I found this very interesting, and it seems a similar thing is happening to Intel in the DIY/gaming space right now. For a long time, the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads, with the recently released Ryzen 5000 series boasting performance that competes or tops Intel's top chips in the space, and generally with lower power draw to boot.
I'm not a tech journalist, but the way they seem to have done this was exactly what was described in this essay. AMD brought out "chiplet" designs, initially at the low end, but with significant performance gains generation over generation. Combined with simpler motherboard slot conventions, delay's in Intel's next-generation processes, and overperforming Intel in areas like streaming, the value case for buying AMD processors in this space has grown to the point where you would find very few enthusiasts who would strongly recommend Intel over AMD if you're building a new system and wanted the best performance at your price point.
Seems the infighting issues described by another poster have not only affected Intel's competitiveness in the mobile space.
The new Zen3 series crushes the top of the line Intel desktop CPUs.
I'm on the 3900XT, one of the last from the Zen2 line - it's a ripper, yet I can also just drop in a 5900X or 5950X without having to change the motherboard.
Notwithstanding the many Intel security issues where the remedies nerfed performance, between Apple and AMD, I can certainly see Intel in a bit of struggle.
The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer.
And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now...
$50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here)
That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming...
-
And by the way, even the next build up chooses a 3600X over the 10600K despite the former even beating the 3700X in gaming benchmarks.
The 10600K is an insane value for gaming, and still fast enough for non-gaming tasks. Seeing as they're listing "heavy gaming" as a measurement on these builds it doesn't make any sense for at the very least the i5 to make an appearance.
Well, but you want to spend money on the GPU if you care about gaming.
Consider these two builds:
1. Ryzen 5 2600 ($150) + RTX 3070 ($500) for $650
2. i5-10900k ($280) + RX 5700XT ($330) for $610
The first build with the RTX 3070 is far better. The RTX 3070 buys you into 1440p high/ultra @ 90+ FPS, or 4k med/high @ 60+ FPS. Will the 2600 bottleneck that GPU? Maybe, but you still get better performance for the price by investing in the GPU versus the CPU.
Also your comparisons are quite poor... 2600 shouldn't even be in the running here, the 3070 would be held back from doing the thing it does best, high FPS 1440p (in actual games mind you, not just CS:GO)
I mean, you said I should waste my money on a CPU upgrade that would make no difference in 1440p gaming. That's money I can't spend on a better GPU, which would make a difference in 1440p gaming.
You realize you're mentioning a 2600 right? Which will place a tremendous limit on 1440p gaming?
My suggestion over the included build is spending $10 more on the build and getting a 10600K.
Silicon Lottery has found 100% of 10600ks will do 4.7 Ghz sustained all core.
Even at that number it will easily out perform a 3600 in a meaningful way. Over 70% of them do 4.9 Ghz which where it starts to reach i9 levels of performance in gaming by the way...
-
And the cherry on top over the 3600 is you can actually buy the i5 outside of Microcenter. Microcenter is the only place carrying the 3600 for $180... but they also have 10600k on perma-sale for $250.
Meanwhile outside of Microcenter the 3600 is rarer than hen's teeth while the 10600k is widely available at $270. I happen to have 5 microcenters within an hour or so of me, but most people don't have that luxury.
80 FPS - Ghost Recon: Breakpoint 1440p / Very High
78 FPS - Horizon Zero Dawn 1440p / Ultimate
72 FPS - Red Dead Redemption 2 1440p / High
115 FPS - Death Stranding 1440p / Very High
220 FPS - Doom Eternal 1440p / Ultra
124 FPS - Resident Evil 3 1440p / Max
75 FPS - Gears 5 1440p / Ultra
i7-10700k + RX 5700XT[2] (I couldn't find benchmarks for an i5-10600k with this GPU from the same source. The 10700k should be as good or better than the i5 though)
67 FPS - Ghost Recon: Breakpoint 1440p / Very High
73 FPS - Horizon Zero Dawn 1440p / Ultimate
70 FPS - Red Dead Redemption 2 1440p / High
111 FPS - Death Stranding 1440p / Very High
185 FPS - Doom Eternal 1440p / Ultra
104 FPS - Resident Evil 3 1440p / Max
77 FPS - Gears 5 1440p / Ultra
You can spot check the other numbers and find similar discrepancies...
Of course the reason I can't find a proper reviewer doing this exact setup is because the idea of buying a 2600 for a new build doesn't make any sense period...
Even the i3-10100 beats it in gaming, and that costs as little as $100...
And that's paying $50 more than what is apparently already too much for almost equivalent gaming performance (slightly better after overclocking and the motherboard and cooler priced in above support that too)
Even the first generation of Zen was not the low end. The low end of x86 is well below anything whose name starts with 'Core' or 'Ryzen'.
Ryzen came in the door at #2 in a market that goes well beyond #10.
The motherboard conventions aren't simpler, just longer supported.
AMD is doing impressive work with Ryzen, don't get me wrong, but they've already been #1 in x86 performance before, in the mid-aughts. Before and after that, their flagships were #2 in x86.
Well, AMD is marketing they have 20% YoY perf enhancements in the pipeline for the next 5 years. They also developed an internal org structure for developing 3 generations in parallel across teams.
I would say AMD has high hopes because they have realigned themselves to being successful rather than the corporate rot Intel is suffering
As another poster mentioned, AMD had a much better price / performance ratio in the mid 2000s too.
I worked for Intel then... The problem was AMD couldn't compete on volume. An individual could go buy an AMD chip at a great price, but AMD couldn't fill a large order from a PC manufacturer. Furthermore, we suspected their margins were too slim to keep investing in themselves.
Remember that DIY pc building is a niche. Something that makes perfect sense when you're building a single PC may not make sense when you're making thousands of laptops.
I'm not a tech journalist, but the way they seem to have done this was exactly what was described in this essay. AMD brought out "chiplet" designs, initially at the low end, but with significant performance gains generation over generation. Combined with simpler motherboard slot conventions, delay's in Intel's next-generation processes, and overperforming Intel in areas like streaming, the value case for buying AMD processors in this space has grown to the point where you would find very few enthusiasts who would strongly recommend Intel over AMD if you're building a new system and wanted the best performance at your price point.
Seems the infighting issues described by another poster have not only affected Intel's competitiveness in the mobile space.