now if they could make sticks of static memory for gaming boxes......

Isn't their aggressive design with too many eggs in a basket a contributing factor to their delay?  It's like everyone forgets old roadmaps...

I would agree it’s a major achievement to think that they can fit that many. I kind of figured we would have hit a wall for Moore’s law by now but it seems like we are a ways off from that.

And the 10nm problems loom
 

Intel Custom Foundry’s 10nm meltdown is crushing a $20+B market cap tech giant

After extensive research, SemiAccurate can say this company cannot survive Intel’s lack of delivery intact. The consequences of this are far reaching for both Intel and their customer.
We would like to start this out on a personal note, two actually. First and most importantly is this story makes us sick, it is going to mean the loss of thousands of jobs and the destruction of a once proud and innovative company, all because of executive stupidity. While we are just reporting the issue, it is still pretty horrible to watch and think about, our condolences to those affected but not to those involved at a high level.
 
As you know Intel’s 10nm process is now years delayed, is not economically or technically viable, and is unlikely to ever work financially speaking based on what SemiAccurate understands of the problems Intel is still trying to fix. The customer in question put their entire upcoming line of chips at Intel on 10nm, and Intel failed. There was no Plan B, no out, and according to multiple sources, the customer in question can not survive. This is mainly due to a major industry transition that is going on now, the company in question will not have a product to sell into it.
 
https://www.semiaccurate....market-cap-tech-giant/

Vlada011
I'm not sure what is better for me..

You covered most of the pros and cons of your upgrade conundrum.  I'd add that from a nomenclature standpoint alone, Z390 might not have an upgrade path beyond i9-9900K as the "i9" and "x900" subseries were exclusively HEDT; unless they make an i11 or 10th gen processor drop-in-compatible, which they don't have a history of doing that.  So your current platform is not only cheaper and easier, but has an upgrade path to a 10-core (unless BIOS mod gets you more cored Xeons).  It seems the most logical option to stay on your platform, unless you want to brag having the 'latest and greatest' = you're upgrading for others, to seem relevant against fellow enthusiasts.   If I were you, I'd focus on what you do with the system and pay attention to your upgrade habits and tendencies.


That being said, while you will have a 10-core upgrade option in the future, understand that time (particularly, AMD) doesn't stop:  If it's true that AMD will bring 12-core and 16-core 7nm dies by next year, Intel will respond in kind and this year's 8-core will be last year's quad-core.  The thing about technology progress, the rate of adoption follows the mass majority, not the enthusiast minority; it will be a while before from-the-ground-up software written today makes use of more cores at the mainstream client level which have been tailored to quad-cores for 12 years.  But even in three years, those programs will be best suited for 6-cores at first, maybe in another three years, then 8-cores; but enthusiast use cases will be beyond mainstream.  10-core might be a limitation within 3 years from an enthusiast sense, and by then AMD will push out their 3nm Zen 5 and with it the possibility of more cores per die, I'm thinking a 20-core and a 24-core die.  

Based on that, I suggest getting a platform path that will allow more CPU cores than you need now (i.e. go for X299 and get 7820X to start, unless you want to try for a cheap Cascade Lake processor), because it isn't like you won't need them later (we aren't in a quad-core Renascence anymore).  It's just a matter of when you get into a particular software suite in the next few years; why upgrade so many times in between for every new thing you get into?