Intel 10 Series "Comet Lake" Launch Review Roundup (10900K, 10700K, 10600K, 10500K)

I think the point being made earlier was that there have been plenty of reviews showing an OC'd 10600k is essentially equal to an OC'd 10900k for gaming, similar to how the 9700k and 9900k have often very similar performance numbers. Additionally, the 10400 is NOT the equal of the 10600k. Most reviewers (from what I've seen) say the 3600 is a better budget option than the 10400, but obviously, the 10600k is a better pure gaming processor than either but at a ~$100-150+ premium depending on the board/RAM. OrangeKrush is pointing out the silliness required to make the 10400 palatable, namely highly clocked RAM and a motherboard that allows memory overclocking.

If the B460 boards allow memory overclocking, that might skew things to more of a toss up depending on your needs rather than an AMD win in the budget 6 core market.

Edit: Also, obviously Intel's 10400 (non-F) has an IGP which the 3600 does not. Personally, I would like to see what the Renoir APUs look like (performance AND cost) before buying because the motherboards should be somewhat cheaper and allow higher memory speeds (I'm sure 3600Mhz will be the sweet spot again). Cost could also be a big determining factor if they are significantly more expensive than the non-APU parts.


Very true - the only niche Intel has left is top end gaming and it's barely holding on. I am personally excited to see what Zen 3 brings. They made some great improvements Zen 1 -> 2.
 
Very true - the only niche Intel has left is top end gaming and it's barely holding on. I am personally excited to see what Zen 3 brings. They made some great improvements Zen 1 -> 2.

I agree. A single CCX 8 core CPU and general clockspeed/node improvements could reduce and/or eclipse Intel's gaming advantage.

But I'm also much more interested in Rocket Lake than Comet Lake at this point from Intel. Hopefully, it doesn't disappoint (other than being another 14nm part).
 
CPU/SW encoding is superior in IQ (even if a layman can't notice) than GPU/HW encoding, even with modern GPUs/NVENC - that's why that's not an option for me. That's the trade-off for the increased speed HW encoding brings. If I was encoding something to just watch on a plane, sure. I'm encoding for archival purposes though, want the best quality I can get. Appreciate the suggestion though 😃

SW x265 Slow is neck and neck with NVenc for quality, depending on bit rate, but I guess you focus on the one bit rate were it's infinitesimally worse, even if you can't see the difference, so you spend many more hours burning a lot more power to do the same thing:

https://unrealaussies.com/tech/nvenc-x264-quicksync-qsv-vp9-av1/7/#Conclusions-for-NVENC-Part-2
H.264 AVC and live streaming
If you are live streaming to Twitch, currently the best option that regular consumers have is Turing NVENC. It’s that simple.

There are specialty cases where users have the capability to live-encode x264 on VerySlow preset. There are also some ways to use proprietary codecs that involve paying money or some serious expertise. Either of these cases might provide a software solution for H.264 that beats Turing. These are beyond the scope of this article because they are simply not available to the vast majority of streamers.

H.265 HEVC and offline encoding
HEVC is a similar story. Turing HEVC is ALMOST as good as x265 Slow at 6Mbps and 4Mbps. At 8Mbps Turing is a tiny touch better. Basically, as long as you’re not starving for bitrate, Turing is on par with x265 Slow. Neither YouTube nor Twitch accept live-streams of H.265 HEVC at this time. YouTube does accept it as input, but I’ve tested it, and the viewer experience is terrible. This is because YouTube is converting the HEVC into AVC on the fly and delivering it to users. HEVC is useful for YouTube VODs though, so feel free to use it for those.

