I have no issue with your argument, outside my point that Hilbert should also be showing us the relative gaming performance of a given CPU.. not just that in some games and some gaming use-cases you may not need a better CPU. It really doesn't make any sense to benchmark CPUs for gaming and specifically only pick games and use settings that are completely GPU bound. I want to reiterate the point that there ARE games TODAY that are CPU limited, especially when it comes to high Hz monitors. This isn't a hypothetical, future issue. Hilbert's gaming benchmark suite for CPUs is completely useless at displaying the relative gaming performance of a CPU. I am not arguing he should stop showing the tables that show in some cases you are just fine spending less on a CPU for gaming, but there are plenty of gaming-use cases TODAY where you greatly benefit from having a better CPU. Hilbert's gaming benchmarks have provided me almost no data to really gauge the performance difference of a Ryzen 7 and 8700K for gaming. He could do this, and it would be valuable information to a lot of members here. I get the feeling you are arguing this information should not be provided because you are an AMD fan and you know it wouldn't reflect positively on Ryzen. I think that is bunk. If you'd want the information provided if the situation was reversed, AMD had the stronger gaming chip, you should also be for it here. Hiding this kind of information from us, the consumers, doesn't help us. I may actually consider a Ryzen 7 for gaming if I had a better idea of exactly how much weaker it is in gaming. Based off this review, I don't even begin to know enough to make a decision.