Intel Core i5 9600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
When you are building a new gaming machine or workstation you will inevitably get to a point where you have to decide which CPU you will get.
We take a closer look at the Intel i5 9600K vs the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X CPUs.
Not only is it important to get the best performance, especially for gamers and workstation users, but also the right price-performance ratio.
There is no real benefit in getting a CPU with 3% more performance capabilities that costs 50% more than the less performing CPU.
We will clear up all of these points for the Intel i5 9600K vs the AMD Ryzen 3700X.
At the end of the article down below or in the table on top you can find our final Verdict.
Test Results: Intel Core i5 9600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Ranking First: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
- It is fast and its single-core performance beats many of Intel’s similar processors
- It is an excellent choice for gaming, and also for productivity
- It has 8 cores and 16 threads, making it a powerhouse when it comes to multi-threading computing power
- No integrated graphics
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X – Best performing CPU
The Zen 2 architecture apparently puts AMD in the situation to finally catch up with its competitor Intel.
With Zen, Zen+ and the AM4 platform, AMD has laid the foundation for success over two years.
Now they want to reap the laurels.
How the Ryzen 7 3700X with eight cores and the Ryzen 9 3900X with twelve cores will beat the competition from Intel, we’ll clarify in our detailed review.
AMD has long-term plans – this should be known by now.
The Zen microarchitecture was not a one-shot, but rather several generations were created from the beginning, which had different goals in combination with the expected manufacturing technologies.
When Zen 2 was projected in 2015, the goal was already to achieve 7 nm production. At that time, however, it was not quite clear whether this would work.
Zen 2 was planned as a server architecture with a low clock rate and was also designed accordingly.
And this is exactly what we will see with the second generation EPYC processors and up to 64 cores from late summer.
At the end of 2015 AMD has seen that the processors and chips can be clocked much higher.
So again it was decided that Zen 2 can also be used for the Ryzen desktop processors. From this the new Ryzen processors have been developed.
AMD will not reveal whether there was an alternative plan and what it looked like.
There are three things that come together in the Ryzen 3000 series processors:
- the 7 nm production…
- the chip design
- the Zen 2 architecture with the probably significant improvements in terms of IPC performance
For the Zen 2 architecture, AMD set itself some targets to help achieve an IPC plus of 8 to 10%.
However, this would probably not have enabled AMD to catch up with Intel, even though this was not foreseeable in 2015.
In the end, we ended up with an average of 15%, for the following reasons:
- the front end is now more balanced.
- the Micro Op Cache has been enlarged – many instructions that have already been processed can be kept in the Op Cache and reused
- an IPC plus of 15% means first of all that power consumption is increasing – the industry prediction has been improved to reduce overhead
Since the Next Horizon Tech-Day in early June is known:
There will be a 16-core Ryzen processor. It will be called Ryzen 9 3950X, has a basic clock rate of 3.5 GHz and can be booted to 4.7 GHz.
It is also the fastest Ryzen processor when it comes to the highest boost clock. The thermal design power of this model is also 105 W.
The Ryzen 9 3950X will be available in September. All other models, as well as the corresponding mainboards, will be available from next week.
Today we are testing the Ryzen 9 3900X with 12 cores.
This clocks a bit higher at 3.8 GHz in the basic clock rate, but comes to “only” 4.6 GHz when booted.
The TDP here is also 105 W. The Ryzen 7 3800X is more likely to be seen in the mainstream.
It offers eight cores that operate at 3.9 or 4.5 GHz. Since only one Valhalla die is used here, the L3 cache is halved to 32 MB. The TDP is still at 105 W.
The Ryzen 7 3700X is a bit more economical – we’re testing it today.
The clock rates are 3.6 and 4.4 GHz respectively, and the cache size is identical to the Ryzen 7 3800X.
AMD offers this model with a reduced TDP of 65 W.
The Ryzen 5 3600X is the first model with six cores operating at 3.8 or 4.4 GHz. The L2 cache is reduced to 3 MB due to only six active cores.
The L3 cache remains identical at 32 MB. AMD gives the Ryzen 5 3600X a little more leeway in power consumption and sets it at 95 W.
The Ryzen 5 3600 is the entry-level model for the time being, but it also offers six cores, which clock slightly lower at 3.67 and 4.2 GHz.
