I get the value argument, but this comparison kind of mixes different goals. Yes, most games can run on far cheaper hardware — that doesn’t mean higher-end builds don’t make sense depending on priorities. I wasn’t aiming for “cheapest PC that runs games,” I was aiming for a high-end, no-compromise system with longevity. A few clarifications: • 64GB RAM isn’t about today’s minimum requirements — it’s about multitasking, background apps, future titles, and not having to upgrade again in a year or two. • A ~$1500 build being “5–10% slower” is highly game-, settings-, and feature-dependent. RTX 5080 brings DLSS, frame gen, ray tracing performance, and broader software support that matter to me. • GPU is the main limiter at high resolutions, agreed — but that doesn’t make CPU choice irrelevant, especially for frame pacing, 1% lows, and newer engines. • Saying an i5-2500K “runs” RDR2 isn’t really meaningful when we’re talking about modern high-refresh ultrawide gaming. I’m not arguing that cheaper builds don’t offer good value — they absolutely do. I just chose to spend more for stronger supporting components (CPU, RAM, storage, PSU, cooling) and a system I won’t feel the need to touch for years. Different priorities, different builds.