Definitely not when it says things like this. This is a Rant Post. Please Remember to read this before having your jimmies becoming entangled around your virtual ballsack. Thanks!
Okay, so let's refute some of this misinformation. Rather than just blindly saying it's bullshit, I'll take the time to address some of these points.
"i9-9900K/S is still the faster CPU for gaming. This is not about value."
It's always about value. Even if you're the richest person on the planet, that doesn't given you license to be stupid with your money. If you are, then you allow companies like Intel to get away with the anti-consumer practise and pricing.
Is the 9900K/S the faster gaming CPU for gaming? Yes it is. This statement is factually accurate but the context is misleading. I'll leave this one here to answer this.
TLDR: Are you going to accept the disadvantages that you definitely will notice for an unnoticable advantage in raw FPS? Sure there are edge-cases, but there are also edge-cases where Ryzen beats Intel. (CS:GO isn't even an edge case!)
"The R9 3900x and 3950x are still not fast enough to beat the 9900k/s in gaming. It's coming closer, but there are still a few titles where the Ryzen parts can't catch up"
You can also refer to the above point for most of this, but honestly let's look at it objectively. I can't actually refute the original point because it's technically factually accurate. But again, context is needed. If the difference was 50% and the difference between playable and unplayable - they'd have a point here.
Except it's not. In all of the titles that they list Ryzen parts will provide acceptable frame-rates. This is also a cherry-picked list of titles - are we going to forget about all the titles where Ryzen is identical or even those titles where Ryzen 3000 is faster?
The second point, I guess it's relative, hon. But with all this said, I'll say right now that Ryzen has already 'caught up'. It's Intel that needs to 'catch up'.
"The games of today still favor the 9900k and there are some games where the 3900x can't even compete with some i5's. Intel wins. And with intel continuously adding more cores with their next generation CPUs, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel still comes out on top. "
Ugh. This statement really bugs me. Do you see that red text it there? That's the bit that really bugs me. It's red because red is for angry. Anyway, this is incorrect. And I'll refute that right now. There isn't a single game where the 3900X can't compete with the i5s; even the 9600K. Unless you're going to argue that playability doesn't matter? The only thing Intel 'wins' on desktop right now is the award for the most overpriced products.
"Especially now with hyper threading coming back, it literally kills anything the lower end Ryzen parts even have to offer. "
Well, it's not all bad I guess. At least you acknowledge that SMT/HT is quite important going forward for these mid-range parts. You know, something that Ryzen has been offering since 2017? We're talking about an unreleased product that we don't know the price of? Ryzen 5 3600 is £175 here in the UK, includes a cooler too. You think Intel will offer 6/12 with a cooler for <£200? You so sure about that, hon, given their track record?
At the same price; I'd be almost inclined to agree with you. I'm all for competitive Intel products, but I guess we'll see. That said, platform features are still a thing. Zen is particularly awesome due to the fact that it's so economical to build; with AMD being fabless and using a chiplet design - AMD can wage a price war that Intel just can't keep up with. I think we'll see that soon. When people start learning that there'll be no real, meaningful difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and, for example, an i5-10600(K), the better. But you know what they will notice? The £50 in their pocket - towards a better GPU or SSD. (9600K was £250 on launch, though I'd love for the 10600K to be £200 - if it is, i'll concede it might be a viable product. Might be. :)
"Gen 4 isn't even worth anything as only 2 weak GPUs and a few SSDs can even take advantage of it. Gen 4 isn't even ready yet. "
Short-sighted argument that is also factually incorrect. A lot of people these days (including major reviewers) are incredibly short-sighted when making recommendations. Here's the summary of my rebuttal to this argument that Gen 4 isn't ready yet. Oh, did you get the italic bit? How long will you have your PC for? Do platform features mean nothing to you?
Okay, I'll be a fair to this guy. Gen4 isn't really a big deal right now, but discrediting it is short-sighted.
The red bit? This statement is false. Neither Navi 14 or Navi 10 are 'weak GPUs'. If Nvidia's next-generation parts come out late next year and use Gen4, and we see some 5% gains in performance from the top-parts in bus-limited gaming scenarios, will you change your tone?
You'd better, since that 5-10% FPS was the fundamental grounds of your entire argument. :3
I think I'm done with this rant. If you read it, thanks I guess!