I don't see why overclocking wouldn't be relevant. Everyone talking about R5 is talking about DIY computer builds - if you're capable of building you're own computer, you're probably capable of overclocking.. especially now when there are so many safety systems to prevent damage and one button OC tools in place to just click and boom 4.6/4.8 easily doable. Does that "solve" the more core=future argument? No. But it definitely makes a pretty good case for someone who's buying now but may upgrade within a year or two - or someone who doesn't believe more cores are going to matter in the next 3-4 years. I don't agree with the latter point, but I also can't say 100% that >4 cores are going to be required either. As for him linking Tom's, I couldn't find a Guru3D article that compared an overclocked i5 7600K to a R5 and the i5 7600K overclock page doesn't show any games anyway. That being said, I agree that Tom's is a bad source - especially after that recent Intel only recommendation guide thingy they did the other week. Isn't that what most gamers want though? Like minimum framerates aside, if there is something I can do to give me 15% additional performance, I don't care how much power it's going to add, or if the % uplift on the clock is going to scale linearly with the performance increase. Either way I'm just playing devil's advocate - I'd recommend and do recommend r5 over the i5 any day of the week. I'm of the opinion it's the more "future proof" system - it's just I think there are decent arguments for still buying an i5. Especially if you don't plan on keeping it long, or are strictly gaming at 1080p.