Keep in mind that both of these CPU's are very high end and meant for intense gaming and such apps as video editing.

In most cases the AMD seems to have the edge. Both are priced at ~$500.00 although the AMD comes with a cooler included. This really isn't fair as to a comparison as the two were picked for having the same price. Since the Intel is an 8-core, 16-thread, CPU and the AMD is a 12-core, 24-thread, CPU the AMD will naturally outperform the Intel when it comes to cases where multiple cores and threads are concerned. The Intel outperforms the AMD in cases where only one core is involved by a little. The Intel also includes graphics on the CPU while the AMD does not but, if you are going for either of these chips, you are doing high end gaming, or something as intense, and will have a dedicated video card. The AMD has a faster base speed but the Intel has a faster 'boost' speed.

Bottom line is that both are beasts but I'd have to give the advantage to the AMD not just as to performance but, also, price. Yes, they both list at the same price but the AMD includes a CPU cooler where the Intel does not. Since it is recommended that the Intel should use liquid cooling add ~$100.00 to the price for a decent liquid cooler. Also be sure that the case has room for liquid cooling and the main board can power the pump. As a note, if overclocking, liquid cooling should be used on either CPU otherwise the tube cooler included with the AMD is fine.

Here is a PC Magazine comparison:
https://www.pcmag.com/compare/370690/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-which-high-end-cp

_________________

Agreed, AMD is currently the way to go. Intel can only offer marginal advantages on very specific cases, at a higher price. On all others cases i.e. pretty much everything: the new AMD processors are untouchable.

I've been using mostly AMD since a K6 550MHz. AMD CPU was considered fast.

Still, while I like AMD, I see too many people that just don't understand the importance of the video card over the actual CPU for such applications as high level games and video encoding/editing. I've seen too many people get the best available CPU, loads of memory, and then spend $100.00 on a video card. Then they can't figure out why they can't run a game at high video levels or frame rates. For such apps the video card is often the most important factor as to game/encoding/editing performance.

I remember back when I was running Windows Vista I had a 1GHz. AMD CPU with only 1GB of memory and wanted to look at a game demo version (playable to a certain point; think it was Halo.). The minimum requirements called for a 1.5GHz. CPU and mine was only 1.0GHz.. The thing was that I had a superior video card for the time, actually two cards; one PCIe and the other AGP. The game demo version worked just fine at the highest video levels proving that the video card was the more important factor.

The bottom line is that, if going for gaming or video stuff, you are probably going to get more performance with a $400.00 CPU and a $600.00 video card than with a $600.00 CPU and a $400.00 video card... The performance difference is not necessarily according to the prices I listed; just examples. The point is that if you have a choice to spend high bucks on either a CPU or a video card, but not both, and are a gamer, or do video stuff, you are probably better off spending the money on the video card.

_________________