"This thing absolutely smokes Ryzen in gaming at stock clocks let alone OC'd - single-thread performance is still a dominant factor in good gaming performance and this chip delivers in spades."
That if you are limiting yourself to 1080p... At the resolution that I game (3440 x 1440) those performance differences disappear very fast. And even at 1080p 150 vs 180 frames don't matter that much for the majority of people.
The cost of this chip alone is the same as some Ryzen builds. There is a point where it financial doesn't make sense (price/performance) even if it's the fastest chip around.
The 6C version is priced directly against Ryzen (~$350), and the 8C version is only modestly more expensive (~$500), and they have a huge lead in gaming performance. That's perfectly affordable for the performance they give - virtually the same prices Ryzen launched at, in fact.
With this much of a lead in single-thread performance (~33%) a 6C Intel is actually outperforming an 8C Ryzen even in multi-thread performance and it's stomping it in games because single-thread performance is still so critical.
And the 8C Intels are just 33% faster than Ryzen across the board.
High-refresh gaming requires excellent single-threaded performance regardless of resolution, and 144 Hz is basically the new standard for midrange/high-end gaming builds at this point. A 144 Hz monitor starts at literally $150 and a very nice IPS 144 Hz FreeSync/GSync monitor can be had for $400-600.
It's not just 1080p - CPU single-thread-performance requirements scale with the framerate, it's just easier to hit higher framerates at lower resolutions. So 1080p benchmarks are a "leading indicator" of future high-refresh gaming performance as GPU tech improves and you upgrade in a year or two.
On the flip side, 4K benchmarks really mean almost nothing for CPUs. A Pentium G4560 is within a stone's throw of a 7700K at 4K because everything is GPU-bottlenecked at a very low framerate that virtually any processor can deliver. But that G4560 will fall behind in no time at all as GPU performance continues to improve and its actual performance (or lack thereof) is laid bare.
Or I guess put another way for gamers, saving $500 on your CPU lets you go from 1 GPU to 2 GPUs. For a lot of games, that is going to be a pretty big performance win.
It's silly to even look at 1080p for high-end gaming, beyond having some "rule-of-thumb" number to compare performance historically.
I remember I used to advice people to spend half on monitor, half on the pc system (and out of that, maybe close to half on the gpu). That used to mean a ~1000 USD monitor(s), and a ~500 USD GPU - for a total system price of ~2000 USD.
Today, most people would probably aim for a lower total cost, but it's still silly to sink a lot of cash into getting a great system, only to have a crappy monitor ruin the experience.
(Another caveat, I'd guess a high-end monitor should be able to survive/remain usable for closer to a decade than to 3-5 years -- which would be more typical for a pc. Of course, part of the reason for getting a pc system would be the possibility of ~incremental upgrades)
27" 144 Hz IPS GSync/FreeSync like the XF270HU or XB271HU is the place to aim for a general-purpose monitor right now ($400-600 depending on model and new/refurb). People inevitably are a bit dubious on them at first given the cost, then they try them and agree it's worth every penny.
Unless you want ultrawide that is - but there are some caveats there with game compatibility due to the aspect ratio.
That if you are limiting yourself to 1080p... At the resolution that I game (3440 x 1440) those performance differences disappear very fast. And even at 1080p 150 vs 180 frames don't matter that much for the majority of people.
The cost of this chip alone is the same as some Ryzen builds. There is a point where it financial doesn't make sense (price/performance) even if it's the fastest chip around.