For non-live situations Turing HEVC is actually quite excellent. Since it’s basically on par with x265, its superior speed is very appealing. So long as you don’t have strict bitrate limitations. Turing HEVC can encode 2160p video at around 60 fps on average which SMASHES x265 speeds into the ground. It does however lack CRF quality control which is an issue for quality centred encoding. However if you’re happy with bitrate or QP control then Turing will serve you well
 
Wait, you buy just based on what brand you like then?? Wow, now it makes sense. I buy the parts that will do the best job for the least $. If I want to do programming on my desktop (which is my primary use) then compiling speed is important. I find benchmarks and see what each CPU can do, then I say what else do I do? Ok, some mild gaming which I won't be CPU limited, so I couldn't care less. I do some video encoding and transcoding for my Plex library once in a while, so not hugely important. I then find benefits of each CPU in my budget and buy what will work. If Intel and AMD perform the same (or close enough to not matter), I will buy the cheaper one. I'm not sure what logic you use that you first choose your CPU then figure out how to make it fit a budget and hope it'll do what you want? Maybe I'm missing the WHY you intended to choose a 10400 or 3600, if it wasn't due to price/performance what was the reasoning? Your completely skipping the actual decision making step then acting confused when some asks how the decision was made. You just wake up and decide I'm going to build a 10600k this time without a single thought or reason? The $ doesn't come into play nor it's performance? That really seems like an odd way of buildings glad it's been working for you, I just don't get it.

No. You aren't understanding what I said at all. I buy the best part for the fit. Period. I don't switch to other parts because of a bit of price difference. AMD and Intel processors, chipsets and motherboards aren't identical in every single way. Neither are NVidia and Radeon GPUs. People post here all day long why they choose a very specific thing and it often has nothing to do with price difference. Just read other people's comments in this very thread. Or almost any thread. You pick the cheaper one because its cheaper. I do not do that.
 
The new Intels seem to do ridiculously well with minimums which helps at lower framerates. I think Toms has an OC vs OC review that shows it. Crushes everything else. Which minimums are what I focus on.

So if I didn’t have a 9900KF my market would be a 10900K.

View attachment 248527
View attachment 248528


For budget builds I’d go AMD still.


Honestly I don't know what you mean by crushes, sure two worst case scenarios bar Farcry 5 for AMD yet even on the minimums they are around 10FPS difference, for GTA 5 the minimums are around 120FPS which for a game like GTA is high. I think the fact that like a 1000 people are playing Hitman is indicative of it being old, badly optimised for new tech and meh.

If I am buying a 10900K or 3900X/3950X I will be pairing them with 2080 Super and 1440P minimum, that should be 120FPS low end on a great majority of games.
 
No. You aren't understanding what I said at all. I buy the best part for the fit. Period. I don't switch to other parts because of a bit of price difference. AMD and Intel processors, chipsets and motherboards aren't identical in every single way. Neither are NVidia and Radeon GPUs. People post here all day long why they choose a very specific thing and it often has nothing to do with price difference. Just read other people's comments in this very thread. Or almost any thread. You pick the cheaper one because its cheaper. I do not do that.
Well good on you for buying dual 64/128 epycs for decompressing 7 zip files. Makes so much more sense. If money is no object then that's great, back in reality where most people live we have to budget our money. So if you can toss away $50 or $50,000 great. You say it has nothing to do with price difference, if that were the case they would only sell 10900ks and 3950x's.... If price doesn't matter to anyone why sell lower end models? Why sell a 2060 when everyone just needs to get a 2080ti? Your logic is astounding. If you are indeed rich and throw money at PCs, I'm happy for you, but that still doesn't make it normal for the everyone. I know there are differnces between AMD/Intel and AMD/Nvidia and I take these into account, as well as how much I can spend, and determine what fits my needs the best. If money was no object I'd have a 10900k and 2080ti for gaming and a 3950x for development with a dual epyc system fo my home server. But in reality, I have a single desktop with a ryzen 1600 and fury nano (itx case) and an old a$$ dual xeon server because it gets the job done and I can afford it. I don't know what you've read or how you miss them, but I often see posts asking if the extra $$ is worth upgrading to a higher up model either the same or different brand because they only have so much to spend. If you haven't seen this then you aren't looking much because they pop up often.
 
