The core architecture is the same, and lot of Xeon chips have been good for gaming. It's just recently that Intel introduced Mesh that creates latency that impacts games, while consumer desktop chips are still on ring bus. Ring Bus doesn't mean it's a gaming chip. Ring bus is just faster for lower core counts.
My reference was far more technical as are the difference. They many times have completely different L1/L2/L3 cache sizes, cache polices, micro-architectural details, pipeline stages/ordering/etc. They are actually very different beasts as you'd expect as they are suited for very different workflows/tasks/markets. While a
specific Xeon might perform great for gaming the reverse is not true and it is not true along all Xeon classes especially the ones with micro-architectures families that aren't tuned towards desktop function. This is why there are a whole slew of Xeon families.. The higher end ones married to micro-architectures that aren't that great at gaming performance vs. others. I don't speak as an average consumer on these matters. Here's your Xeon processor from the CoffeeLake family. Notice it is called Xeon E :
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12199/intel-launches-coffee-lake-xeon-e-entry
E being for
entry level. Desktop processors tuned for gaming don't perform that hot in the server world. They most certainly don't
scale that well in core count in the server world. You're actually making my point without recognizing it and it seems I'm speaking a completely different language than most commenters here.
What's different between Intel and AMD is that AMD didn't have the room to so savagely break up their processor line. So, you indeed are getting something more closer to a server grade chip cut down to a Desktop computer. This is clear even at a high level view with the way a Ryzen chip is structured as CPU complexes that can be scaled. This no doubt will have suffered performance for the gamer. But this shines for serious multi-threaded professional tasks. This is exactly why Intel with far more budget focuses and tunes a specific architecture on gaming. I wasn't hunting for a gaming processor when I bought my Ryzen. AMD actually had the best performing processor for my workloads. It's why, after getting a 1700 and seeing how great it performed, I bought a 1950x. The scaling it almost perfect.
The 9900K won't only be great at gaming. It will be pretty dam great an just about any load you could throw at an 8 core CPU.
Price/performance.
$450
9900k will beat Ryzen's 8 cores no doubt. But at what cost?
16 PCIE lanes.
A couple of the Tech Tube channels are switched to Intel Coffee Lake desktop CPU for Adobe premiere. Hardware Canucks switched from a Ryzen 1700 to an Intel 8600K, because he was having many issues with Adobe software and ryzen.
Gamers Nexus followed up with their own test:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen
The short version is that Adobe Premier uniquely leverages the iGPU in Intel desktop chips to improve rendering time, and note this when it is already leveraging the discrete GPU card with CUDA.
Desktop Coffee lake with iGPU active was in the ballpark of ThreadRipper 1950x, and Intel 7980XE (18 core).
Making Intel Desktop Coffee Lake with iGPU something of an Adobe Premier bang/buck champ right now.
You're grasping at straws now. A lack of optimization in one's software package is nothing to be proud of. Your own link :
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen
but the cost isn’t justifiable when an 8700K performs within 10% of the $2000 7980XE for our tasks
Seems AMD isn't the only one with issues. Seems Adobe just hasn't updated their software to be optimized for new processors. It is quite costly to do so I'm not surprised. Intel usually sends a team of people over for such 'optimizations'. I'm in a completely different segment and have little dependencies on whether or not a software vender decided to optimize for Ryzen.
Lets hug it out
.
I own a K variant from a previous era. It has served me well in gaming. I have no hate against intel. I actually debated whether or not to sell it when I just completed my second Ryzen 7 build but there's something about having it around
. Intel lost this battle for me. I can see myself coming around in the future but not on yester-years micro-arch being sold at a premium with two cores slapped on. For this same reason 32 core Threadripper doesn't appeal to me
at all. It's a frankenstein.. two dies w/ no I/O access. I'd just buy a legit Epyc. I don't buy such products no matter what the company.
Gotta hold off to 7nm my dudes if you can.
Even Nvidia's upcoming release is a joke. I'm riding my 1070s/1080s until 2019 when they release a real product.