Discussion The GN review of the Pentium G7400, is a perfect example of what's wrong with big reviewers.

[DAPUNISHER]

Prefacing my remarks: I am a fan of GN. They are the best PC tech journalists for consumer advocacy, hands down. And they are developing into an excellent technical reviewer as well. I have gone as far as to purchase merch to support them.

That said: The aforementioned review strikes me as being out of touch with the ultra budget gamer. The narrative that there is room for a sub 4GHz 2/4 CPU as a budget gamer, in 2022, is bad advice. And a prime example of how bar graphs fail dismally, in fully conveying the problems a user faces. Assets loading slowly or not at all, greatly inhibit a game's enjoyability, and adversely impact its playability. Take that, on top of the frame pacing issues they do mention. Now, add that it is priced against a $85 10100f 4/8 and B560M $90 board, and it makes even less sense.

The place holder argument falls flat for me. It cannot handle the latest demanding titles already. In my mind, that makes it a losing your place holder. It is also too closely priced to the 12100f. GN pushes the idea to spend enough on a board that it can handle a beefier CPU later. That money would be better spent on a 4/8 CPU to begin with.

None of this addresses the used market, as that is not a apples to apples comparison. And for value, it would further the argument that the G7400 should not even enter the discussion, for a build that needs to be capable of playing the latest titles.

This review is also a good example of why video reviews can be so helpful, when done correctly. While this is a video review, it never shows actual gameplay with the hardware. I have seen, and experienced for myself, NPCs missing, large parts of the scene missing and/or popping in, weird A.I. behavior, textures taking too long to load, hitching, stuttering, freezing, audio issues; all the things. I have read some here say they only like text and picture reviews. That has probably never been an issue for you, because you can afford hardware that does not experience any of those issues. But those written reviews will never convey the real gaming experience, that a gamer playing on weak hardware can do by streaming or recording.

Some free unsolicited advice for inexperienced DIYers that may read this. Do not let the reputation and warm feels big reviewers may have garnered, overly influence your purchasing decisions. Even the ones that buy the stuff themselves, are greatly limited by time constraints. You are better off finding a smaller youtuber that plays the games with the hardware you are interested in, testing games you want to play, or that have similar levels of demand, at the very least.

I am looking forward to contrary opinions being expressed; that is the best way to improve my own POV and maybe even change my mind on a topic. Provided the points made are compelling and not simply, passive aggressive insults, with no agenda other than to express your dislike of either myself, or my opinions. Though you can do that too. Water off a duck's back baby.

Nearly forgot the review

 

[jpiniero]

At least there'll actually BE a large core present. I suppose that's a sort of improvement in the ultra low-end...

Intel's mostly had big core Pentium and Celeron mobile available. There is an Alder Lake-N with small cores only coming.

 

[LightningZ71]

I usually agree with most of your sentiments, but man, playing almost ANYTHING on a sub-$400 laptop, let alone esport titles, is so excruciatingly painful, I can't even express. Autochess, hearthstone or solitary maybe, or some old, turn based thing like heroes of might and magic 3 😂

For Sub 400, I routinely see AMD Ryzen 3450u units with 8GB RAM and 256 GB HDs. Those will play a lot of eSports titles without too many troubles as long as you keep the settings reasonable. I have a 2500u that I've used for over a year now for just such a thing and it's done far better than I expected. Within $20 of $400, you can find, right now, a 5500u laptop at a major retailer. That's a 6 core, 7CU processor that can do a lot of gaming. 5300U laptops are a little less. I3-1115G4 laptops under $350 are aplenty and do just fine at E-sports. There are 1125G4 laptops in the sub $400 class as well that are quad core with 8MB L3 that also do fine for e-sports.

Are they ideal? Of course not. But, they are affordable, readily available, and, again, if you are starting from nothing, you're looking at a $200 video card to get appreciably better gpu performance before you've bought ANYTHING else. How are you fitting a case, monitor, PSU, RAM, CPU, Keyboard, Mouse and the various other bits you need in under $200 to have something better? You aren't.

