If Ryzen 3000 comes out and Intel loses the gaming leadership, I would like to see you eating your words please~
As much as I would like to see a competitive market place, AMD has a mindshare issue. Among the uninformed it's the medal thing ... everyone remembers who won the gold medal but no one remembers the silver, that guy / gal never makes the cover of the Wheaties box and they don't make the magazine covers and talk shows. But the other side of it has nothing to do with bias, but their own actions.
HBM is gonna change everything
Mantle is gonna change everything
More cores is gonna change everything
Now for the loyal brand followers, whether it be MoBo brands, CPU brands, GFX Card brands, they don't see the numbers. This is the source of the "this xxx thing overclocked is almost as fast as the other brand's yyy" posts that never seem to consider the fact that the other thing can be OCd too. Or "Yeah but while it isn't as fast in the things we do everyday, it is faster in things that we almost never do". For the "hardware whores" out there that just look at the numbers, too many folks has had the itch to upgrade, waited 6 months to see if the promises pan out and when they repeatedly fail to deliver on the promises, that has an impact. Sometimes, that costs money but everytime when the promises don't pan out, folks get frustrated and resentment sets in. So while folks used to be content waiting to see what happens, past disappointments from letting that itch go unscratched so long "for nothing" has made that much less of a popular option.
I don't think it's a "Ryzen sucks for gaming thing" given the choice, if ya live in a city with two sports teams .... (Jets / Giants ... Mets / Yankees ... Knicks / Nets ... Rangers / Islanders) outside the life long fans, the tickets everyone wants are the ones with a shot at the title. If ya go to the souvenier stand, you won't find a giant foam finger saying "We're No. 2".\
Now with that out of the way to the OP's questions ...
1. If ya not in a rush ... nothing wrong with waiting. Not for release tho ... we alays recommend waiting for the 2nd or 3rd steppings on componentry. Look what happened on the early 20xx series cards for example. Sometimes it's the base hardware (P67 MoBos) , sometimes it's just certain models (i.e. EVGA 970, EVGA 1060 - 1080s)
2. The approach we recommend is price out two systems, figure out the relative performance and price it out. If you will be overclocking, make sure that is accounted for. If secondary features matter, (i.e. GFX card fans off on idle, power usage, increased cost from higher temps and bigger PSUs, etc ...), make sure that is accounted for. If you will be overclocking, factor in the performance. If cost matters, forget the prices of individual components, just the total.
3. The Hardware
a) - Asus Maximus XI Gene ( micro ATX ) ... things have changed much in recent years ... up thru Z87, we were pretty much an Asus shop. Asus peformance tanked with Z87 / Z97 MoBos but came back with Z170, but then they decided to start using lower quality sound and LAN subsystems while competition did not ... then after on other manufacturer's followed suit. I understand your comfort level from the Asus "of the old days"; I am using an Asus Maximus Formula and despite waiting for the C.1 stepping which resolved many problems, it's sti;l been a horror story and tech support is now non-existent. When you call, they take a message and never call back...when you email they provide answers to questions you never asked but don't answer the ones you did. Not that MSI and Giga are all that much better.n Asus still has the most navigable BIOS. Since Z97, I'd say about 50% of our builds have had MSi, 490% Gigglebyte and 10% Asus, the latter being from the TUF series. Then there's the RoG tax which adds 450- $75 for having the RoG logo. I can say definitely that you "will not find the same things as with the ASUS boards" from 5 years ago..
My issues with this specific board are 1) reviews have not been good with cons including, Only two DIMM slots, doesn't support dual graphics cards in x8/x8 mode, No legacy SATA M.2 support, despite having only four SATA ports, Enabling CPU storage drops PCIe x16 slot to x8 mode, high RAM voltage when using the double capacity stuff. Has solid voltage regulation but it experiences extreme temps, WiFi if not usually "a thing" on a desktop, good LAN and audio subsystems. User reviews from board owners have not been good either. At $500+, I see it as far too much of a risk with no return on investment whatsoever. Before making a recommendation, I'd need to know the intended use of this build. If it's for gaming, I'd suggest something in the $150 - $200 price range.
Mini ITX seems to have been given short shrift w/ 390 with few ITX boards available and of those, none of them strike my fancy. So concur with your desire to go mATX,
MSI MPG Z390M Gaming Edge AC - DDR4 support tops out at 4500l ALC 1220, Intel I219-V, 5 fan headers, 8 + 4 pin EATX connector
Gigabyte Z390 M Gaming Aorus Pro WIFI - DDR4 support tops out at 2666, substandard Realtek ALC892, Intel GbE LAN chip, 4 fan headers, 8 + 4 pin EATX connector
Asus TUF 390M Gaming -DDR4 support tops out at 4266, ALC 1220, Intel I219-V, 5 fan headers, 8 pin EATX connector only
There's a pair of TUF MoBos from Asus in the $250 range but they are very new such that I'd rtather let someone else suffer the bleeding edge.
of those 3, have to rec0mmend the MSI ... it also has the best user reviews on newegg
b) - i7 9900 KF ( currently im waiting for the release date ) .... I see the logic, but that IGP provides a nice option for a 2nd monitor. Again, if gaming, it's very big $ spike to go from 9600k to 9900k with very, very little to be gained over 9600k / 9700k
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_9600K/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png
c) - Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR4 3200 mhz 2x8 GB <<< please give me advice for the speed i see and heard that 3200mhz is enough and in games actually you get more FPS
Some games respond to lower CAS some games respond to more speed. Most are not affected to any observable extent. Cost wise, the sweet spot is 3000 / CAS 15 or 3200 / CAS 16 better performance rings inordinate increase in pricing.
Gskill Trident Z as example
3000 / 15 costs about $115
3200 / 16 costs about $110
3300 / 16 costs about $165
3466 / 16 costs about $170
3600 / 17 costs about $165
3733 / 17 costs about $215
3866 / 18 costs about $216
4000 / 18 costs about $241
4133 / 19 costs about $215
4266 / 19 costs about $235
4400 / 19 costs about $280
4500 / 19 costs about $380
While it's not a "real value" or anything, when judging what combo makes sense, you can get an approximate relative ranking using CAS x 1000 / DDR speed... smalles numbers are better. And of course, as was said above, some games react better to lower CAS, some to higher speed and some not at all. The biggest impact in the past has been with min fps as opposed to average and in multi GPU performance.
Intels Ice lake is supposed to be the biggest upgrade in maybe 10 years. Do you want to miss out on that?
Last I read (2018/08), 10nm was anticipated for 2020 ... and with the problems / delays they have had on 14nm, I expect that has been pushed back too, Have you seen anything newer ?
what you should've understood from this exchange is that different people have different priorities when it comes to hardware shopping,not that ryzen sucks. neither amd nor intel have found a formula for a cpu solution that'd dominate every possible use and scenario.
You're looking at the hottest mainstream CPU (possibly ever) made by Intel. This is not the time to upgrade if you do it every 5 years. If you upgrade every 2 years then I wouldn't say anything.
