PC of the Month (July 2025)

The first half of summer is still a "hot season" in the PC components niche - new products announced at Computex or on the eve of the exhibition go on sale. Manufacturers are also trying to get rid of stocks of still relevant models of previous generations, and this is a good opportunity to get interesting offers at attractive prices. So, in general, favorable conditions are created to afford more for the same money, or with minimal budget changes. We have a good opportunity to review the recommended configurations within the traditional PC of the Month material. Let's look at the current state of the components market and analyze what you can save on, and where it is worth adding a little and getting a PC with better potential, ready for future gaming challenges.

Basic-level gaming PC of the month ($700–850)

Processors. Finally, we have reached the point where the choice of processor for a basic gaming system on Intel is no longer unambiguous. The "dinosaur" Core i5-12400F (6/12; 2.5/4.4 GHz) is still in service and generally remains relevant and has no alternative in the case of maximum savings. In the retail version of the Core i5-12400F, it is offered for the equivalent of $115. The tray version can be found even for ~$105. An option in case you already have a cooling system, or you are initially planning to equip the system with an inexpensive tower, which will probably be more efficient than the standard cooler. However, even a simple complete one generally copes with the task.

And what more interesting has appeared for this category? No, there is no talk of the appearance of budget chips for LGA1851 yet. There is no news at all here, and even, it seems, no special prospects. But we have very attractive options within the same LGA1700. Over the past few months, the cost of Core i5-14400F chips (6/12+4; 2.5/4.7 GHz + 1.8/3.5 GHz) has significantly decreased, and this is simply great news and an opportunity to strengthen the processor position of basic configurations.

Recall that this model is equipped with six productive cores with a frequency formula of 2.5/4.7 GHz and Hyper-Threading support, and also has four additional energy-efficient processors (1.8/3.5 GHz). At the time of writing, the Core i5-14400F can already be purchased for the equivalent of $135–140. Yes, the additional increase in the budget for basic configurations is very "painful", but still we cannot miss the opportunity for such an increase. Even despite the similar architecture of the P-cores, in the case of the 14400F they have a +300 MHz higher dynamic overclocking limit, while the energy-efficient cores will significantly increase the overall multi-threaded performance (+25–30%). All this for an additional $20. In our opinion, such an "upgrade" makes perfect sense.

Not so long ago, the Core i5-14400F was among the options for optimal configurations. Intel's price dumping allowed us to consider this chip as the basis for entry-level gaming platforms. We will gladly take advantage of this opportunity.

Here it would be appropriate to mention the Core 13400F, which actually differs from its successor only by 100-200 MHz lower operating frequencies of P/E-Cores. Given the almost identical current price tags, of course we give preference to the "next generation" chip [gentle sarcasm].

At the beginning of the summer, information about the preparation of Bartlett Lake-S series chips for LGA1700 was leaked to the network. Moreover, in addition to the mention that Intel has not abandoned the very idea of releasing such CPUs, an official slide appeared with more detailed information about the technical characteristics of one of the models - Core 5 120F. This is a 6-core chip with operating frequencies of 2.5/4.5 GHz, Hyper-Threading support and 18 MB L3. Official support for up to 192 GB of memory is declared, and the TDP is 65 W.

The chip is positioned as a solution for entry-level gaming platforms. In terms of functionality, it is very similar to the same Core i5-12400F, only with a maximum acceleration frequency increased by 100 MHz. However, there are no launch dates yet, and even more so the recommended cost of the chip - there is no subject for discussion. And in general, for basic configurations we are already switching to chips with a functional formula of 6/12+4, so the return to pure 6-cores is not very interesting. Perhaps within the framework of Bartlett Lake-S there will be even more attractive solutions with a competitive price. Initially, it was said that the series could even be headed by a model with 12 productive cores. This would really help to "refresh" LGA1700, adding variety. We continue to observe.

AMD platforms have no shortage of great options for basic gaming configurations. For systems in this class, we suggest focusing on Socket AM5, and the most affordable for this chipset remains the Ryzen 5 8400F (6/12; 4.2/4.7 GHz; 16 MB L3). Quite a suitable option as a starter solution. Recently, this 6-core chip has additionally lost in price, so it has added attractiveness for those who want to save a little.

The cost of the chip in the tray version has finally dropped to a level where you can get change back from one banknote with the image of Franklin. Yes, indeed, in Ukraine the chip can already be purchased for the equivalent of $95. It seems we have reached the point where the basic 6-core chips for AM5 cost the same as an AM4 processor with the same number of processors. Of course, we are talking about the Ryzen 5 5600, which was supposed to have an unattainable price/performance ratio. But, as we can see, a decent change has been "pulled up".

If you choose the OEM version of the processor, you will need to purchase a cooling system separately. A simple tower for ~$20 will cope with the processor's operation in normal mode. So, to purchase the Ryzen 5 8400F together with the cooler, you will need ~$115.