 

[ultimatebob]

I've always considered an Intel Core i3 or the AMD equivalent to be a bare minimum for a Gaming PC.

If you can afford to spend $250 for a GPU, you should be able to afford $125 for a decent CPU.

Honestly, watching that video, it seemed that Steve also thought that using the Pentium was a bad idea unless that's all you can afford and you really should be using the Core i3 processor instead.

But, seriously... if you only have a $400 budget for a gaming PC, you really should be looking for used parts anyway.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Also depends on how you define "gaming computer". There are plenty of excellent games that'll literally run on a potato. If you can live without the latest AAA titles, there is plenty to enjoy out there.

No one is debating that here? I have PCs I only use for retro gaming, and one for playing older AAA stuff. Then one for stuff like 2077 and the newer Assassins Creed games, that need a lot of PC to look and play great. My thinking is, why put all that use on a single system, if I don't have to? Playing a 10yr old game on a 10yr old GPU&CPU is nostalgic for me too. Like my 30yr old No Fear hoodie I always wear to the beach for winter surfing; warm and comforting.

GN tested 2077, the G7400 failed the test. With the GPUs most buying it would use, it'd likely be worse yet. And I'd recommend grabbing an old Optiplex off Ebay if that's all the gaming they do. Drop in appropriate potato GPU, and have at thee. Get and entire PC for a little more than they want for the G7400 alone. And keep it from becoming eWaste. Some of the sellers have decent warranties too.

I've always considered an Intel Core i3 or the AMD equivalent to be a bare minimum for a Gaming PC.

If you can afford to spend $250 for a GPU, you should be able to afford $125 for a decent CPU.

Exactly.

But if you are scraping together that summer lawn mowing money, and the parental units are making you go it alone. To teach you about work ethic, budgeting, blah blah blah. Then you can save a couple of mows hard work in the heat, and grab a 10100f for $85 here in the U.S.

That is, if tech Jeebus didn't unintentionally influence you to buy a G7400. Because it is a much better choice than the Celery after all. Like he told you in the review. Stay away from that celery, he said. What he should have said, is stay away from celery AND Pentium. But nope, headline is $86 Intel cheap gaming CPU.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Because it leaves little room for upgrades to faster CPUs in the future without VRM overheating which leads to CPU throttling:

The worst B660 mobos for example are hitting 100C on the VRMs and as a result are throttling on even a mid range 12600K CPU. Let's not talk about the 12700 or 12900K results, since I'll admit people looking at those higher end CPUs should probably invest in a Z690 mobo anyway.

So if you get a dirt cheap B660 mobo with an i3 12100F for example, you're literally limited to (at most) an upgrade to a 12400 in future without serious performance penalties due to VRM throttling.

When half decent B660 mobos drop below $100, that is when I'll call LGA 1700 a good budget platform. As it stands, the relatively higher cost of the mobos eats into the savings on the CPU side. I'll honestly much rather a Ryzen 5600 + B550 at this point for maybe $20 more overall platform cost.

Since I am firing shots at big reviewers ITT. This is where I can praise them. This is what they do so well, evaluate the hardware itself. I am a fan of HUB/Techspot. And they have a text and pics version of the reviews, so there is something for everyone.

But to continue the roast - both GN and HUB need to stop the "respect my authorTIE!" thing. They both basically did that to RA Tech, for calling them out in that vid I posted. They were jerks to him. Throwing out tech specs of Bulldozer to explain how bad it is. Trashing his methodology, when they did not understand it to begin with. And ended up making spurious accusations based on that lack of understanding.

But RA did what you or I would do. Use it like a daily driver. Play a bunch of games on the CPUs being tested and record it. Hang on discord. Run the benchmark tests with the sound on, and watch the footage, if not straight up making note of the observations while it's running.

Also doesn't change the fact both sites FX revisits testing methodologies failed to account for things, like how the i3 and i5 didn't run the SotTR bench correctly. Weren't playing games, while chatting with your viewers on discord. Didn't sit and play competitive MP shooters with all of the CPUs, and record the results. No, they rely on the graphs generated during bot script level testing, to convey where performance issues might lie. Instead of, you know, what RA Tech did, where he can show him playing the games, while he tells you what he experienced. Plus having the data for your edification.

