that AMD has done with Zen 3 is to move from a 4 core CCX to an 8 core CCX, effectively halving L3 Cache latency. Due to how the Zen architecture works, moving data around cores is very energy-intensive, so every time AMD eliminates a bottleneck and lowers latency, power consumption also goes down. AMD has designed Zen to be highly modular and very easy to improve upon. Zen 3 is the final nail in Intel's coffin. The only chance that Intel has now is to innovate and go to a similar architecture as AMD has. It is rumored that Zen 4 will run four threads per core, and considering the IPC improvements that AMD is making, that looks like something that is very doable.
If you're only gaming, then it doesn't really matter, Intel will do a great job for you and the security patches meant to fix years of neglect on the part of Intel engineers will not affect you much, if at all. However, if you're using Intel in a server/data center environment, you might want to look at AMD solutions if you value your money, time, and most importantly, your security.
I forget now whether the systems we were talking about were on IBM or HP.
