Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Try running an overclocked 9900K on the Prime Z390-A and see how your VRM temps are 
.Uuuuuh, anyone who doesn't have a RTX 2080 Ti doesn't care mate.and in games be slower. for the life time of the new amd processor.
it actually dumbfounds me that people have swallowed the amd hook. the benchmark slide for eg posted earlier. they used a 2080 gtx why ? because the framerates are closer to intel with that still slower than a 9900k ingames overall but close enough . add in a 2080ti then you see the gap grow with intel cpus. you will see this in benchmarks soon. you are basically paying for more cores. if you use those extra cores of 12+ its amazing for you. if you dont use more than 8 then you buying a slower product. makes no sense. pricing needs to change. i think it will once the hype dies down a little and the true benchmarks are out.
the funny thing is gaming elite benchmark slide even shows that the £400 8 core amd new cpu is slower in games than a current 9700k 8 core cpu which costs as little as £350
I absolutely agree that their comparison was a bit odd - comparing a £350 i7-9700K to a £380 R7 3800X with the latter losing slightly in gaming (but far ahead in creation workloads). However, there are no goal posts, you're literally creating and planting them yourself. OK, maybe fifty people on the planet care about a few extra FPS while playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti. No-one else does, so why keep bringing it up?
You mean in 5+ years presumably. GPUs haven't become more affordable (for a given performance band) for, what, 3 years now?