And in an attempt to support my stance on the subject, there is Jayz2cents. He sat down and played games with the FX for a revisit too. In contrast to the FX BAD! he ended up giving it a far more accurate and even handed evaluation, that did not counter my own experience. I use my FXs on a 75Hz VRR monitor, and that makes the experiences with them even better.

 

[Shivansps]

The problem as always is the price.

2C/4T is just fine for eSports games, but not for new AAA games. But why bother? the 12100F is just a little more expensive. And its nothing compared to the cost of a gpu. If it was a $55 G7400 then we may talk, and even then is not that much.

Also im petty sure the $85 10100F is faster. It is the same issue as before, the G6400 vs the 10100F, with the 10100F being petty much at the same price. In that case it was clear, G6400 = office use, the 10100F budget gaming pc.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

No one is debating that here?

I hope not. My point was simply that everything can be a "gaming PC" if you play games on it. The hardware is kind of irrelevant if it runs the game.

I have PCs I only use for retro gaming, and one for playing older AAA stuff. Then one for stuff like 2077 and the newer Assassins Creed games, that need a lot of PC to look and play great. My thinking is, why put all that use on a single system, if I don't have to? Playing a 10yr old game on a 10yr old GPU&CPU is nostalgic for me too. Like my 30yr old No Fear hoodie I always wear to the beach for winter surfing; warm and comforting.

I've needed to consolidate a bit, because electricity has become, ahem, quite expensive (like risen 484%. From 0.46DKK a year ago to 2.23DKK per KWh ex. taxes, transport and VAT. All inclusive it is 4.06DKK). So I do most of my retro gaming on an E350-based XPBOX. Sips power and runs old games like a champ. What's not to like?

I'm also kind of reminded of the old half-joke about the Harris-tweed wearing Scotsman asked how long it lasts; "Don't know. I've only had it for 30 years..."

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I hope not. My point was simply that everything can be a "gaming PC" if you play games on it. The hardware is kind of irrelevant if it runs the game.



I've needed to consolidate a bit, because electricity has become, ahem, quite expensive (like risen 484%. From 0.46DKK a year ago to 2.23DKK per KWh ex. taxes, transport and VAT. All inclusive it is 4.06DKK). So I do most of my retro gaming on an E350-based XPBOX. Sips power and runs old games like a champ. What's not to like?

I'm also kind of reminded of the old half-joke about the Harris-tweed wearing Scotsman asked how long it lasts; "Don't know. I've only had it for 30 years..."

Yeah, I made note of your previous posts about how insane power pricing is getting in your country. Throws away the old talking points about how cheap electricity is. Always trotted out to defend blast furnace products over the decades, such as the FX 9590, 12900KS, or RTX3090ti among many others. At least in your neck of the woods, power usage is integral to making a good purchasing decision now.

As to the if it plays games, it is a gamer: Technically correct, the best kind of correct. But it doesn't even have to be a PC. Look at what they make OG Doom run on.

 

[jpiniero]

I've needed to consolidate a bit, because electricity has become, ahem, quite expensive (like risen 484%. From 0.46DKK a year ago to 2.23DKK per KWh ex. taxes, transport and VAT. All inclusive it is 4.06DKK). So I do most of my retro gaming on an E350-based XPBOX. Sips power and runs old games like a champ. What's not to like?

Yeesh... that's 60c USD if I got the conversion right.

 

[Mopetar]

For gamers watching actual gameplay vids, they do not have to hear it, to see the problems a weak CPU causes while gaming.

Maybe I'm the odd one in this situation, but I don't think gameplay videos are a useful way to show how a card performs.

First, are you watching it on a good monitor? Most of the time I've got videos playing on my tablet if I'm at home. An iPad screen is pretty good and it does have a high resolution, but it's a 10" screen. If I'm at work the videos are pulled up on a second monitor which isn't even widescreen.