The TDP is reduced to 65 W.
Later there will probably be Ryzen 3 variants. At the moment, only the six models just mentioned are official, five of which are to start immediately.
All of them use the AM4 platform, or the socket of the same name.
AMD revealed all details about this at the Computex. Among other things, the third-generation Ryzen processors offer 24 PCI Express 4.0 lanes.
Four of these are reserved for connecting the chipset.
This leaves 16+4 for connecting the graphics card and other applications like SSDs.
DDR4-3200 memory is now supported, but this generation should also benefit significantly from the higher memory clock rate.
The chipset itself is manufactured in 14 nm and is constructed in the same way as the I/O die of the processors.
So AMD can also manufacture a chip that is used multiple times.
However, the I/O die of the processor is manufactured in 12 nm and represents the master in communication, so to speak.
The chipset is an I/O die from the 14 nm production.
Components like the memory controllers are simply not used here.
The dies come to a size of 212 mm² with 4.8 billion transistors.
A CCD (Core Complex Die) based on Zen 2 comes to 74 mm² with 3.9 billion transistors alone.
In addition there is still the IOD (I/O-Die) with 125 mm² and 2.09 billion transistors.
For a Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 processor with six or eight cores, we arrive at a total size of 199 mm² with 5.99 billion transistors.
The dies based on Zen 2 are thus a little smaller (CCD + IOD) combined, but have more than a billion additional transistors to offer.
In the case of the Ryzen 9 models with 12 or 16 cores, we are even talking about 273 mm² and 9.89 billion transistors.
This can of course be taken a little further.
An EPYC processor with eight CCDs and one IOD (assuming the IOD is identical for the server processors) can achieve 717 mm² and 33.29 billion transistors.
For comparison: A Cascade Lake SP processor with 28 cores comes to 694 mm² and is said to contain about 8 billion transistors.
Ryzen and RAM
AMD’s Zen architecture, or Ryzen (Threadripper) processors, are in some ways extremely dependent on the memory used.
Memory optimizations with regard to clock and timing can be extremely beneficial to the processors.
On the other hand, the MCM designs of the Ryzen Threadripper processors have problems with memory accesses across the memory controllers of remote dies.
For the Ryzen processors with six and eight cores, AMD provides a CCD (Core Complex Die) and an I/O Die.
An interconnect between the two chips is established via the Infinity Fabric.
The data exchange takes place with 32 byte/cycle in both directions. The Ryzen processors with 12 or 16 cores use two CCDs.
However, these are also connected to the I/O die via an interconnect and each of them has a 32 byte/cycle capacity.
The third generation Ryzen processors use the second generation of Infinity Fabric.
This was already the backbone of the interconnect infrastructure in the Multi-Chip Module Processors (MCM).
With the second generation, the bus has been doubled from 256 to 512 bits. Queries via the Infinity Fabric were accelerated in many areas.
The memory clock (mclk), the clock of the memory controller (uclk) and the clock of the Infinity Fabric (fclk) are coupled together via a fixed ratio up to a memory clock of DDR4-3600.
If DDR4-3200 is selected, the clock of these three units is 1,600 MHz.
If a memory clock is set via DDR4-3600, the three components operate in 2:1 mode.
The Infinity Fabric clock is then always 1,800 MHz, but can be adjusted manually.
The latencies increase by about 9 ns in 2:1 mode. For DDR4-4400 this means a memory clock of 2,200 MHz, the Infinity Fabric runs at 1,800 MHz and the memory controller operates at 1,100 MHz.
The clock of the Infinity Fabric can be manually adjusted in 33 MHz steps, as already mentioned.
Overclocking: Life at the limit
In the case of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, we were able to boot at 4.5 GHz on all eight cores, but the system did not run stable for a long time.
Only when we reduced the clock to 4.3 GHz did the system run cleanly.
Compared to the specified boost, this is 100 MHz less than AMD stated, but the 4,300 MHz on all cores are constantly present, which ultimately accelerates the performance significantly, especially in multi-core benchmarks.
In Cinebench R20 the performance increases by about 6%.
The Ryzen 7 3700X, which is accelerated in this way, increases considerably, especially in the power consumption.
The hunger for power almost approaches that of its big brother and increases by almost 50%.