Well, doesn't this look amazing?

https://www.techpowerup.com/267757/...re-i5-in-circulation-only-one-comes-with-stim

As I expected, Intel is rebranding old Coffee Lake dies as the new 8 and 6 core 125w chips. But the older 6-core chips are using thermal material only designed to dissipate the 100w the 8700K used at full load! They only need the 1200-pin socket to power the new 10-core monster, so they're just using simple socket adapters for the Core i5!


The chips are sold under the same packaging, but one is gong to be a lot harder to cool the older model!

Sucks to be buying Intel!
 
Well good on you for buying dual 64/128 epycs for decompressing 7 zip files. Makes so much more sense. If money is no object then that's great, back in reality where most people live we have to budget our money. So if you can toss away $50 or $50,000 great. You say it has nothing to do with price difference, if that were the case they would only sell 10900ks and 3950x's.... If price doesn't matter to anyone why sell lower end models? Why sell a 2060 when everyone just needs to get a 2080ti? Your logic is astounding. If you are indeed rich and throw money at PCs, I'm happy for you, but that still doesn't make it normal for the everyone. I know there are differnces between AMD/Intel and AMD/Nvidia and I take these into account, as well as how much I can spend, and determine what fits my needs the best. If money was no object I'd have a 10900k and 2080ti for gaming and a 3950x for development with a dual epyc system fo my home server. But in reality, I have a single desktop with a ryzen 1600 and fury nano (itx case) and an old a$$ dual xeon server because it gets the job done and I can afford it. I don't know what you've read or how you miss them, but I often see posts asking if the extra $$ is worth upgrading to a higher up model either the same or different brand because they only have so much to spend. If you haven't seen this then you aren't looking much because they pop up often.

Way to use hyperbole and ignore previous posts to make yourself win an argument. First day on the internet?
 
Way to use hyperbole and ignore previous posts to make yourself win an argument. First day on the internet?
No, second day, thanks. You literally said you picked the parts that did the job the best without considering price.... That was not my hyperbole, that was your statement. My argument was most people do care about price and can't just spend as much as they want. Yes, I used big numbers to make my point, but obviously $50 makes no difference, but $50,000 does to you, so you DO care about price to some extent even if you're not willing to admit it publicly. It's ok, one day when you hit day 2 on the internet you won't feel so bad when someone has a different point of view than you.
 
Well, doesn't this look amazing?

https://www.techpowerup.com/267757/...re-i5-in-circulation-only-one-comes-with-stim

As I expected, Intel is rebranding old Coffee Lake dies as the new 8 and 6 core 125w chips. But the older 6-core chips are using thermal material only designed to dissipate the 100w the 8700K used at full load! They only need the 1200-pin socket to power the new 10-core monster, so they're just using simple socket adapters for the Core i5!


The chips are sold under the same packaging, but one is gong to be a lot harder to cool the older model!

Sucks to be buying Intel!

:rolleyes: Outrage over nothing.

Only the K SKUs were supposed to have STIM.

And here it's only the Non-K SKUs here that have a mix of Paste or STIM, probably just a few STIM models that bin too low after soldering added to the regular paste models.

Regular chips were expected to just have paste, and that isn't anything get outraged over, since they have fixed lower clocks they won't generate even as much heat.
 
:rolleyes: Outrage over nothing.

Only the K SKUs were supposed to have STIM.

And here it's only the Non-K SKUs here that have a mix of Paste or STIM, probably just a few STIM models that bin too low after soldering added to the regular paste models.

Regular chips were expected to just have paste, and that isn't anything get outraged over, since they have fixed lower clocks they won't generate even as much heat.

Intel should really just ditch the whole "K" SKU thing and let all their CPUs be overclocked again.
 
omg the fighting this thread is so lit i gotta go back to page 1 and read how this all started i love it
 
omg the fighting this thread is so lit i gotta go back to page 1 and read how this all started i love it

Someone said they liked AMD.

