Indeed, but it'll use such an amount more energy to do the same thing, i really don't comprehend what actual advantage the chip will provide over previous gen Intel, or comparable AMD.
In games and common applications, it won't use a monstrous amount of power. At stock, perhaps 50W more than a Ryzen equivalent.
These are the days of 320w, 350W GPU's (3080, 3090). Most don't care about power consumption, as long as performance is there.
In AVX-512 workloads, that's where you'll see the crazy 300W+ numbers. Hardly any programs use this feature yet, though when it is used, it provides incredible performance, at the cost of very high power. Ryzen doesn't support AVX-512.
Vs the 10900k, you're getting:
1. PCI-E gen4 (980 PRO SSD's etc take full advantage of this)
2. DMI 3.0 X8 (double bandwidth from chipset to CPU)
3. Up to 19% IPC, depending on workload
4. Much faster iGPU (handy when waiting for new GPU to arrive/RMA etc)
5. More PCI-E lanes
6. AVX-512 (monstrously fast performance in supported applications, at the cost of monstrous power consumption)
As for why people choose Intel vs AMD - it's for many reasons. Stability, bad prior experiences with AMD, reluctance to change, you name it.
The important thing is that we have two high performance CPU vendors to choose from. No human will tell the difference in gaming performance between a 11900k, 5900x, 5950x etc.