This also shows that the new Ryzen CPUs are already running at their limit.
With the Ryzen 9 3900X, the result is even clearer:
Here we could not achieve stable operation beyond the basic clock rate on all twelve cores.
Even with 3.8 GHz on all cores, the system could not be made permanently stable.
The results are probably also the reason why the automatic overclocking via the Ryzen master tools only works to a limited extent, or rather stops after only a few seconds with the clock increase.
In view of the 7 nm technology and the already very high basic voltage of about 1.475 V, we have refrained from increasing the voltage.
A new BIOS update or even a second X570 mainboard could not improve our first attempts at overclocking with Ryzen 3000 either.
All in all, it remains to be said: The new Ryzen CPUs are already working at their limit and can only be slightly accelerated.
AMD currently succeeds with the Ryzen processors what seems to be difficult with the graphics cards for several generations.
They have caught up with their competitors in almost all areas and are beating them in many areas.
However, the multi-core dominance of the first and second generation will be extended to other areas with the third generation of Ryzen processors.
AMD is also on par with its competitors in terms of single-threaded or IPC performance thanks to its Zen 2 architecture.
According to AMD’s own statements, this was the plan for Zen 2, and the goals were exceeded.
For the Zen 2 architecture, the problem areas of the Zen architecture were touched.
The Micro Op Cache was increased, the same applies to the L3 Cache. Both should ensure a higher and more efficient utilization of the CPU pipeline.
We see the result of this in the good results in the single-threaded benchmarks.
By raising the memory clock to the current JEDEC standard DDR4-3200 plus a simple overclocking to DDR4-3600 this bottleneck is also loosened.
The chip design and manufacturing in 7 nm puts AMD in the position to be technologically one step ahead.
This can be seen among other things in the power consumption.
But also the processor clock reaches with 4.7 GHz in boost a much higher value than AMD itself would have expected.
The production of many small CCDs has great economic advantages for AMD. A further advantage is the flexibility of the design.
The IOD does the rest, reduces the dependencies on memory latencies and brings support for PCI-Express 4.0. In addition to the higher transfer rates for large data volumes, PCI-Express 4.0 still has to prove its advantages in the end customer area.
The Ryzen 9 3900X is currently unrivaled in the desktop class.
12 cores and 24 threads are unbeatable in applications where the cores put their power to the road.
Even the eight fast cores of the Core i9-9900K don’t help there. It even gets headwind from the Ryzen 7 3700X, which also offers eight cores and can process 16 threads simultaneously.
Due to the performance increase in architecture and manufacturing, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Intel Core i9-9900K are now equal in terms of performance.
Depending on the benchmark, the pendulum swings sometimes in the direction of the Ryzen 7 3700X and sometimes in the direction of the Core i9-9900K, but we haven’t seen such an equal race for a long time.
The Ryzen 7 3800X should be even a bit better thanks to the higher TDP and beat the Core i9-9900K on the whole length.
However, the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X can’t quite keep up in games yet.
Intel is also clearly on Intel’s heels here, but it still doesn’t look quite as good as in the synthetic benchmarks.
We tested in 1080p and 1440p.
The higher the resolution, the sooner the GPU limit comes into play and the closer the processors move together.
Probably due to the 7nm manufacturing, the Ryzen 7 3700X has a clear advantage in terms of power consumption.
Where the Core i9-9900K consumes almost 190 W under full load, the Ryzen 7 3700X manages with about 95 W.
However, we take results here during a run in Cinebench – more load can hardly be demanded from a processor.
The Core i9-9900K consumes a bit less in games, but AMD has the consumption advantage on its side.
The Ryzen 9 3900X allows itself considerably more, but also offers considerably more multi-threaded performance.
The memory overclocking offers a lot of fun and potential.
It doesn’t even have to be particularly fast memory to get the Ryzen processors out of the reserve.
DDR4-3600 is already enough to achieve a significant performance boost.
But if you want, you can let off steam with the memory.
In addition to the clock, the timing also plays an important role.
The overclocking of the processor, on the other hand, is still a bit cumbersome at the moment.
It remains to be seen whether this situation will change. At 4.3 GHz on all cores (more was not possible with our sample), the Ryzen 7 3700X offers a decent performance boost.
