A Home user with no professional use case should NEVER spend more than $200 on a CPU or a motherboard. It's also pretty insane how many of these CPU's draw over 100W. Even the 65W and 58W TDP chips draw close to 100W, so that's really the high end in terms of power envelope. Don't need a space heater computer in your house.
This post is basically useless, I'd like to see a breakdown of chips under $200 that also NEVER draw more than 100W. If you're gonna do a system build guide the entry level desktop should be $500 total, without OS. At $1000 the system should be totally silent. At $1500 it can make noise but still shouldn't be anywhere near a vacuum or microwave in db. At $1500 it should also be able to do everything, for at least the next 3 years. Video editing and encoding, 4K gaming, compression, 3D rendering.
These greedy fucktwats keep trying to increase they're already insanely high profit margins. If we as consumers do not hold them accountable they will allow their greed to destroy the entire industry.
NEVER EVER pay $300 for a fucking Core i5 CPU! Simply refuse!Reply
It says right there in the title "Best CPU for Gaming". If you want a power efficient and cheap PC, they are a dime a dozen. For $500, there are some really good options for mini PCs that use laptop CPUs, and come preinstalled with Windows.Reply
It says right there, "AnandTech Gaming CPU Recommendations - Segment: Gaming on a Budget". Did you misplace your glasses, or your eyes?
Just yesterday Anandtech was recommending the $120 3300X as the "budget gaming CPU" in this kind of posts, because of course it was, everyone was, it was a monster of a quad-core CPU.
The 5600X is arguably the spiritual successor of the 3300X since it only costs a few dozen dollars more while offering more IPC and 50% more cores. Everyone knows it, which is why everyone is buying it. Except for whoever wrote this post, and for you.
As for your comment on the "Mini-PC", it can't be defined as anything but moronically stupid. Really, you want to say that there's no in-between between a $2000 500+W 5800X3D+4080 system and a $500 15W Celeron? No other options? Did you get dropped on your head as a child?Reply
I remember when the Core 2 Quad came onto the scene... Everyone recommended buying the Core 2 Duo instead. - The C2Q got the last laugh, it was capable of running the latest games for many more years longer than the Duo.
Then I jumped onto the Core i7 3930K bandwagon, same argument, don't buy HEDT, just get a 2500K/2600K. - That system is still chugging along just fine, the extra cores gave it extra longevity.
I don't really do much with my PC's anymore, just media consumption, but I like having high-end parts... But I also tend to keep my systems for 10~ years.Reply
You would've been better off, value wise, without the i7-3930k. If you instead went with the i7-2600k or the i7-3770k and used the price difference to upgrade the RAM, SSD, or dGPU.
Just as The Steve's (Gamers Nexus/Hardware Unboxed) discovered it's better to try to optimise for the best value today, with limited consideration for upgradability, as in the long-run it means you're better off. The habit of future-proofing leads to a rabbit hole of poor value if you're not careful.
I'll make a follow up post to show which parts held up great in terms of value and longevity, and I'll date it back from the Athlon64/Core2Quad and GTX 600/HD7000 to the RTX 3000/RX 6800 and Core-i12 Zen3+. Reply
I am turned off by these newer heterogenous designs, particularly by key CPU functionality only being made available by drivers and the OS for AMD. One of the benefits I understood of the 7800X3D is that this will not be an issue. Can we confirm that? I would honestly be totally down to settle for less cores if it meant not dealing with garbage software and complex scheduling I will never understand.Reply
Yeah, it's weird how many sites aren't benchmarking the 5600x at all now in these comparisons. It was hugely popular and it would help people decide whether to buy into AM5, upgrade to a 5800x3D or wait and do nothing at all if the gains aren't yet worth the money to them.
I would also like to see more benchmarks done at 1440p high or ultra settings, even if it doesn't highlight the difference a CPU makes as well as the 1080p LOW settings that no one is actually playing on.Reply
I know this is very unpopular to say, since 'gaming' brings in billions. However, I still feel the same way I have for years: Where are the games that are worth spending money and time on, in terms of building systems like these?
I started gaming when I was four. I don't find the kind of games that are being made interesting. I see a lot of cookie-cutter cheesy violence.Reply
Slight mistake with the article : “ Looking at the finer specifications, the Core i5-13600K can boost up to 5.4 GHz on the Performance (P) cores, while the Efficiency (E) cores can hit frequencies of up to 4.2 GHz. “ - don’t you mean 5.1 and 3.9?Reply
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
Back to Article
Hrel - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
A Home user with no professional use case should NEVER spend more than $200 on a CPU or a motherboard. It's also pretty insane how many of these CPU's draw over 100W. Even the 65W and 58W TDP chips draw close to 100W, so that's really the high end in terms of power envelope. Don't need a space heater computer in your house.This post is basically useless, I'd like to see a breakdown of chips under $200 that also NEVER draw more than 100W. If you're gonna do a system build guide the entry level desktop should be $500 total, without OS. At $1000 the system should be totally silent. At $1500 it can make noise but still shouldn't be anywhere near a vacuum or microwave in db. At $1500 it should also be able to do everything, for at least the next 3 years. Video editing and encoding, 4K gaming, compression, 3D rendering.
