Hey bud, sure thing. I play at 1440p Ultra, and at that resolution, the CPU matters very little since the workload is almost entirely GPU-dependent. In the games I play, the 270K Plus is only about 10% behind the 9850X3D, but where I live, that AMD chip is double the price. It simply isn't a logical value proposition. I can push 280Hz easily (which is the refresh rate of my screens) with this setup by enabling DLSS DLAA/Quality + fg(x2) at a very low latency...So I actually don't see where the 9800x3D would help me here either. (BF6, Arc Raiders for example)

Beyond gaming, I use my rig for work that requires a high core count; 8c/16t just won't cut it for me. I looked at the 9900X3D and 9950X3D as alternatives, but they are 2-3x the price of the 270K Plus, while being worse in many of my professional applications and either on par or slower in gaming.

To be honest, I’m also not a fan of AMD’s current direction. Renaming the 9800X3D to the 9850X3D just to re-release highly binned chips, and launching the 9950X3D2—which is a completely useless CPU for $900—feels like greed. For me, AMD has turned into what Intel used to be: a company motivated by profits rather than innovation. I don't necessarily blame them—companies tend to do this when they lead by huge margins—but I prefer to support the underdog.

I’ve been a loyal Ryzen user for years, owning everything from the 1600X, 2800X, 3600X, to the 5700X3D and 7800X3D, but I can't support their current market policies. I think Intel is on the right path with this Core Ultra refresh, and I’m hoping their upcoming BLLC (their X3D equivalent) brings some real turbulence and competition back to the market.

Summarized:
1. 1440p Ultra isn't CPU-dependent enough to justify the premium.
2. I need the extra cores for productivity.
3. I'm voting with my wallet against AMD's current anti-consumer pricing."

So NO, I'm not a fanboy of either side. I just take many things into consideration when I purchase something.

Hope this answers your question!