• capn_hector@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    all of these processors were utterly wiped out by the “spend $100 more on a 8700K and overclock” option.

    There is such a thing as false economy, sometimes spending more money results in a thing that lasts long and gives better results throughout that whole timespan… classic “boots theory” stuff.

    Having your $2000 build last 2-3 years less than it otherwise could have because you didn’t spend $100 more on the 8700K when you had the option to, is stupid, and not good value. Reviewers over-fixated on the minmaxing, the order of the day was “cut out everything else and shunt it all into your GPU”, some reviewers took it as far as saying you should cut down to a 500W PSU or even less. And today that $100 extra you spent on your GPU is utterly wasted, while going from a 8600K to 8700K or buying a PSU that doesn’t cut out on transient loads got you a much better system in the long term, even if it didn’t win the benchmarks on day 1.

    (and yes, transients were already problematic back then, and in fact have remained pretty constant at around 2x average power draw…)

    • SENDMEJUDES@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You really think people with $2000 builds would buy a $200 cpu? Comparing 3600 and 8600k is for the 99% of the builds which is prebuilds and sub $1000 builds.

      I agree with you that going all out for the graphics cards is not optimal expect if you plan to upgrade after 4-5 years ( which many people with budget builds do).

      (enormous) downsides of Zen1/Zen+.

      ? They were pretty close and way more future proof than the lower core count intel counter parts. They also had smother .1% ( so less shuttering ) from day 1 of zen. Latency was a non issue with not crap ram timings.