The Ryzen 9 3900X was a bit bitchy, though.
We’ll have to wait and see if the processor itself or the motherboard is the problem.
The Ryzen 9 3950X was already presented with extremely high clock rates, so the platform and the design of 2x CCD can’t really be the problem.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X – Final Verdict: Best performing CPU
Not only in terms of performance, AMD puts its competitors under pressure, also in terms of price.
But we already know this situation from the previous Ryzen generations. However, AMD was able to score points back then mainly because of the price, but now they have a few more points on their side.
The Ryzen 3700X, as a typical gaming processor, is probably the most frequently bought and is said to cost 349 Dollar.
The Intel Core i9-9900K currently goes over the counter for just under 500 Dollar. Even the Ryzen 7 3800X would still be cheaper at 429 Dollar.
The Ryzen 9 3900X is only 100 Dollar more expensive at 529 Dollar and offers an additional four cores.
If you have appropriate applications for this large number of cores, you get extremely multi-threaded performance for little money.
An Intel Core i9-9920X with 12 cores costs over 1,000 Dollar and also requires an LGA2066 board.
AMD has remained faithful to the AM4 platform for over three generations now, even if there are minor compatibility limitations.
Basically, however, what AMD has built up here on one platform is currently unparalleled.
All in all, the Ryzen 7 3700X wins our test decisively when it comes to performance.
Ranking Second: Intel i5 9600K
- Solid Gaming Performance
- Single Thread Performance is Great
- Lots of overclocking headroom
- No Hyper Threading
Intel i5 9600K – Best price-performance ratio CPU for Gaming
Intel’s Core i5 series processors have had four cores for many years.
This has finally changed in 2017 with the Core i8000 series and models like the Core i5 8600K.
About a year later, the successor, Core i5 9600K, has now been released, which we’ll put to the test in this review – especially in comparison to its predecessor.
The new naming suggests more differences than actually exist in terms of technical data.
The 9600K is still based on the Coffee Lake architecture, the cache areas turn out identical and the TDP hasn’t changed either with 95 watts.
There are only significant differences in two areas:
The clock rate is 100 to 300 MHz higher.
In addition, soldered metal is used between the CPU die and heatspreader instead of heat-conducting paste, which should allow lower temperatures.
Our gaming benchmarks show the expected minimal advantages of the Core i5 9600K compared to the Core i5 8600K.
Depending on the title, it can set itself apart from the 8600K by one to three percent in the average fps, and sometimes even five percent in the 99th percentile rates (Total War: Warhammer 2).
The bottom line is that the differences are negligible.
Because all six existing cores are at least partially utilized in our benchmark titles, the all-core turbo, which is 4.3 GHz in the case of the Core i5 9600K, always takes effect.
The Core i5 8600K comes instead to 4.1 GHz, which explains the (small) performance difference between the two models.
In our performance ranking, the Core i5 9600K places itself just ahead of the Core i5 8600K.
In return, the Core i7 8086K, which is about 200 Dollar more expensive, can only distinguish itself minimally from the 9600K.
The clock rate under typical gaming load is identical in these models (4.3 GHz), the slight advantage is instead due to the virtual core doubling, via which the 8086K can process twelve instead of six threads simultaneously.
At least in our benchmark titles this only brings a very small advantage, though.
In Full HD and with high instead of maximum details, AMD has a bit of a disadvantage in comparison to the Intel models.
The fastest Ryzen CPU (Ryzen 7 2700X) lags the Core i5 9600K by eleven percent.
However, if higher detail levels or a slower graphics card are used, the processors are closer together.
Price-performance ratio in games
Whilst the Core i5 9600K lands in the upper third of the test field in terms of gaming performance, it’s currently only enough for a place in the midfield in terms of price-performance ratio for all applications.
Because it is about ten Dollar more expensive, but also slightly faster than the Core i5 8600K, both processors achieve a very similar result here.
AMD can score in this discipline especially with the Ryzen 5 processors, such as the Ryzen 5 2600 (six cores, twelve threads) or the Ryzen 5 2400G (four cores, eight threads).
However, the current front-runner is the Core i3 8100, which is less affected by the latest price increases than the other Intel CPUs.
While the virtual core doubling of a current CPU with six cores doesn’t help much in games, it looks different when it comes to applications.