Second, can the captured and encoded video accurately replicate the gameplay experience? Probably not because YouTube is going to reencode stuff and you're not getting an accurate presentation of gameplay. Most of the time if there are issues, the videos use single frames or slow down the recording to illustrate it better. Also necessary because of what kind of monitor a person might be viewing it on.

Most of the time I listen to video reviews more than I watch them. If I am watching them I'm probably pausing so I can look at the graphs. Sometimes I'm clicking back and forth in the timeline to compare different charts. Most conclusion sections from the video may as well just be the audio because it's just the presenter sitting at a desk talking. There's nothing visually useful unless they edit it to cut back to charts or graphs.

I also don't think people should use these cheap CPUs for gaming unless gaming means Solitaire or something like Yahoo checkers. This is a CPU for grandma who just needs to check email and maybe Facebook from time to time. Frankly an old tablet would probably be fine for them though. The performance increase scales almost inline with the price increase to move up to a 12400, so there's little reason to go with the less expensive option.

Even if that weren't the case, there's probably a better argument to be made for buying used mid-range parts from a prior generation. The pandemic has made that a lot less viable due to shortages, but a 10th generation i5 or even a mid-range Zen 2 could probably be picked up for under $150 in more normal times. Someone on the forums might even let something like that go eve cheaper.

The CPU is only part of the cost. Going from $100 to $200 seems like a bigger jump, but really it's paying $600 instead of $500 for the whole build to avoid having the performance bottlenecks that 2-cores will bring. Now it's 20% more cost for that doubling of performance.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Maybe I'm the odd one in this situation, but I don't think gameplay videos are a useful way to show how a card performs.

First, are you watching it on a good monitor? Most of the time I've got videos playing on my tablet if I'm at home. An iPad screen is pretty good and it does have a high resolution, but it's a 10" screen. If I'm at work the videos are pulled up on a second monitor which isn't even widescreen.

Second, can the captured and encoded video accurately replicate the gameplay experience? Probably not because YouTube is going to reencode stuff and you're not getting an accurate presentation of gameplay. Most of the time if there are issues, the videos use single frames or slow down the recording to illustrate it better. Also necessary because of what kind of monitor a person might be viewing it on.

Most of the time I listen to video reviews more than I watch them. If I am watching them I'm probably pausing so I can look at the graphs. Sometimes I'm clicking back and forth in the timeline to compare different charts. Most conclusion sections from the video may as well just be the audio because it's just the presenter sitting at a desk talking. There's nothing visually useful unless they edit it to cut back to charts or graphs.

I also don't think people should use these cheap CPUs for gaming unless gaming means Solitaire or something like Yahoo checkers. This is a CPU for grandma who just needs to check email and maybe Facebook from time to time. Frankly an old tablet would probably be fine for them though. The performance increase scales almost inline with the price increase to move up to a 12400, so there's little reason to go with the less expensive option.

Even if that weren't the case, there's probably a better argument to be made for buying used mid-range parts from a prior generation. The pandemic has made that a lot less viable due to shortages, but a 10th generation i5 or even a mid-range Zen 2 could probably be picked up for under $150 in more normal times. Someone on the forums might even let something like that go eve cheaper.

The CPU is only part of the cost. Going from $100 to $200 seems like a bigger jump, but really it's paying $600 instead of $500 for the whole build to avoid having the performance bottlenecks that 2-cores will bring. Now it's 20% more cost for that doubling of performance.

Many excellent points made here. But it is a bit pedantic; a trait us forum goers are almost defined by. Everything you noted is almost indisputable.

Now, watch the timestamped part of the video I posted. Those many difficulties with conveying the real gameplay experience, you pointed out, fall by the way side. You can see, and for those of us fortunate enough to still having our hearing, hear the problems. The pop-in, missing NPCs, and audio issues are all obvious. There are other issues like freezing and chop you can't miss in vids either. And people like zWORMz will share their exasperation and frustration when these things happen too. So when the vid is failing to properly convey the experience, the presenter helps fill in the blanks.

