Verno wrote on May 1, 2020, 12:13:
I don't know about trading blows but they're usually within my margin of not giving a shit, I'm really happy with my 3900x and stopped checking benches lately outside of this release. But some people really care about every bit of performance with gaming and that's who Intel is trying to target, for better or for worse.
They're stuck for the next year or two and are just trying to make the best of their shitty situation. I think the community goodwill would be a bit better if they hadn't hammered us so much on price for the past 8 years. But hey their made their bed.
Right. The margin is negligible. I personally don't aim for a top end CPU... $200-$300 is my sweet spot for a gaming CPU. I won't pay $500+ for a few more percentage points in frame rates... especially since it's usually the GPU that will get replaced more often, and more than compensates for that.
Hell, I'm still on a Core-i5 3570k on my gaming rig, and since I game at 1080 still, I'm not feeling it holding back my GTX1070 all that much, which is the 2nd GPU in that rig (Went from a GTX680 originally).
The point is... I only need enough CPU to not limit my GPU by a drastic amount, when it comes to gaming. Intel has had very small increments of IPC from generation to generation... which is why my old CPU has lasted so long. I only upgrade for a Quantum leap of performance for my dollar... which IPC-wise is pretty much here for me.
Top end $500+ Gaming CPUs... Yeah, Intel's marketing will fool the less technical FPS gamer or the folks that don't do their homework. But, IMHO, most gamers are savvy enough to go to some discussion forums before they buy, and get some decent direction.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!