LOL! :D Even as they said that Intel has it's purposes, like as a space heater. .) :D I said it before and I will say it again, thankfully, AMD is competitive and putting the slap down on Intel because otherwise, Intel could not be bothered to be competitive, at least like they are trying to now, with this 10th Gen stuff.
 
LOL! :D Even as they said that Intel has it's purposes, like as a space heater. .) :D I said it before and I will say it again, thankfully, AMD is competitive and putting the slap down on Intel because otherwise, Intel could not be bothered to be competitive, at least like they are trying to now, with this 10th Gen stuff.
I wouldn't say they are putting the "slap down" on Intel but AMD is putting out great processors again. I put together a Ryzen 1600 and 2600 system together for my kids and I am just waiting until AMD releases the 4000 series for myself. It's a great time for us enthusiasts again.
 
No, second day, thanks. You literally said you picked the parts that did the job the best without considering price.... That was not my hyperbole, that was your statement. My argument was most people do care about price and can't just spend as much as they want. Yes, I used big numbers to make my point, but obviously $50 makes no difference, but $50,000 does to you, so you DO care about price to some extent even if you're not willing to admit it publicly. It's ok, one day when you hit day 2 on the internet you won't feel so bad when someone has a different point of view than you.


Best part for the fit. As in optimal given all considerations. Not sky is the limit. Not cheapest thing. Not good enough. Optimal. I tell people what is optimal and what that price is, it is. That is my philosophy.

Why? Because after selling thousands of computers over decades, I learned that nobody ever complained about spending more than what they intended if they got what they should. They were always the happiest. But people often lose their minds when they didn't spend enough and often spend even more after to fix that poor decision. They were the least happy.

If you want to build a $500 computer for someone to play Witcher 3 and that's their whole budget, go ahead. I wouldn't ever do stuff like that again. It's never worth it to me.
 
Best part for the fit. As in optimal given all considerations. Not sky is the limit. Not cheapest thing. Not good enough. Optimal. I tell people what is optimal and what that price is, it is. That is my philosophy.

Why? Because after selling thousands of computers over decades, I learned that nobody ever complained about spending more than what they intended if they got what they should. They were always the happiest. But people often lose their minds when they didn't spend enough and often spend even more after to fix that poor decision. They were the least happy.

If you want to build a $500 computer for someone to play Witcher 3 and that's their whole budget, go ahead. I wouldn't ever do stuff like that again. It's never worth it to me.
Lol, I spent $350 on my desktop. Perfectly content with my ryzen 1600 with all of my normal uses (mostly development, a few games and a little bit of transcoding). I understand what your saying, and when you say optimal.. you mean to a comfortable level based on many factors... Including price as you just admitted. The sky isn't the limit, and different people have different limits. I could have spent $50 or $100 more and gotten more performance, but this works and if/when I need it zen2/zen3 can drop right in and I can get most of my money back on the 1600. It may not have been "optimal" but it was the right deal at the time. If I had a $1000 budget, sure I would have gotten more out of it, but then I wouldn't have had the money to spend on other unnecessary luxuries that I enjoy ;). It's not that I can't spend more, it's just that I don't want to. I don't sell them for a living, I just build my own and help a few people out here and there. Most of the kids are in high school with my son and have minimum wage jobs. I hand them down used parts when I have them and help them source others for cheap when possible. They are more than happy with the increased performance from what they had. I'm saying all people prioritize and are situationally differently, so making a blanket statement about how anyone would spend more money is wrong. Some? Sure. Most? Probably. All? Almost never is this the case.
 