And some of the responses have a text and pics v. vids feel to them. No thanks. I like written reviews, and video too. I even like the big reviewers stuff. But I tend to ignore them for low budget stuff, because as I have pointed out repeatedly, I think their factory assembly line style approach to testing, is inadequate to the tasks.

BTW, even more important imo, is when the issues happen. Usually at the worst possible moments. Being so bad as to inhibit your performance. This is stuff those pages and pages of graphs can't properly convey.

There is a post in this thread countering the claim a 12400 is slightly faster than a 5600x and refers to the TPU review. I find the whole thing silly. It's what decades of all of us, including reviewers, programming each other, on what constitutes acceptable data and debate has done to us. I would not be able to tell which of those 2 CPUs I was gaming on. But here we are getting pedantic about it = same old same old. Not looking to offend anyone, only pointing out why I think the hot blonde girl needs to break another wheel.

I made this thread to have a bit of go at what I consider entrench dogma. Big reviews, even of gaming stuff are fine. IF, they are not thrown around in every debate, as the appeal to authority tactic. Which is lamentably how most use them. As though, if all the big sites agree, we can put that baby to bed. Okay, with the more competent hardware, I'll concede it predominately works well enough. But don't try that smack with us low budget folks, that format often fails to tell the tale.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Yeesh... that's 60c USD if I got the conversion right.

Spot on. Depressing, right?

 

[jpiniero]

Spot on. Depressing, right?

Ever thought of solar? Too cold?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'm also kind of reminded of the old half-joke about the Harris-tweed wearing Scotsman asked how long it lasts; "Don't know. I've only had it for 30 years..."

Completely off topic, but just for you -

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Ever thought of solar? Too cold?

Well, could be worse. At least we're entering spring now, so there is less power required for home heating.

Wind/Solar is doing fine at the moment, but can't cover all the demand all the time. Which means we have to pay gas prices all the time, due to how the power exchange works. Last generator online sets price. So it's still natural gas prices* that's hurting everything, because we have to import a lot of power from Germany, who mostly burn gas for generation. The real test comes next winter. Problem is that at our latitude (middle-Canada'ish for North Americans) there is only 6 hours of (poor) daylight mid-winter. If you're lucky and it isn't overcast. If there is a high pressure system with no wind, we're left with either hydro power from Norway and Sweden*2, or burning coal/gas/whatever-else-that'll-burn.

*Our own primary gas field (Thyra-field in the North Sea) is down for much needed maintenance, and isn't coming back online before next summer. Which very unfortunately means we're completely dependant on a specific, rather unpopular country right now. Both for our own use, and what electricity Germany generates for us. Which just plain sucks.

*2 Who has had a dry year, which means there isn't a lot of water in their reservoirs, so it's mostly reserved for their own use. At least that seems sorted for next year.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

At $.60 a KWh I'd be strictly an APU gamer right now.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

At $.60 a KWh I'd be strictly an APU gamer right now.

It's bad, but if you only pull around 200W total incl. monitor and peripherals you can still play for 5 hours for that 60¢. Which is still relatively cheap way of entertaining yourself.

Just have to think more about getting the most from your hardware.

 

[Shmee]

I would say that a modern i3 should be the minimum for anyone building a PC. No point in getting anything less. I feel Celerons and Pentiums have no place anymore for anyone. They are good for selling to OEMs to make bad business computers, and that is it. If someone cannot afford to buy a $200 CPU, they should buy used or save longer.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I would say that a modern i3 should be the minimum for anyone building a PC. No point in getting anything less. I feel Celerons and Pentiums have no place anymore for anyone.

Agree.

Except for a rather specific use case, which the Comet Lake Pentiums in particular are well suited for. Single threaded emulation. The G6605 actually has the highest base frequency of all Intel CPUs ever released (4.3GHz). Which it'll run at all day long. This is rather niche, but such options are always welcome.

 

[Auroraa]

Prefacing my remarks: I am a fan of GN. They are the best PC tech journalists for consumer advocacy, hands down. And they are developing into an excellent technical reviewer as well. I have gone as far as to purchase merch to support them.

