I see a bit of a contradiction here. This article states that:
"Then, of course, when going down that path you could opt for the significantly cheaper $170 Core i5-10400. Sure, it’s a bit slower than the 5600X, but it’s also almost half the price and will deliver maximum performance on any B560 motherboard, though entry-level boards might limit your future upgrade options."
Now, if you click on the i5-10400, it brings you to another article (also written by Steve) talking about the combination of the i5-10400 and the Radeon RX 6800. However, that article says:
"Initially we thought the discounted Core i5-10400F would be the better buy, but after a complete analysis it turns out it's at best offering the same level of value as the Ryzen 5 3600.
The 3600 benefits from a superior upgrade path, support for PCIe 4.0 and overclocking B and X-series motherboards, so ultimately we think it remains the better value choice. We just can't let go that it's no longer available at an attractive discount (see our price tracker chart for more), but that’s the world we live in right now."
Now, I don't think that Steve is being disingenuous because I've found Steve to be impeccably honest in his reviews. However, I would point out that the R5-3600 is still available and would still be a better choice than the i5-10400 because while the 10400 is
slightly faster in games overall, it's only really at 1080p and the difference is extremely mild (with the exception of Hitman 2, but the R5-3600 still offers a minimum framerate of 93fps, more than enough for the vast majority of displays).
Meanwhile, the R5-3600 is a bit less expensive than the i5-10400, offers a much more attractive upgrade path and, unlike the i5-10400, it can be overclocked, even with a less expensive B550 board without having to worry about power management issues present in several of the the B460 boards (if the ASUS TUF Gaming isn't available in your region).
Not a criticism, just pointing out that there may be a better alternative than that.