Lol, I spent $350 on my desktop. Perfectly content with my ryzen 1600 with all of my normal uses (mostly development, a few games and a little bit of transcoding). I understand what your saying, and when you say optimal.. you mean to a comfortable level based on many factors... Including price as you just admitted. The sky isn't the limit, and different people have different limits. I could have spent $50 or $100 more and gotten more performance, but this works and if/when I need it zen2/zen3 can drop right in and I can get most of my money back on the 1600. It may not have been "optimal" but it was the right deal at the time. If I had a $1000 budget, sure I would have gotten more out of it, but then I wouldn't have had the money to spend on other unnecessary luxuries that I enjoy ;). It's not that I can't spend more, it's just that I don't want to. I don't sell them for a living, I just build my own and help a few people out here and there. Most of the kids are in high school with my son and have minimum wage jobs. I hand them down used parts when I have them and help them source others for cheap when possible. They are more than happy with the increased performance from what they had. I'm saying all people prioritize and are situationally differently, so making a blanket statement about how anyone would spend more money is wrong. Some? Sure. Most? Probably. All? Almost never is this the case.

A budget of $350 is unusual in general, but especially when you consider the enthusiast side of the market. I spend more than that on RAM for most of my builds, never mind the entire kit.
 
A budget of $350 is unusual in general, but especially when you consider the enthusiast side of the market. I spend more than that on RAM for most of my builds, never mind the entire kit.
Yeah, as I said, everyone is different. I spent $75 on 16gb 3200 ram... Not like most 1st Gen ryzen can do much better. I run at 3000 with tighter timings. It's an itx with an (small) AIO so I can't do much in the way of overclocking, so CPU is just left on default boost. Its got a fury nano that handles my minimal gaming (civ 6 lately, some GTA V, rocket league, doom eternal, nothing to crazy). Would I like a faster PC? Sure. I will wait for zen3 then upgrade most likely, either to zen2 if prices drop low enough, or to zen3 if the prices don't drop for zen2 and there is a noticeable difference. So, basically it comes down to price ;). Either will do better than what I have, which honestly works well enough. I will either sell my 1600 or use it for another PC/build. It's a hobby, and with 6 desktops + my home server, I am not doing $1000 builds. I'd rather turn settings a little lower and play games with all of my kids (my home server is setup as a game server for minecraft and w/e else is fun that month) than build one really fast PC that we can all play individually.
 
Yeah, as I said, everyone is different. I spent $75 on 16gb 3200 ram... Not like most 1st Gen ryzen can do much better. I run at 3000 with tighter timings. It's an itx with an (small) AIO so I can't do much in the way of overclocking, so CPU is just left on default boost. Its got a fury nano that handles my minimal gaming (civ 6 lately, some GTA V, rocket league, doom eternal, nothing to crazy). Would I like a faster PC? Sure. I will wait for zen3 then upgrade most likely, either to zen2 if prices drop low enough, or to zen3 if the prices don't drop for zen2 and there is a noticeable difference. So, basically it comes down to price ;). Either will do better than what I have, which honestly works well enough. I will either sell my 1600 or use it for another PC/build. It's a hobby, and with 6 desktops + my home server, I am not doing $1000 builds. I'd rather turn settings a little lower and play games with all of my kids (my home server is setup as a game server for minecraft and w/e else is fun that month) than build one really fast PC that we can all play individually.

6 desktops... when you average it out, we probably spend the same amount, I just divide a similar pie into two systems (and upgrade the wife's from the leftovers; she only does VR, and lighter games in general). I have two (and a laptop, but that's only done every 4 years), one Ryzen and one Intel (workstation and gaming respectively). But I spend close to 2k on each of those every 4-5 years.
 
