I checked just to see how the 2700X fared against the i9-9900K
This will not dissuade Intel fans. The i9-9900K is faster, by an overall 16%. Of course Intel does single-core better.
Cost for the 2700X - $280
Cost for the i9-9900K - $500
Whilst the 6 core, 12 thread 8700K beats the 2700X in single and quad core performance by about 10%, the 2700X wins on multi-core workloads. PC gaming and desktop performance is generally governed by four or less cores but the 2700X offers unbeatable value for money for workstation users.
Although the 9900K has around a 16% effective speed advantage over the 2700X, the Ryzen 2700X offers better value for money for most users.
These people did a blind test to try to find out:
Pretty interesting how it turned out.
I recently purchased a GTX1070ti and then they come out with the RTX2070. Do I feel gipped?
price of the RTX2070 compared to the GTX1070ti: lowest seen prices: $550 vs $360
Nope, not at all. Sure, the 2070 has GDDR6 mem over the GDDR5 the 1070ti has, but the hardware points I worry about have negligible differences. Granted, while the RTX does not depend on CUDA cores so much (the nature of Ray Tracing), I'm not one for the new bells and whistles if I do not have a practical need for them.
The above link is just one comparison and I just focused on the technical specs and not actual performance. This second link is a start for that. The benchmarks show a 78% increase in multi-rendering over the 1070ti.
The RTX2060 may be someone else's entre to the RTX world, but I have avoided the 60-series nvidia cards as consumer level performance GPUs. Nothing surprising in this graphic:
I am not authoritative....