[5d749d7da7d5]

>the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads

I just checked my go-to hardware recommendation site, Logical Increments[0], and not a single Intel CPU makes the list. AMD everything.

[0] https://www.logicalincrements.com/

[sundvor]

The new Zen3 series crushes the top of the line Intel desktop CPUs.

I'm on the 3900XT, one of the last from the Zen2 line - it's a ripper, yet I can also just drop in a 5900X or 5950X without having to change the motherboard.

Notwithstanding the many Intel security issues where the remedies nerfed performance, between Apple and AMD, I can certainly see Intel in a bit of struggle.

[BoorishBears]

The idea it's recommending a 3600 over a 10600k for a thousand dollar build tells me there's a slant...

[Miraste]

The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.

[BoorishBears]

The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer.

And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now...

$50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here)

That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming...

-

And by the way, even the next build up chooses a 3600X over the 10600K despite the former even beating the 3700X in gaming benchmarks.

The 10600K is an insane value for gaming, and still fast enough for non-gaming tasks. Seeing as they're listing "heavy gaming" as a measurement on these builds it doesn't make any sense for at the very least the i5 to make an appearance.

[quacker]

Well, but you want to spend money on the GPU if you care about gaming.

Consider these two builds:

1. Ryzen 5 2600 ($150) + RTX 3070 ($500) for $650

2. i5-10900k ($280) + RX 5700XT ($330) for $610

The first build with the RTX 3070 is far better. The RTX 3070 buys you into 1440p high/ultra @ 90+ FPS, or 4k med/high @ 60+ FPS. Will the 2600 bottleneck that GPU? Maybe, but you still get better performance for the price by investing in the GPU versus the CPU.

[BoorishBears]

Who said anything about cutting GPU performance?

Also your comparisons are quite poor... 2600 shouldn't even be in the running here, the 3070 would be held back from doing the thing it does best, high FPS 1440p (in actual games mind you, not just CS:GO)

[quacker]

I mean, you said I should waste my money on a CPU upgrade that would make no difference in 1440p gaming. That's money I can't spend on a better GPU, which would make a difference in 1440p gaming.

[calinet6]

You're missing the 5000 series Ryzens, which they just updated this for.

The difference is key.

[BoorishBears]

I'm not seeing any listing for 5000 series in the 1k price range, and the 10600k is actually in stock at or below MSRP...

Meanwhile it trades blows with the 5600X unless you're making a 7zip decompression and Cinebench rendering mule...

I'm guessing that's why they're not recommended? Being able to actually get the CPU is pretty important...

[calinet6]

5600x is in the same price range and a no-brainer, once stock stabilizes.

There's no sense in intel right now when doing a new build.

[BoorishBears]

> Once stock stabilizes

Giant asterisk during a global pandemic no?

And that's paying $50 more than what is apparently already too much for almost equivalent gaming performance (slightly better after overclocking and the motherboard and cooler priced in above support that too)