6 desktops... when you average it out, we probably spend the same amount, I just divide a similar pie into two systems (and upgrade the wife's from the leftovers; she only does VR, and lighter games in general). I have two (and a laptop, but that's only done every 4 years), one Ryzen and one Intel (workstation and gaming respectively). But I spend close to 2k on each of those every 4-5 years.
Yeah, probably not to dissimilar. Like I said, i can afford more, but it does what I need and I'm comfortable with the cost. I found a 3900x new in box for sale for $350 near me... My wife is like, you getting it? Lol. 5 I keep updated(ish), one is just to run realtime linux for my CNC stuff so doesn't get much love. My server I recently upgraded to 96GB of ram and a new SSD, but upgrades are pretty minimal there to in general. Mine and my son's are typically a bit more up to date (I spent like $850 on his), mine I just feel into some really good deals $350: for the b450 fatal1ty + zen 1600 + case + AIO + 256gb NVME + 1000w gold modular PSU + RX 560 + fury nano. I couldn't pass it up for my work load. Sold the RX 560 (2gb, no external power needed) on here for $40 shipped. Cost me $20 in shipping, lol. Yeah, I mostly upgrade on when I find a great deal or performance increase will be noticeable for what I'm doing (or when the MB lan takes a shit and the audio stops working, so figure it's time, lol).
 
10100 review. Only 6MB cache means it loses badly to the similarly priced 3300x with it's bountiful 16MB cache.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2033-intel-core-i3-10100/

I thought that there would be more info there about B460, but I guess not. What they did say about it is completely unclear. They said there's no memory overclocking, but then they have DDR4 3200 tests in their results (I assume it's on the Z490 but then why put "B460 Motherboard Review" in the title?). Then they are unclear about the turbo boost power draw. They made it sound like the MSI board would allow for a sustained 255W (essentially unlimited) power boost, but then they talked about the 65W power limit. I guess I have to wait for better reviews.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense to get a 10100 unless you need the IGP, and even then, you're probably better off with the Ryzen 4000 series 4C/8T part.
 
I thought that there would be more info there about B460, but I guess not. What they did say about it is completely unclear. They said there's no memory overclocking, but then they have DDR4 3200 tests in their results (I assume it's on the Z490 but then why put "B460 Motherboard Review" in the title?). Then they are unclear about the turbo boost power draw. They made it sound like the MSI board would allow for a sustained 255W (essentially unlimited) power boost, but then they talked about the 65W power limit. I guess I have to wait for better reviews.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense to get a 10100 unless you need the IGP, and even then, you're probably better off with the Ryzen 4000 series 4C/8T part.
As they said, none of the shown graphs were from b460 testing (paraphrasing). They also said the tests they did on the b460 board mirror those of the other board with 2666 memory, so I assume they did not overclock their memory on that board.
 
As they said, none of the shown graphs were from b460 testing (paraphrasing). They also said the tests they did on the b460 board mirror those of the other board with 2666 memory, so I assume they did not overclock their memory on that board.

That's fine, but then don't put "B460 Motherboard Review" in the title if they didn't use it to test the CPU :p. A cursory glance makes it seem like the testing for the CPU was done on the new motherboard (which evidently isn't the case).

Don't get me wrong, I generally like Techspot, but this was just a nonsense article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
In-depth reviews of potato grade CPU's are amusing.

I appreciate the effort especially the gaming benchmarks. Planning to upgrade the 4460 in my living room "console" later this year and the 3300x looks like a winner.
 
That's fine, but then don't put "B460 Motherboard Review" in the title if they didn't use it to test the CPU :p. A cursory glance makes it seem like the testing for the CPU was done on the new motherboard (which evidently isn't the case).

Don't get me wrong, I generally like Techspot, but this was just a nonsense article.
It was, and the results were the same, so they omitted them. No reason to have five identical bars on a graph when the CPU is the primary focus anyway.
 
It was, and the results were the same, so they omitted them. No reason to have five identical bars on a graph when the CPU is the primary focus anyway.

It sounds more like they did a CPU review on Z series MB, got a B460 in after the review, did a brief test on it to ensure it works similarly, and then tacked the B460 title in the reivew for more views (AKA clickbait).
 
