So what you're saying really is that the 3700X had absolutely no issues whatsoever running that game. Yes it's nicer to play in 120fps, but it's not like you couldn't play the game because of the CPU. I know someone who had to upgrade from an older 4-core i7 to a modern CPU because Horizon 5 was actually stuttering. But the CPU "limiting" you when you're comfortably above 60fps, and you aren't playing competitive eSports, is not really a limit, just like how my car accelerating really poorly past 150mph is not really a limit in any real sense of the word.

I mean, that's your personal opinion on >60 FPS gaming, it's not universally shared. I for one enjoy even single player games at the highest FPS I can get, which is why I have a 1080p 240 hz monitor. If the parent likes their games higher than 60 FPS then to them their 3700x really was a limiter in their enjoyment, something which the 5900x would not be for them.

> So what you're saying really is that the 3700X had absolutely no issues whatsoever running that game.

Perhaps to specifications that would satisfy someone else. My requirements are ~120fps and 4k. For those requirements, no existing i5 would cut muster.

> But the CPU "limiting" you when you're comfortably above 60fps

I never used the word "limiting" in my comment. Not sure what you're quoting from. That being said, the 3700X was objectively limiting my framerates. It's not a value judgment, it's just an objective fact that such CPUs are inadequate to satisfy my preferences, and those of many other PC gamers. If you have different preferences, that's fine, but it's not really relevant when I'm talking about my own.

Of course, and I myself play at 144Hz and would probably do the same. I think I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays - and while in strictly technical sense that's true, I don't think that a few years old CPU being able to run games at solid 60fps+ is a problem in any sense. Again, it's not like it physically can't run the game, it just doesn't run it "well enough" for some people.

> I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays

I didn't say most gamers are CPU limited, though. I said "Depends on the type of game . . . there are many cases today where a strong CPU is required for gaming." I didn't say most cases.

Conversely, it would be fine to observe that many console gamers have historically been satisfied with 30fps, and therefore PC gamers ought to only "require" a strong -2 gen i5 processor. While you're at it, you could also say that console gamers game at 1080p, so PC players should be satisfied with that as well. And you'd be right, under a certain configuration of preferences, and a certain interpretation of the word "require."

70 fps would be "absolutely no issues" if it were a 95th percentile min. as an average figure, it leaves room for meaningful improvement in a multiplayer shooter (you are definitely dipping below the refresh rate of a 60hz monitor).

or from a different perspective, if a new CPU can give you a 70% framerate increase, you either spent too much money on your GPU, or you spent too little on the original CPU. bottlenecks that severe are a sign that you have misallocated your budget.