Yes, it's a good idea.
Yes, it's a good idea.
That's acceptable, thanks for your time. Your assistance was really appreciated.
You purchased a 10,900kf instead of the 10,900k you expected.
Right, but it's not any different since I was never going to use igpu anyway. Actually based on silicon lottery, the KF variants OC better. My point was that I don't always make the most logical choices for me lol. 10600k makes more sense for gaming than the 10700 because it can be overclocked to a higher frequency. The 10700k/f is a good choice as well. 10850k/10900kf also make sense in that $ per core is good value, but you'll probably never need the extra cores anyway.
It could get confusing, but if a GPU isn't available, consider preordering a 11600k or opting for the 11400. They feature the latest Intel XE graphics, which significantly improve over previous versions. These models also support PCIe4 for SSDs and graphics cards. From a cost perspective, they're reasonable at $269 for the i5-11600k, matching the performance of the Ryzen 5 5600x in most cases and outperforming the Ryzen 5 3600, which is currently overpriced. This option saves $30 but requires a cooler.
You can also look at the i5-11400, which may be slightly slower than the Ryzen 5 5600x but costs under $100 less.
If you have the budget, the i7-11700k is a solid choice compared to the 5800x, priced at $399—still $50 cheaper.
Pairing these CPUs with a B560 motherboard that supports memory overclocking is recommended. Prices generally range between $100 and $150 for these setups.
11900k seems like a ridiculous cost. Opt for the 11700k—it's more affordable while offering 8 cores and 16 threads. The issue is that I need 8 cores for upcoming games as well. The 11700k is an extremely expensive price, similar to 10850k but with higher power consumption.
The 11700k isn’t overly expensive—currently it’s $399 versus $450 for the 5800x. Both require solid motherboards and cooling systems. The main trade-off is that the 5800x offers better gaming performance and efficiency, while the 11700k provides a noticeable boost in productivity with lower power use. The i9-10850k/10900KF are expected to match gaming results but lack PCIe4 support and are on older hardware. They’re still cheaper than both alternatives, though. You can often find the 10850k for around $320, making it a tougher decision compared to either model. These chips also seem more flexible for overclocking than the 11700k. The i5-11600k and i5-11400 stand out as strong choices in price, offering better performance than the i5-10600k/10400 and supporting PCIe4 and modern memory overclocking. They’re also less costly than comparable AMD options in this range. Under $300–5000, there aren’t many viable options—especially since the Ryzen 5 3600 is scarce, often overpriced, and slower than its predecessors. I believe the 5600x may soon see a price drop or a non-x variant will appear at a lower cost. Intel hasn’t made much progress in high-end chips this year, especially with the 10th gen, which lagged behind even their previous generation. Compared to the 3000 series, they still lead in gaming and single-threaded tasks, though their multi-core numbers are limited. This year’s offerings don’t match the performance of lower-tier models, so budget-conscious buyers might find solid value in the 5600x or similar alternatives. As for needing eight cores, I agree—many users won’t push themselves into scenarios where this matters much. Switching from a 5GHz 8700K to a 5.1–5.3GHz 10900KF hasn’t noticeably changed my experience, though I did see slight gains in FPS, reduced security impacts, and faster memory access in certain games like MMOs. Those benefits usually don’t translate to noticeable improvements for most players.