These greedy fucktwats keep trying to increase they're already insanely high profit margins. If we as consumers do not hold them accountable they will allow their greed to destroy the entire industry.
NEVER EVER pay $300 for a fucking Core i5 CPU! Simply refuse! Reply
meacupla - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
It says right there in the title "Best CPU for Gaming".If you want a power efficient and cheap PC, they are a dime a dozen. For $500, there are some really good options for mini PCs that use laptop CPUs, and come preinstalled with Windows. Reply
Wereweeb - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
It says right there, "AnandTech Gaming CPU Recommendations - Segment: Gaming on a Budget". Did you misplace your glasses, or your eyes?Just yesterday Anandtech was recommending the $120 3300X as the "budget gaming CPU" in this kind of posts, because of course it was, everyone was, it was a monster of a quad-core CPU.
The 5600X is arguably the spiritual successor of the 3300X since it only costs a few dozen dollars more while offering more IPC and 50% more cores. Everyone knows it, which is why everyone is buying it. Except for whoever wrote this post, and for you.
As for your comment on the "Mini-PC", it can't be defined as anything but moronically stupid. Really, you want to say that there's no in-between between a $2000 500+W 5800X3D+4080 system and a $500 15W Celeron? No other options? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? Reply
meacupla - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
For $500, I am pretty sure you can get a SER5, which comes equipped with 5800H, 16GB ram, 500GB SSD, and Win11. ReplyStevoLincolnite - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
I remember when the Core 2 Quad came onto the scene... Everyone recommended buying the Core 2 Duo instead. - The C2Q got the last laugh, it was capable of running the latest games for many more years longer than the Duo.Then I jumped onto the Core i7 3930K bandwagon, same argument, don't buy HEDT, just get a 2500K/2600K. - That system is still chugging along just fine, the extra cores gave it extra longevity.
I don't really do much with my PC's anymore, just media consumption, but I like having high-end parts... But I also tend to keep my systems for 10~ years. Reply
Kangal - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
You would've been better off, value wise, without the i7-3930k. If you instead went with the i7-2600k or the i7-3770k and used the price difference to upgrade the RAM, SSD, or dGPU.Just as The Steve's (Gamers Nexus/Hardware Unboxed) discovered it's better to try to optimise for the best value today, with limited consideration for upgradability, as in the long-run it means you're better off. The habit of future-proofing leads to a rabbit hole of poor value if you're not careful.
I'll make a follow up post to show which parts held up great in terms of value and longevity, and I'll date it back from the Athlon64/Core2Quad and GTX 600/HD7000 to the RTX 3000/RX 6800 and Core-i12 Zen3+.
Reply
Tilmitt - Sunday, March 26, 2023 - link
Where is the follow up post? ReplyDizoja86 - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
Sir, this is a Wendy's... ReplyGreenReaper - Wednesday, March 29, 2023 - link
Then get me a Dave's Double combo with a Sprite, sour cream and chives potato and a pot of chili! Replyachinhorn - Friday, March 24, 2023 - link
I am turned off by these newer heterogenous designs, particularly by key CPU functionality only being made available by drivers and the OS for AMD. One of the benefits I understood of the 7800X3D is that this will not be an issue. Can we confirm that? I would honestly be totally down to settle for less cores if it meant not dealing with garbage software and complex scheduling I will never understand. Replynandnandnand - Saturday, March 25, 2023 - link
We've already seen reviews that turned off the non-3D CCD in the 7950X3D to simulate a 7800X3D. It's not going to be a surprise. Replyddhelmet - Thursday, March 30, 2023 - link
13600K 12 threads? Is that a typo? Replykkilobyte - Sunday, March 26, 2023 - link
"Before Black Friday last year (November 2023)" <-- This should be "November 2022", or I slept a bit too long today :) ReplyRyan Smith - Monday, March 27, 2023 - link
Thanks! ReplyLonnieG - Monday, March 27, 2023 - link
I wish there were lines for the Ryzen 5 5600X and Core i9-13900K to show how big the gaps with the suggested gaming processors are. Replygarblah - Tuesday, April 11, 2023 - link
Yeah, it's weird how many sites aren't benchmarking the 5600x at all now in these comparisons. It was hugely popular and it would help people decide whether to buy into AM5, upgrade to a 5800x3D or wait and do nothing at all if the gains aren't yet worth the money to them.I would also like to see more benchmarks done at 1440p high or ultra settings, even if it doesn't highlight the difference a CPU makes as well as the 1080p LOW settings that no one is actually playing on. Reply
Oxford Guy - Monday, March 27, 2023 - link
I know this is very unpopular to say, since 'gaming' brings in billions. However, I still feel the same way I have for years: Where are the games that are worth spending money and time on, in terms of building systems like these?I started gaming when I was four. I don't find the kind of games that are being made interesting. I see a lot of cookie-cutter cheesy violence. Reply
Keljian - Friday, March 31, 2023 - link
Slight mistake with the article : “ Looking at the finer specifications, the Core i5-13600K can boost up to 5.4 GHz on the Performance (P) cores, while the Efficiency (E) cores can hit frequencies of up to 4.2 GHz. “ - don’t you mean 5.1 and 3.9? Replymsroadkill612 - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 - link
Considering the small price difference between the 6 core 5600x & the 8 core 5700, the latter seems a no brainer. Reply