Hmm, PC users want the optimizations that console users have but console users want the scalability that PC users have ... 

How equivocal ... 

An engine can have both anyways ... (So sad to see PC gamers stuck with shitty DX11 and WDDM 1, those two things should die in a ditch) 

The good thing though is that PC gamers have a choice to run even badly optimized games as fast as they want. So they don't really have to envy optimizations on consoles since they're able to optimize the game themselves.

Even consoles are starting to get options to also run poorly optimized software with the PS4 Pro and the Xbox Scorpio so that's not exclusive to PC anymore ... 

Just telling like it is, a crappy engine is a crappy engine like UE4 regardless of platform ...

Maybe one game in a hundred. As things are currently going consoles most likely won't even have proper graphic options in the next gen. What good is perfect optimization if it forgoes any kind of choice.

Is it better than my i5-4570?

premiere Pro?? 

Dual-Cores are here to stay... Intel sells a stupidly massive amount to OEM business machines... And because they are so small, their profit margins are tasty.

I'm hoping AMD also releases a Dual-Core+Hyper Threaded variant using a die-harvested quad with all that L2 cache enabled... If they can get that at 15-25w TDP, it would be awesome.

Sadly though... My 5 year old 3930K @ 5ghz still outbenches Ryzen 7 1800X... Granted the Ryzen chip uses a fraction of the energy, which is a big plus.

But one of Ryzens Achilles' heel is that they are shit at overclocking, for the lower-end parts that isn't much of an issue... Because the Intel Non-K chips are also shit at overclocking due to being locked, which is where Ryzen becomes a seriously attractive alternative.

I'm super keen to see how the Ryzen APU's turn out, it's a shame that AMD doesn't have a high-end motherboard chipset to really make APU's shine though.

At the moment, if I were to choose, I would chose Intel over AMD for the octo-core chips.
But I would chose AMD for the Quad and Hex core chips, their value can't be beat.

Keen to see how AMD's Zen+ architecture plays out, AMD should make attempts to rectify all the shortcomings of Zen, which is a great thing for us consumers.

It will probably take years for the Hex cores to become mainstream, common-place chips though... I mean. Hell. People are happily running the latest and greatest games on Nahelem still. Haha

I don't think my i7-5820K needs replacing any time soon. Give me GPU's with 12GB of HBM instead!

No, Xsplit.  I'm going to get Vegas Pro 14 at some point this week.

I came from a 4790k and wanted an 8 core processor.  Ryzen has been great.  It's running at 3.9 as I don't really need it to run at 4.0 anyway and allows me to do exactly what I intended.  Besides motherboad issues, I've had no problems from the CPU itself.

I dunno, the market buying an i5 7400 are generally opting for $50-$60 H110 budget boards and running off the oem cooler.

So to say you need a fancy cooler to not hit 80C , only to hit sub 4Ghz clocks, needing B350 minimum and the fastest memory ...that raises the cost to extract better performance of this option toward 7600K or even the 1600X territory.

At that point i'd just strongly consider the 7600K which runs like freak out of the box.

At this budget range it is all  silly when knowing throwing that price differential (anything from $30-50) at the GPU gains you better games performance. That goes both ways, obviously. This is an area where 'ricing out' budget parts makes little sense. If you are going to go cheap on the CPU, going minimalist on the guts of the system and going biggest you can afford on he GPU will generally net you beter games performance.