You are talking about the difference between 200 and 210 fps... it really isn't that important (and you need a GPU that hits 200fps, the 2080 ti is not even hitting 100fps at 1440p in many of the newest games at highest settings, and RT features will make it even worse). I'm always running out of GPU performance but frankly I can game with an overclocked 10100 if Intel would offer it. Same as the Ryzen 3300x if I could actually buy them.
You have to take your local pricing into consideration. AMD went from 40 percent behind to 4 percent behind. But the Ryzen 3600 is $240 CAD in Canada and the 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.
I've been curious about what the 10100 would perform like, or if it's replicable on a B, or H series mobo. It's a $100 down here, and actually comes out to less than the 3100/3300x after B/H mobo, and ram.
In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.
www.techpowerup.com
The pricing on the 10600k is definitely high for a 6/12. I believe MSRP was already high at $260, but it's always $280-$300+ down here, and sold out lol. Demand is crazy high. Idk how it will hold up in 2-3 years, and I wouldn't go that route even at MSRP, but lots are. 9600k is on sale for $160, and would be decent, but 6/6 makes less future proof than the newer version. Dollars to performance is way better though. I'm leaning towards the 10700. I don't plan to oc, but it should be plenty for gaming, and any 8/16 is going be fairly future proof IMO.
For me, it isn't always dollars to performance. For the most part, Intel and AMD are pretty close to the same price/performance. It's really hard to say one always gives the best price/performance.
On the other hand, in my experience owning several systems from both platforms, I'll say the Intel systems have been less hassle. The Intel platform is just more mature(obviously because the Intel platform hasn't really changed in 7+ years). The AMD platform isn't terrible, I've just had more minor annoying problems(and one major) issues.
Correct there is more to picking a platform, but for me it's simple. Gaming is the most stressful thing I put my pc through besides stressing when I set it up, or to troubleshoot. Both (8/16) 3700x, or 10700 are close enough that either would work fine for me so it comes down to price. Here, certain Intel chips like the 10100, and 10700 actually come out a little less than their AMD counterparts, or you get a little more on the mobo at around the same price. If that trend continues, I'll go Intel this round. Just waiting for AMD to show their new chips.
You nailed the other part about a mature, and stable platform. Intel has a well oiled machine from their consumer products to their pro stuff. It's one of the reasons there are not as many decent AMD laptop options yet, and more companies are not moving over to AMD on the server side. Reputation, and infrastructure that works is why AMD hasn't caught up in the 2 areas they are arguably better than Intel. Reminds me of when Dell featured those crappy Intel pentiums when AMD had those sweet Athlons, and Opterons. Well except this trend will continue, and we'll be seeing a lot of AMD for the foreseeable future.
Competition is good.
