Deals, Discounts, and Best PC Component Buys & Builds

alright. thanks 👍

Ryzen 5 1400 - $363

That was a mistake 😢 Someone probably forgot to include sales tax 😬

I honestly wonder what would have happened if someone had actually placed an order. By the way, everyone knows even the Ryzen 7 1700 was $687.

Now, even Supernet offers $367 for the first one and $693 for the second

Maybe try picking up 😉

i5 8600K - $239 (USA)

Pretty tempting, I guess... 😁

Dammit. Why don't you check that with a standard American email address 😁 . Do they even deliver?

I sent an email to Comcast, but their prices are just ridiculous.

Right now, we're only shipping to Austria.😵

Timothy Kim60 said:Hell yeah. Check that on some shady offshore site 😁. Do they actually ship?

I emailed Comcast, their prices are garbage.

You should've just ordered it; maybe they wouldn't have noticed.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about those two. I'm just sitting tight to see what happens with those batches and the Ryzen 5 1600 unlocking situation—apparently, one guy with a bug actually ended up with 8 cores. If I've managed to wait this long, a few more days won't make a difference to me.

Look, I get it, but honestly? A Ryzen 5 1400 for $367 is an absolute steal. It’s more than enough for now since you can easily swap in a Zen 2 later on. It isn't like some old quad-core i5 where your only real move is jumping to a quad-core i7 from the same generation.

Recently, I noticed that the Ryzen 5 1600 was listed on Amazon with shipping included for about $490. At this rate, it seems it will soon become the standard market price, though perhaps we might even see it dip slightly lower. In my estimation, that new i5 doesn't stand a chance; it appears Intel is struggling to adapt to such extreme market shifts, and they seem to be desperately clinging to their high price points. Now, I wouldn't call myself a die-hard fan of any particular brand, but the reality of the situation is quite undeniable: with the introduction of Ryzen, AMD has truly challenged Intel's dominance.

wiredotter14 said:Look, I get it, but honestly, the Ryzen 5 1400 is such a steal at $367 that it’s more than enough for me. It’s easy to just drop in a Zen 2 chip down the road. It isn't like an old quad-core i5 where you're stuck jumping to a quad-core i7 from the exact same generation.

That's a fair point. Especially since after I move on from this HD 7850 2GB, I'll probably grab something mid-range—maybe an RX 470/570 4GB or, if I'm feeling ambitious, an RX 480/580 8GB—and call it a day. That Ryzen 5 1400 will handle that without breaking a sweat. But my logic is simple: since the Ryzen 5 1600 is right there within reach, I'd rather just grab it now and save myself the headache of upgrading later. Maybe in 3 or 4 years, I'll hunt down a Zen 3 8c16t, since that'll theoretically be the powerhouse for this socket. Or even later, once they hit the used market and you can pick them up for pennies.

Samuel Castillo49 said:Recently, an R5 1600 on Amazon with shipping and tax included was about $490. Pretty soon that might just be the standard price—maybe they'll even drop it lower. I don't think that new i5 stands a chance. Intel is clearly struggling to adapt to this shift, still desperately trying to hold onto those inflated prices. I'm not a fanboy, but it's obvious: AMD basically forced Intel's hand with Ryzen.

When we talk about these prices hitting $533, we have to see how the i5 8400 performs on H310 and B360 motherboards. So far, the results look great, but that's on Z370 boards, which isn't a realistic scenario and is way too expensive.

If it can stay near 4GHz on cheaper boards, it'll be a serious competitor to Ryzen. At least for gaming; productivity might lag a bit behind.
Stock will also look good compared to Stock Ryzen (yeah, there are people who won't or can't overclock)

When it comes to gaming, this chip holds its own or even takes the lead. The only time it struggles is in titles like Civ VI or similar heavy strategy games. In multi-threaded workloads, the R5 is noticeably faster. Personally, I’m not interested in the 8400 because I have no intention of dropping hundreds of dollars on a motherboard just to support a locked CPU, and I'm certainly not waiting around for the B360 to drop. I'm also wary of how quickly Intel chipsets hit EOL—with the Z390 already announced for next year—plus the fact that next-gen consoles will likely run on Zen 2, not to mention the long-term AM4 upgrade path...

I guess you should never say never; price drops or sudden sales can always catch you off guard.

Yeah, you nailed it

To begin with, my primary focus was on the concept of overall value—specifically looking at the total cost of the platform versus the potential upgrade path available to the user. When you weigh those factors, the difference in cost-effectiveness is truly night and day. While I certainly concede that the i5 is an excellent processor in its own right, one has to wonder if its premium price tag is truly justified, to put it mildly. Furthermore, the lack of a viable upgrade path strikes me as a critical oversight, unless, of course, they are simply banking on a very dedicated group of fanatics. As for gaming performance, wouldn't the R5 still maintain an edge in CPU-bound titles? It isn't just limited to strategy games anymore; we are seeing modern titles utilize the processor more aggressively, and in that regard, the R5 offers significantly more threads and cache. In most other types of games, however, the CPU isn't even the primary bottleneck, is it? They are relatively light on resources, meaning even older processors can still drive powerful graphics cards and allow games to run on high settings, regardless of how aged that specific Intel chip might be. I know of people even today who are successfully running GTX 9 or 10 series cards with an i7 920 without any complaints whatsoever. Taking everything into account, it seems to me that the R5 1600 still holds the advantage in gaming, and it likely will for the next few years if the role of the processor continues to expand in game development. I cannot say with absolute certainty regarding this specific gaming comparison, but I believe there is some merit to my reasoning.

IPC and clock speeds still carry massive weight when it comes to gaming, which is why Intel still holds a bit of an edge, even if they offer fewer cores and threads at certain price points. That said, the GPU is still king. While most people can swing a $200 CPU or maybe stretch a little further, financing a high-end graphics card—where you actually start seeing those marginal CPU gains—is a whole different beast. Honestly, from a pure price-to-performance standpoint, it’s rarely worth the headache.

It’s nothing major, just a quick heads-up. Does anyone need an XFX RX 580 8GB? I'm looking for $823 on eBay

Got an R5 1600 for about $185 including shipping on Amazon.
Roughly $433.