I've been trying to build an upgrade to my PC, and by upgrade

>>376042447
Intel's CPUs simply dominate over all the competition. A simple, hard fact.

An i5 of any sort really would do more than just fine even today, and they even got those fancy Pentium-things that are pretty much poor-fag versions of the i-cores (lacking integrated GPU and some shit, but same processing power).

Anyone else care to chime in?

not really much to chime in familia. just grab a 6600k or 7600k, depending on whether or not you wanna save $10. they basically perform the same.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6nyFhq
I assumed budget

The K series of intel processors are pretty much the staple norm and you can't really go wrong.

But an rx5, the 1600x to be specific, might at the very least be a pretty good alternative an 'i5 of any sort ', due to core amount etc.

Honestly take any partisan fanboy opinions and hard facts you get on an underage board with a grain of salt and do your own research, it's not that hard you know.

you need new ram if you want to go for a 7 series intel cpu since z270 mobos use ddr4

>>376046363
this is awful, dont buy this.

>>376046702
>I am le ebic trole

>>376042447
>>376043509

my i5 4670 non oc from 5 years ago still lets me load faster then my friend who built an amd pc a year ago

>>376047389
heh, I'm still using my 6yo i5 2500, non-K, and it has had zero problems running ANYTHING yet. I've even done some heavy duty multitasking, running 3Ds Max, Photoshop, a web browser with dozen(s) of tabs open, and who knows what else open in the background, without any major hitches.

Even my GTX 560ti still gets the job done at 1080p, and only now is it starting to show its age.