As a result, all Core i5 models (which lack hyper-threading) achieve at most midfield placements, whereby the Core i5 9600K still scores best overall due to its high clock rates.
As all tested AMD processors support virtual core doubling, they achieve a better result in this discipline in the duel with Intel than in the gaming performance comparison.
The strong single-core performance of the Intel CPUs makes for a close race overall, though.
In opposition to the other Core i9000 CPUs, the Core i5 9600K isn’t affected by the problem that the turbo clock rate is throttled under high CPU load because the TDP is exceeded for too long.
Here it helps that it has six instead of eight cores and doesn’t offer hyper-threading.
Even under 100 percent load during video conversion with handbrake, the all-core turbo of 4.3 GHz is kept constant and the CPU’s consumption of about 70 watts is a good distance from the upper limit of 95 watts.
Performance Ranking Applications
In our performance rating, the processors with high thread count and clock speed achieve the best performance, unsurprisingly.
Because the Core i5 9600K has at least the latter to offer and has six real cores after all, it can place itself just in the middle third.
However, the CPUs from this third are all close together, so that the gap to the top third is also manageable for the Core i5 9600K.
If you want to stream in high image quality via CPU (instead of using the graphics card or even a second PC), you won’t be happy with the new Core-i5-CPUs either.
While the Ryzen 5 processors can usually deliver a fluid image at least with 60 fps in 720p, all Core i5 models including the 9600K fail in this task.
As you are used to from these benchmarks by now, the Intel processors hardly lose any performance in the game itself at the same time, because they put the focus on it.
AMD’s Ryzen models deliver the better compromise between streaming and gaming performance in our opinion.
Indium solder vs. Thermal paste
With the appearance of AMD’s Ryzen CPUs, one topic has again become more prominent: the choice of material between CPU die and heatspreader (on which the CPU cooler rests).
AMD has generally opted for soldered metal, which tends to allow lower temperatures compared to the heatspreader paste Intel has been using for years.
For the Core i 9000 CPUs, Intel is now using Indium solder for the first time in a long time, which many gamers initially welcomed.
A video of the well-known overclocker novel “der8auer” Hartung, however, again provided some disillusionment.
The reason: Since the heat dissipating heatspreader in the Core i 9000 models is clearly thinner than in the predecessors (2.3 instead of 3.1 millimeters) and the indium layer is relatively thick (about 0.5 millimeters) due to a higher PCB and CPU die, the advantages over the Core i 8000 processors are limited.
In order to get a picture of this for ourselves, we let the Core i5 9600K and the Core i5 8600K sweat in Assassin’s Creed: Origins for a longer period of time under conditions as identical as possible to room temperature and the test system used, including the CPU cooler.
The result: The Core i5 9600K reaches values of about 57 degrees in the open test setup at a fan speed of 870 rpm, the Core i5 8600K reaches 60 degrees at 910 rpm.
Of course, the Core i5 9600K’s clock rate, which is after all 200 MHz higher, has to be taken into account.
If we let the 8600K run with an identical clock rate, the temperature rises slightly to just under 62 degrees and the CPU fan turns slightly faster (about 930 RPM).
In terms of temperature (and thus potentially also in terms of fan speed), the 9600K thus has some slight advantages over the 8600K.
However, they don’t turn out as big as one would perhaps expect from the change from thermal paste to indium solder.
We don’t experience any surprises in the Core i5 9600K in terms of power consumption either:
It is a bit higher in comparison to the Core i5 8600K due to the slightly increased clock rate.
Both models achieve similarly good rates in terms of energy efficiency.
We completely revised our test system at the beginning of the year.
We use Nvidia’s extremely fast Geforce GTX 1080 Ti as the graphics card so that the GPU becomes a bottleneck as late as possible.
The switch to the even faster Geforce RTX 2080 Ti is already planned for the next test system.
The tested games cover different genres. Among them are Assassin’s Creed: Origins (action role-playing game, third-person), Civilization 6 (lap strategy), Kingdom Come: Deliverance (role-playing game, first-person), Project Cars 2 (racing game), Total War: Warhammer 2 (real-time strategy) and Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus (first-person shooter).
DirectX 12 is deliberately left out.
The interface still hasn’t caught on and leads to lower fps on our test system in Civilization 6 as well as in Total War: Warhammer than with DirectX 11.