That said: The aforementioned review strikes me as being out of touch with the ultra budget gamer. The narrative that there is room for a sub 4GHz 2/4 CPU as a budget gamer, in 2022, is bad advice. And a prime example of how bar graphs fail dismally, in fully conveying the problems a user faces. Assets loading slowly or not at all, greatly inhibit a game's enjoyability, and adversely impact its playability. Take that, on top of the frame pacing issues they do mention. Now, add that it is priced against a $85 10100f 4/8 and B560M $90 board, and it makes even less sense.

The place holder argument falls flat for me. It cannot handle the latest demanding titles already. In my mind, that makes it a losing your place holder. It is also too closely priced to the 12100f. GN pushes the idea to spend enough on a board that it can handle a beefier CPU later. That money would be better spent on a 4/8 CPU to begin with.

None of this addresses the used market, as that is not a apples to apples comparison. And for value, it would further the argument that the G7400 should not even enter the discussion, for a build that needs to be capable of playing the latest titles.

This review is also a good example of why video reviews can be so helpful, when done correctly. While this is a video review, it never shows actual gameplay with the hardware. I have seen, and experienced for myself, NPCs missing, large parts of the scene missing and/or popping in, weird A.I. behavior, textures taking too long to load, hitching, stuttering, freezing, audio issues; all the things. I have read some here say they only like text and picture reviews. That has probably never been an issue for you, because you can afford hardware that does not experience any of those issues. But those written reviews will never convey the real gaming experience, that a gamer playing on weak hardware can do by streaming or recording.

Some free unsolicited advice for inexperienced DIYers that may read this. Do not let the reputation and warm feels big reviewers may have garnered, overly influence your purchasing decisions. Even the ones that buy the stuff themselves, are greatly limited by time constraints. You are better off finding a smaller youtuber that plays the games with the hardware you are interested in, testing games you want to play, or that have similar levels of demand, at the very least.

I am looking forward to contrary opinions being expressed; that is the best way to improve my own POV and maybe even change my mind on a topic. Provided the points made are compelling and not simply, passive aggressive insults, with no agenda other than to express your dislike of either myself, or my opinions. Though you can do that too. Water off a duck's back baby.

Nearly forgot the review

My main issue is with reviews broadly across the internet these days, it seems that nearly all of them are affiliate reviews or sponsored or have some other conflict of interest, and sorry I just don't buy that that money doesn't influence how honest they are in their reviews.

GN is alright, it's really inevitable that when your channel grows big enough that there will be some people who will not enjoy your content or find some issue with you. Why not just watch a different channel though?

I agree with you where you say that videos are a better medium for reviewing component performance for video games, I agree with you where you say to find a smaller youtube who has time to play with the tech they are reviewing.

I do not agree with you where you say that people should just save up more for a better CPU from the get go, that's not an option for some people. Also if you're getting graphic stuttering issues and npcs disappearing etc then you should probably switch to minimal graphics settings, just as should anyone playing on a laptop or a lower end system. I get the feeling that GN was making a video with a certain price point targeted audience and sharing how it would perform and if it would be worth it at all. You know that he has to put out a certain amount of videos every week so might have just been a filler episode that checked a few boxes and occupied screentime etc so they could do ad placements and sponsorships etc

Don't worry, it's all going to be okay. Minimum graphics setting performs better in pvp and such anyway and maybe you didn't need that one npc who took a surprise vacation for just you.

 

[Heartbreaker]

This review is also a good example of why video reviews can be so helpful, when done correctly. While this is a video review, it never shows actual gameplay with the hardware

I find gameplay video as part of a HW review, to be totally useless. I can see everything I need from a graph in seconds. I don't need to be shown a video of stutter or missing textures. Just indicate that happened.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Why not just watch a different channel though?

LOL I hope that is not what you got from my post.

It's as though you ignored the part where I expressed how I enjoy most of their content. Or that the thread title explicitly stated that this particular review highlighted a problem large reviewers, in general, seem subject to. Or that I detailed why it was a problem, and used it as an object example to benefit inexperienced builders. I do watch others, I read others, I even read other user's reviews and experiences.

