Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "This is a real issue for PC enthusiasts..." video.

  1. 400f specs are actually pretty good gaming balance as far as bang for buck. Have been since the 8400. Really the Intel xx400's run against the AMD 600's, the Intel xx600 runs against the AMD 600X, the Intel xx700 runs against the AMD 700X and both AMD and Intel 900's run against each other. Historically it was more that Intel 700's ran against the AMD 800's and the Intel K sku 600's ran against the AMD 700X, but AMD pulled the pin on those matchups a bit with no 7800's, and also holding out so long on the non x variants (as well as the G, 300 and 100 variants) whilst they had such a huge advantage and basically milked customers to buy a 7600X. Not cool, AMD. That's where the xx100 Intel has honestly had a good run as a budget CPU since the 10105F. The 600k (or 600kf) is kind of where "sensible" mostly gaming performance ends and the priority becomes more cores and clock speeds at the cost of enormous energy usage and running costs. Of course, the AMD 7600X regularly trounced the 600 class intels. Most games just don't run enough threads to be able to use more than the Intel 13600k or the AMD 7600X or 7700X can use. That's why we actually saw in many cases lower gaming performance with the 7950X3D than the plain old 7700X. The 7800X3D is basically a 7700X with VCache not really a higher end CPU. There is no 7800x in the AMD lineup, unlike the 5800X which was slammed for being an overpriced 5700X, at least until the 5800X3D came along.. The X950 is just AMD showing off. Those things are more a high end workstation than a desktop CPU, and unless you're a sponsered twich gamer or a heavy multasking renderer probably irrelevant to buyers. Doesn't stop them being bought for reasons of pure swag. If you're thinking I'm an AMD fanboy I am running an 11400f, btw. At the time it was just far better bang for buck.
    1