JoeCoke

@dizmoWhat even defines low end processor or mid range processor anymore? This "low end" CPU blurs that line, it's barely any slower than the 180$ 3600. Just because the CPU is half the price, it means it's only half as worthy and shouldn't be paired with mid ranged cards? It'd be a very close result and honestly, there's no real reason to go for the 3600 if the 1600AF is an option, The 3600 is around double the price for around 10% better performance. I plan on going the AF route and using the 100$ I save to buy a 500GB NVME drive, which is a MUCH better investment than paying the "I have the latest gen" tax.

And again, the whole observation here is that instead of getting cheaper like the rest of the industry, GPUs almost seem to be going the opposite direction. For CPUs, we're paying 80$ for what would have been a HEDT processor a few years ago, meanwhile, we're paying GTX x70 prices from a few years ago for GTX x60 cards. Basically all I'm saying is the GPU market has become horribly stagnant because AMD isn't competing, much like where we were a few years ago with CPUs. Wouldn't it be exciting to have the same boom we're having with CPUs, but with GPUs?

@2Buck Usually, performance. The 1600AF can be 30%+ slower than the 3600. That's substantial. That puts it out of mid tier, and into a lower tier.

It's not just the odd title, either, it's significantly more than that.

"Better investment." How? Most people don't need NVME, and it rarely improves things beyond waiting a couple of extra seconds.

They are competing though. To say they aren't is incorrect. In the lower brackets the 580 has been an extremely strong competitor. Their 5700 series attacks the mid section. You can't ignore increased R&D and materials costs. There's significantly more to a GPU than there is to a CPU.

I never said it wouldn't be interesting to have the same competition in the GPU market, so don't even try to float that.

@dizmoJust double checked some benchmarks to make sure I'm not nuts, can't find a benchmark that shows that performance difference. The 1600AF is basically the 2600, if I paired a 2600 with a midrange GPU a few months ago, you wouldn't have even thought to question it, because the 2600 has the "midrange" label.

With mid ranged GPUs, the 2600 is still a perfectly fine CPU, especially at 80 bucks... Look at the average performance with the 580 and 5700.

The SSD is a better investment to me. Going from my crappy low end SATA SSD to an NVME drive will definitely be nice. I'll likely use the SSD for years, meanwhile I plan on upgrading the CPU down the line anyway (hence why I brought up the upgrade path). Also, I can keep my current SSD with my current system, I'm keeping this system around in my LAN area, so I'll have to buy another SSD anyway. So paying 120% more for 20% more CPU performance or less seems like a silly idea to me, especially when even my 2600k is satisfying my needs right now. The "most people don't need" argument is also kinda silly, as I don't need to upgrade from what I'm using right now anyway. No one actually "needs" most things they buy.

Also, let's say I didn't buy an NVME drive, the 100$ I saved by going with the AF could still be put to other parts of the PC. Using that 100$ to buy a better GPU, more storage capacity, etc. The money can easily be spent better.

Sorry, but AMD struggling to keep up with Nvidia's mid range GPUs is not good enough. The RX 580 and 5700xt are fine, but if we want the industry to move forward, real competition is necessary.

When did I try to float that? When did I say you said anything?