Kind of an interesting analysis in several ways - especially what it says about me!
- Although in the past I have switched between AMD and Intel as it suits my gaming needs - when it comes to non gaming I seem to lean to Intel - not sure why my bias
- Although I have forked out maybe close to $30K for all my astronomy gear - building a rig to better handle astronomy workloads has me trying to allocate under $6K to a decent, future expandable rig - where as maybe $5K would be ideal for AMD and $7K for Intel. So ignoring value and looking at fit for purpose can't say why I didn't simply go for a 12 or 14 core I9 today for an extra $1K to $1.5K and just say hang the expense. Most likely because it's too much cash that can go elsewhere and I simply don't do astrophotography often enough to warrant the financial commitment of a bigger machine today.
I was really interested to see how well older CPUs heavily overclocked do in games. It makes me wonder how much of that is games not yet fully optimised for multi core CPUs. The Intel path means my budget is gouged on CPU and Motherboard pricing versus AMD - if folk can justify that - you can expand the system you want fairly easily. Wonder in a years time what CPUs will look like?