Most of your response displayed effort, which I thank you for. This particular comment however, was the typical dismissive response made 1000s of times before by many others, in response to a critique or criticism of something. It amounts to "Just go watch something else and stop complaining. We attempt a less intellectually lazy discussion 'round here.



I do not agree with you where you say that people should just save up more for a better CPU from the get go, that's not an option for some people.

I did not write that. I wrote that Steve's advice about buying a better board was bad, and they are better putting the money towards a better CPU. You see how that's different right?

Also if you're getting graphic stuttering issues and npcs disappearing etc then you should probably switch to minimal graphics settings, just as should anyone playing on a laptop or a lower end system.

Just like that eh? A magical fix. No, you can't fix a game, like say, BF:V 64p MP by using lowest settings. When the CPU is too weak, it is too weak.

I get the feeling that GN was making a video with a certain price point targeted audience and sharing how it would perform and if it would be worth it at all. You know that he has to put out a certain amount of videos every week so might have just been a filler episode that checked a few boxes and occupied screentime etc so they could do ad placements and sponsorships etc

Yeah man, it is common knowledge. "We like and need money" does not cut it for many of us, as an excuse for making bad content. Particularly when it results in dispensing iffy or even bad advice. Calling out shenanigans is important. Being apathetic is part of the problem. I read your response as apathetic here. Just my take on it, not being hostile. And I do thank you for taking the time to write that response and challenge my POV.

Don't worry, it's all going to be okay. Minimum graphics setting performs better in pvp and such anyway and maybe you didn't need that one npc who took a surprise vacation for just you.

This response is dismissive garbage. You may not care that it is Youtube comments level bad, but it'd be a lot cooler if you did.

Responses in bold. And seriously, thanks for even taking the time to weigh in.

 

[Mopetar]

At $.60 a KWh I'd be strictly an APU gamer right now.

At $.60 per KWh I'd be a board gamer.

 

[John Carmack]

The problem as always is the price.

2C/4T is just fine for eSports games, but not for new AAA games. But why bother? the 12100F is just a little more expensive. And its nothing compared to the cost of a gpu. If it was a $55 G7400 then we may talk, and even then is not that much.

Also im petty sure the $85 10100F is faster. It is the same issue as before, the G6400 vs the 10100F, with the 10100F being petty much at the same price. In that case it was clear, G6400 = office use, the 10100F budget gaming pc.

Do the math. In 2017, Intel sold the budget-focused 2C/4T Pentium G4560 for $64. Now 5 years later in 2022 they're selling a 2C/4T Pentium G7400 for $80. It was a decent budget choice then but it isn't now.

 

[TheELF]

Because it leaves little room for upgrades to faster CPUs in the future without VRM overheating which leads to CPU throttling:

The worst B660 mobos for example are hitting 100C on the VRMs and as a result are throttling on even a mid range 12600K CPU. Let's not talk about the 12700 or 12900K results, since I'll admit people looking at those higher end CPUs should probably invest in a Z690 mobo anyway.

So if you get a dirt cheap B660 mobo with an i3 12100F for example, you're literally limited to (at most) an upgrade to a 12400 in future without serious performance penalties due to VRM throttling.

When half decent B660 mobos drop below $100, that is when I'll call LGA 1700 a good budget platform. As it stands, the relatively higher cost of the mobos eats into the savings on the CPU side. I'll honestly much rather a Ryzen 5600 + B550 at this point for maybe $20 more overall platform cost.

This guy thinks that lifting power limits from the mobo doesn't change the amount of power a cpu draws so I wouldn't trust anything he says.
You are much better off with gamers Nexus he has several videos explaining what all the settings are and do and he tests everything with actual intel defaults and not only the way the mobo comes from the manufacturer, if GN says a board is bad you can trust him.
Everybody should watch this video: Gamers Nexus Intel i9-10900K "High" Power Consumption Explained: TVB, Turbo 3.0, & Tau

When he tests something he shows you the whole procedure and you actually learn stuff.