tl; dr - Sickly good processor, but how many cores do you really need?
Have only had Intel processors since I started building computers in 2008. My journey has been E8400 => Q9550 => 3570k => 7600k and now I cross the border to the AMD camp. The reason is, of course, that the new generation of AMD processors performs objectively better in performance tests.
Thought a lot about how many cores and threads I really need, and I actually came to the conclusion that 5600x would probably be just excellent enough for me, but it still had to be 5900x with some kind of shaky rationalization that I might still want to perform video editing or stream in the future. That will probably not be the case, at least not to any great extent. In the end, it is probably mostly for the feeling to for once have the best that is offered to buy as it got to be 5900x =) (comments about 5950x are kindly avoided).
The processor is heavenly good. Has not done much benchmarks, but it seems to render video 3-4 times faster than 7600k in Davinci Resolve 16. Plays mostly DCS and the performance in 1440p was marginally better, with the same graphics card. DCS is, as I understand it, extremely bad at using multi-wire capacity.
Cool with a Be Quiet! Dark Rock 4 Pro that cools it to 72 degrees in Prime95. It seems that some simple things maximize a core that then gets hot, and it causes the fan to go at high speed for just a few seconds. It does not bother me, I have had a Corsair Hydro, and realize that I have missed the gentle fan sound of a processor fan that varies in intensity.
So all in all, it probably comes down to how many cores you think you need. If you are not very clear that you use applications that benefit greatly from multi-threading, you can easily choose a 5600k. If you want to play games, put the difference on a better graphics card - it is guaranteed to make a difference.