In the form of Wolfenstein 2, we have at least one title with the mostly technically very convincing, but not yet widely used Vulkan interface in our program.
We decided on Full HD (1920×1080) and high details with regard to resolution and detail level.
In higher detail levels and resolutions like WQHD (2560×1440) or 4K (3840×2160) the graphic card becomes more and more a bottleneck.
Lower resolutions, like 1280×70, are too far away from practice in our opinion.
So far we have measured the performance in games with Fraps, now OCAT (Open Capture and Analytics Tool) is used instead.
OCAT outputs the so-called “99th percentile” instead of the minimum achieved fps.
As the name suggests, 99 percent of all measured values are above this limit.
Compared to the specification of a pure minimum fps value, the 99th percentile has the great advantage that it filters out individual slips (or the one percent of the lowest values).
When playing the game itself, these slip-ups usually don’t make themselves noticeable, so the 99th percentile is more practical, since it better describes the mostly achieved performance.
All processors are tested with 16.0 GByte DDR4 RAM in dual channel mode and with a clock rate of 2.933 MHz.
In our experience, the use of memory with even higher clock rates can help Ryzen processors in particular to achieve higher performance.
However, we decided to measure with the officially maximum guaranteed clock of the Ryzen 2000 CPUs and used this clock to create the same conditions for the other processors in the test field (even though some of them only officially support slightly lower clock rates such as 2.666 MHz or 2.400 MHz as in the case of the Core i3 8100).
As operating system, Windows 10 with all current updates and security patches against Meltdown and Spectre is used, which is installed on an SSD just like the games.
We test the application performance of the processors in various practical scenarios, such as encoding a video via handbrake or measuring the loading times in Civilization 6.
We also determine the performance of the CPUs when streaming via OBS to Twitch.tv.
We also determine the power consumption, on the one hand when playing Assassin’s Creed: Origins, on the other hand in Cinebench, which uses all cores and threads to full capacity.
Besides diagrams with absolute numbers, we also offer relative classifications of the CPUs, on the one hand with regard to their price/performance ratio in games (Dollar/fps), on the other hand in terms of energy efficiency (watt/fps).
Final Verdict: Intel i5 9600K – Best price-performance ratio CPU for Gaming
Intel’s Core i5 9600K in the test is certainly the most spectacular of the (for now) three new Core i9000 CPUs.
Due to the somewhat higher clock rates and slightly lower temperatures, it still represents the better choice in comparison to the Core i5 8600K at a similar price.
However, for the 200 Dollar, which is currently about to be paid for the Core i5, you can already get a fast eight-core CPU like the Ryzen 7 3700 from AMD, whereby corresponding models of the previous generation, like the Ryzen 7 1700X, are even available for under 200 Dollar.
Sure, Intel still tends to be slightly ahead in games without graphics card limitations.
However, this shouldn’t have much relevance in practice.
Coupled with the high application performance and the fair prices, AMD offers the better overall package in most cases in my opinion.
After Intel was almost unrivaled in the CPU area for years, thanks to Ryzen there has been a lot of movement in the market. And next year promises to be very exciting as well.
Final Verdict: Intel Core i5 9600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
In the end, it was a really close battle between the Intel i5 9600K and the Ryzen 7 3800X from AMD.
Performance wise and price wise both CPUs are very strong.
All in all, if you want the best gaming performance and also application performance, i.e. for a workstation, without any compromises, you should go with the Ryzen 7 3700X.
If you use your PC mostly as a gaming machine and not primarily as a workstation you will also benefit from the Intel i5 9600K, as it is better for gaming and less so for use in a workstation.
Also: The Intel i5 9600K offers the best price-performance ratio between the two tested CPUs.
Considering you really get 30% more in performance with the Ryzen 7 3700X compared to the Intel i5 9600K, but pay only about 20% more for the Ryzen 9 3700X, makes for an easy decision for budget conscious users.
All in all we have to say, that we prefer the Ryzen 7 3700X. It just offers amazing performance for a great price.
There are also rumors that at the end of 2020 AMD will announce the new Ryzen 4000 series.
If this series convinces, it could be a deathblow for Intel, especially when AMD keeps its pricing strategy.
We will keep you updated!