AshSenpai

Intel is just not ready for pcie gen 4 ... about the same as 10nm I suppose ...
 
Well if boards (some or all I don't know) can support it we could hope that intel bring it to the next line of cpu and keep the same socket.  Not that it would make any differences for gpu (maybe for the 3090 super ti super somethin somethin) unless the low end ones are being on pcie gen4 x8 and that then it matters a bit ... like the rx5500 xt if I remember correctly. 
 
 

Why would they release a card that only about 20% of the market can use?

Sure, NVMe and graphics card for instance.

it depends on what ur gpu and budget is, if you are going with a 2070S or below, go with a 3600 or 10600k, though if some1 goes with a 10600k with a 2070S, i'd suggest a 2080S and a 3600 with the stock cooler lol, same cost, 
 
If you are going with a 2080S or 2080 ti, go with a 10600k or 10700k, would not recommend the 3700x over the 10600k for gaming. Be aware though that the 3900x has been flashing under 400usd when it goes on sale.
 
honestly seeing a 3900x at 375usd last week would give me pause when buying any intel cpu, even for gaming, makes me wonder what kinda prices microcenter in-store for the 3900x lol.
 

Unless you have a 2080 Ti at 1080p, gaming is the same on both AMD and Intel. At 1440p the CPU is usually irrelevant and at 1080p, with a 2080 the difference also disappears because you are GPU-limited.

And if you spend the time tuning your memory and timings and subtimings, the difference disappears as a whole. The 3600X can match the 10600K even with an overclock as long as it comes with proper memory so it really boils down to how much you want to tweak. Stock vs stock - Intel is ~5% ahead in gaming at best. Tuned vs tuned - the difference is 2-3%. It just makes no sense, at least for me, to buy an inferior design which runs a LOT hotter, uses double the power and has security issues for a 5% gaming lead while also losing in everything else by upward of 20% at the same price point.
 
Take this from me - I have an i7 8th gen and I would not recommend it. The difference in real world gaming with an upper mid range card or even high end card doesn't exist. Hell, my friend has a 3600 and 2060 Super. He matches my performance even though I have an *70 class card. The moral of the story is, the increased price, heat and power consumption of Intel make it impossible for me to recommend. I will be moving to Ryzen at the first opportunity I get simply because I will have a MUCH cooler and quieter system with essentially the same gaming performance and VASTLY better work performance.
 
 

Get a board with BIOS flashback. That way, even if a BIOS update fails, the board isn't fucked and you can reflash with no issues. I think a lot of B550 and X570 boards have that.
 
As for security - it usually results in lower performance over time as Intel are forced to patch stuff and the patches end up reducing performance by small amounts each time.

I only can report, my 3600 runs without issues. If it runs and you don't want optimizations/new cpu support, leave the bios updates alone. Everything else works just fine

The 3700X but price wise, you can get the much faster 3900X
 
In any case, a lot of your worried are not really warranted. 
 
1 - unless you have a 2080 To and are playing at 1080p with it, both are identical in gaming. With heavy tuning, intel can be 2-3% better on average but that requires a heavy investment in high end board, cooling and power supply as intel CPUs currently use a lot more power and generate a lot more heat than AMD counterparts. This is due to the fact that intel are stuck on a very old 14nm process and are using a refined version of Skylake, which is a 5-year-old design. AMDs Zen 2 is using a more efficient 7nm node and a much more advaced design which allows them to achieve the same performance at roughly half the power and heat as intel.
 
Currently Intel's Z490 platform is the only one having actual BIOS issues. BIOS updated don't mean there are problems, simply means that the OEM is providing optimizations. So I'd you are worried about issues to that degree, intel makes no sense at all.
 
Points 3, 4 and 5 are moot. Windows and the CPUs themselves are reliable. There are no issues with them aside from the intel security holes but I'm not sure if those matter to you.

If you want best of the line the you go for 10900k.
For intel, you either buy the 10600k or the 10900k, 10700k doesn't really have any arguments for itself.
Yes the 2 more cores will give some benefits in stuff like video editing etc but if you really need that you wouldn't be going intel

Can you wait upgrading? Ryzen 4000 is launching in fall and will simply be better than intel 10th gen. I would still recommend the 3700x as it's cheaper than a 10700k an performs within 10% of it allowing for a better gpu.
 
For your points:
 
1. Sometimes an amd cpu is better other times an intel depends on the pricepoint really. (lower end it's basically just amd).
 
2. Both have that. Just because there are bios updates doesn't mean you have to install them. The bonus of amd is that they do make it possible to get an updated bios to support new cpu's on a lot older boards.
 
3. I don't get this one? Windows runs on amd cpus the end?
 
4. Either should be fine. Do keep in mind intel runs a LOT hotter and the stock coolers they give you do NOT cool the cpu enough so you will need to get a third party decent cooler to avoid issues. Amd does not have this issue.
 
5. If you choose decent components and not low end crap (like bad motherboards, garbagefire psu's, sealed cases with no airflow,...) all will run fine

Performance wise - 3700X.
Price wise - 3900X.

Intel is better for gaming only in as much as the individual game relies heavily on single-core performance, and the clock of the Intel chip is actually higher than the AMD chip (not always the case). In games optimized for multi-core and virtually every single other thing you could do with a computer, AMD wins. Even then, we're not talking huge differences in single core perf; it's just Intel will edge out AMD slightly. Dollar for dollar, AMD is better in virtually every way, and even a 3900X will outperform a 10900K, except maybe by a few frames in a first person shooter.

sorry I'm not very good with AMD gen thank you and i will consider this but i was wondering is 3700x have any bios issues and is it reliable for gaming ?? and if you have an AMD CPU do you have any problems with it ?

I've never had an AMD product before so i was just wondering because i have couple of friends who had some issues with there AMD builds

again thank you bro @TofuHaroto

you shoudl go with AMD right now. get 3700x. almost as good as 10700k but the cpu, cooling and motherboard will cost you much less.

Welcome to the forum!
Yes, will work. You just need some new thermal paste.
The 10700K is an LGA 1200 CPU, while the 3770K is an LGA 1155 CPU. It has been confirmed LGA 115x coolers will work with LGA 1200. So you can just uninstall the cooler and take all the brackets and such and install it in the new CPU.
 
The thermal paste does need to be replaced, so just get a tube of paste (like Arctic MX-4) and you're fine.

Actually it's really not imo. If you can wait. Then wait for zen 3 and check what it has to offer. 

Either wait for Zen 3 or get a 3700X. The 10700K is just not worth it. It's not faster than a 3700X by more than 2-3%, it's hotter, more power hungry and needs a more expensive board and cooling.