Lol, I spent $350 on my desktop. Perfectly content with my ryzen 1600 with all of my normal uses (mostly development, a few games and a little bit of transcoding). I understand what your saying, and when you say optimal.. you mean to a comfortable level based on many factors... Including price as you just admitted. The sky isn't the limit, and different people have different limits. I could have spent $50 or $100 more and gotten more performance, but this works and if/when I need it zen2/zen3 can drop right in and I can get most of my money back on the 1600. It may not have been "optimal" but it was the right deal at the time. If I had a $1000 budget, sure I would have gotten more out of it, but then I wouldn't have had the money to spend on other unnecessary luxuries that I enjoy ;). It's not that I can't spend more, it's just that I don't want to. I don't sell them for a living, I just build my own and help a few people out here and there. Most of the kids are in high school with my son and have minimum wage jobs. I hand them down used parts when I have them and help them source others for cheap when possible. They are more than happy with the increased performance from what they had. I'm saying all people prioritize and are situationally differently, so making a blanket statement about how anyone would spend more money is wrong. Some? Sure. Most? Probably. All? Almost never is this the case.

My statement is based on what my experience is over decades, thousands of builds, thousands of support calls and thousands of service bench jobs.

It is my experience and it has served me well to keep as many people as possible happy and not in the shop angry.

You can do whatever you want. By nature as being part of this hobby and doing things for yourself, your tolerance for good enough is vastly more than the average non technical person. My bias comes from the general public, your bias comes from you and the people you help.

My only goal is to express my experience and hope it helps others. If it doesn't, then me being here is pointless. I can help people elsewhere.
 
My statement is based on what my experience is over decades, thousands of builds, thousands of support calls and thousands of service bench jobs.

It is my experience and it has served me well to keep as many people as possible happy and not in the shop angry.

You can do whatever you want. By nature as being part of this hobby and doing things for yourself, your tolerance for good enough is vastly more than the average non technical person. My bias comes from the general public, your bias comes from you and the people you help.

My only goal is to express my experience and hope it helps others. If it doesn't, then me being here is pointless. I can help people elsewhere.
Your perfectly able to have your own opinion/view. My point was it's not the ONLY opinion/view. I even said in most cases what you said is probably true, just not in 100% of the cases. If you find that offensive, I'm not sure what to tell you. I wasn't even saying what you said may not be helpful, if someone can afford more it will last them longer and do better while they use it. It's sound advice... Advice that me or anyone else is free to ignore either because we're stubborn or really don't want to spend more or just flat broke. I was just offering a different perspective from my POV. Life would be boring as hell if we all just agreed and viewed everything the same.
 
Your perfectly able to have your own opinion/view. My point was it's not the ONLY opinion/view. I even said in most cases what you said is probably true, just not in 100% of the cases. If you find that offensive, I'm not sure what to tell you. I wasn't even saying what you said may not be helpful, if someone can afford more it will last them longer and do better while they use it. It's sound advice... Advice that me or anyone else is free to ignore either because we're stubborn or really don't want to spend more or just flat broke. I was just offering a different perspective from my POV. Life would be boring as hell if we all just agreed and viewed everything the same.

That's fair. You are right. You can buy less than what you ideally want to save money (or budget demands it) and it can work out just fine with everyone happy. It's just an approach that has caused me way too much grief over the years and I'm not going to do it anymore.

I appreciate the point you are making. My risk appetite has changed as I've gotten older and perhaps that has made me inflexible and moody at times.

Be well.
 
That's fair. You are right. You can buy less than what you ideally want to save money (or budget demands it) and it can work out just fine with everyone happy. It's just an approach that has caused me way too much grief over the years and I'm not going to do it anymore.

I appreciate the point you are making. My risk appetite has changed as I've gotten older and perhaps that has made me inflexible and moody at times.

Be well.
Yeah, I understand and for my desktop I typically will spend whatever I feel is worth the cost for what I do. For my son's friends who have no money or my 6 year olds desktop.... I don't feel I need to spend a bunch. I don't need a 3950x, my 1600 runs decent, but I wouldn't mind a 3700x or similar. And as you said, for my desktop if a 4700x or 3800x or w/e is close in price ill probably just get that to hold me over longer. I'll then play the pass down game and upgrade the kids on a minimal budget ;).
 
Back
Top