As for the alternatives, here are all "old friends". First of all, this is the Ryzen 5 7500F (6/12; 3.7/5.0 GHz; 32 MB L3). This is probably the ultimate option for a basic gaming system - high operating frequencies, 32 MB of L3 cache and solder under the heatsink. Last time, we immediately rejected this CPU for this category due to its considerable cost. Although the price of the 6-core processor is still quite high, it is still worth noting that the Ryzen 5 7500F is already offered in our market for ~$150. But this is also a tray-kit without a cooler. And the additional $20 for purchasing a cooler already increases the total price of the processor "kit" to $170. A similar difference with the cost of the Ryzen 5 8400F makes you think about the justification of additional costs.

Another potentially working option here is the Ryzen 5 7400F (6/12; 3.7/4.7 GHz; 32 MB L3). The younger version of the famous Raphael line with almost all its attributes - chiplet structure, 32 MB L3, PCI-E 5.0 and more. But in addition to the loss of 300 MHz of maximum frequency acceleration, "all the solder leaked" from under the cover of this model, which was replaced by the manufacturer with thermoplastic material to reduce manufacturing costs. The loss is probably not critical, especially if we are talking about a gaming system where the load on the CPU is usually not maximum. But the fact itself is quite disappointing. The solder still provides better contact of the protective plate with silicon crystals, allowing for easier heat dissipation.

Like the older model, the Ryzen 5 7400F is offered only in a tray configuration, and in this version it already costs ~$135. Add a simple cooler and you get ~$155 for the set. Subjectively, it's also a bit expensive for a limited budget. Therefore, in the basic configuration, we will still rely on the more affordable Ryzen 5 8400F, and we will direct the freed funds to strengthen the graphics subsystem.

Video cards. Recently, the entry-level video card segment has undergone a lot of transformations. With the advent of new solutions from NVIDIA and AMD, the favorites of our starting configurations have changed. Let's immediately indicate the positions - GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB and Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. Already at this stage, we mentally feel condemnation from supporters of the theory "you can't play with 8 GB of memory anymore", but we suggest taking into account not only desire, but also the practical state of affairs and the real situation on the market. Unfortunately, it is such that in the price niche of ~$300+, which we are focused on in basic gaming configurations, both key developers of discrete graphics offer only models with the specified memory capacity.

When considering entry-level systems, it is usually assumed that the owner will use a Full HD screen, being content with medium-high image quality settings in games. For such needs, 8 GB of video card memory is usually enough. But of course, there are exceptions when even under such conditions a larger capacity is desirable. These will be cases for creative experiments with settings and scaling to obtain stable fps.

Let's return to the specified positions, namely the GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB with a recommended price tag of $299. According to the results of practical testing, it leaves a frankly good impression. The model managed to improve the performance of its predecessor, the GeForce RTX 4060 8 GB, by 20–25%. This means that in terms of raster performance, the new product actually managed to catch up with the next model in the previous generation line - the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB.

Compared to the RTX 4060, the successor received a larger number of compute units, faster tensor and RT cores. The memory bus retained its 128-bit width, but thanks to the use of new GDDR7 chips with an increased effective frequency, the bandwidth increased from 272 GB/s to 448 GB/s (+65%). So the noticeable overall performance increase is somehow not even surprising. Everything is business-like. The power consumption of the RTX 5060 also increased slightly (145 W vs. 115 W), but approximately proportional to the increase in the number of fps, so everything is fine with performance per watt here. Well, as a bonus - full support for DLSS 4 with Multi Frame Generation. In fact, the only question that remains is memory capacity, there is no truth, children.

The best option would be to be able to choose between two modifications of the video card - with 8 GB and 16 GB of memory. This option is available for the older GeForce RTX 5060 Ti model. But for the RTX 5060, unfortunately, only versions with 8 GB on board are provided. Since the topic of a possible lack of such memory capacity is acute and causes a stormy user reaction with a mostly negative connotation, we can predict the possible appearance of a version of the RTX 5060 with an increased local buffer.

NVIDIA is unlikely to offer a version with double the capacity, but the conventional GeForce RTX 5060 SUPER 12 GB with a moderate price increase would be a truly super option in this class. Such a solution can be implemented in practice using 3 GB GDDR7 chips. Such chips of atypical capacity are currently used only for the mobile version of the GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop 24 GB. Such chips are probably still being produced in limited quantities, but with the increase in the number of partners for the production of GDDR7 (Micron joined Samsung and SK Hynix), the situation may change here, allowing NVIDIA to be more flexible in configuring the range of its video cards. But, in addition to the possibilities of technical implementation, additional pressure from the outside is needed. In the current conditions, it is easier for developers to advise anyone who wants to have a video card with a larger memory capacity to pay attention to the more expensive GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB. Nothing personal, just business.

The GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB was officially introduced at the end of May, so over the past period, about three dozen corresponding models have appeared on sale in Ukraine. The starting versions are offered at a price of ~$360, and the top modifications of the series are asked for up to $470–500. The initial values are conditionally acceptable for basic gaming configurations.

The appearance of the GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB immediately eliminates the GeForce RTX 4060 8 GB from the list of possible options for basic gaming configurations. The previous generation models are offered from ~$330. Considering the significant advantages of the new Blackwell architecture, purchasing the predecessor makes no sense. The number of offers here is rapidly decreasing, so probably by the end of the summer we will only be able to contemplate the remnants of the previous series. We assume that some interest may remain in the most compact options for specific situations when the most economical system is being assembled. The power consumption of the RTX 4060 is still lower than that of the RTX 5060. But these are rather exceptional circumstances.

AMD did not waste time and already in early June presented its version of the vision of video cards in the $300+ price segment. For this category, the developers offered the Radeon RX 9060 XT in versions with 8 GB and 16 GB of memory. Apparently, competitors were initially prepared for the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8/16 GB, but the starting recommended price tags of $299/349 allow us to consider the Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB as an opponent of the GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB. To make up for lost positions and increase its share in the discrete graphics segment, AMD solutions need to give more for the same money. Fortunately, developers understand this, so users get a worthy alternative. We haven't had the opportunity to directly compare the capabilities of the RTX 5060 and RX 9060 XT versions with 8 GB of memory in stock conditions, but according to numerous reviews on the network, Radeon has an average advantage of 5–10%, although not without counterexamples.

For new solutions based on the RDNA 4 architecture, the developers managed to significantly improve performance not only in the classic raster, but also to strengthen the capabilities of ray tracing processing. Such updates made it possible to offer truly competitive solutions for the corresponding RTX 50 models. The Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB does not reach the performance of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, but successfully opposes and has an advantage over the GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB. The only question is whether these +5–10% will be a convincing enough argument to win over to its side… However, the opposite side is “playing” a more developed DLSS ecosystem with new transformer models. AMD is trying to keep up here, offering a new version of FSR 4 for the Radeon RX 9000, also based on AI calculations. However, the initial starting conditions are different.

At the same time, the Radeon RX 9060 XT may be more interesting for upgrading older PCs. Video cards of this line, in addition to supporting PCI Express 5.0, use all 16 bus lines (PCI-E 5.0 x16) for connection. This will be an advantage for older platforms with PCI-E 4.0, and especially PCI-E 3.0. In the latter cases, video cards with PCI-E x8 slots, and these are most of the base models, including the RTX 5060/5060 Ti, may already lose valuable fps.

The Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is also already available on our market, although the range here is much more modest. In addition, for a retail price of ~$360, you can only count on one model from Sapphire, while other versions are offered from $380+. However, even in this case, the new model on RDNA 4 makes it meaningless to choose the Radeon RX 7600 8 GB, which were previously on the list of possible options. Although the previous generation model still has an argument - a significantly lower retail price. Adapters of this line are currently offered for ~$290–300.

As for the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB versions, in fact, the list of offers on our market is still being formed, so the cost of $450+ looks too high for a video card used in entry-level gaming PCs. Of course, the 16 GB versions allow you to close the issue of a possible lack of memory for any settings not only in Full HD, but also in 1440p, but the price does matter. If this does not stop you, you can get a competitor for the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB.

In general, the cost of $350+ is a bit high, as for starting gaming configurations. In the current conditions, this is rather a forced measure. If the budget is strictly limited, the GeForce RTX 5050 8 GB may also be an option for consideration. Especially in cases where, at the recommended $249, they will appear in retail for ~$300. It is not yet possible to confirm or refute this assumption - despite the announcement and compliance with the "second-half of July" deadline, sales have not yet started.

Judging by the results of the first reviews, the GeForce RTX 5050 8 GB in terms of performance came close to the GeForce RTX 4060 8 GB. But for an objective assessment, there are still not enough actual retail price tags. If we rely solely on the recommended values for the American market, the model looks quite good as a basic option for Full HD without any complaints about the picture quality.

AMD is also likely to offer its own versions of more affordable graphics cards. Something like the Radeon RX 9060 and Radeon RX 9050. Speculations about possible specifications are already appearing online, but so far without confirmations or even estimated launch dates for such models.

In case the 8GB graphics card options are not considered at all, the budget option is the GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (from $300). Yes, the additional memory capacity is a certain "soothing" even for Full HD, but a 40-50% performance drop compared to the RTX 5060 and RX 9060 XT, significantly weaker RT and tensor units, and the lack of frame generation (FG/MFG) support are very painful losses that require additional weighing of all the pros and cons.

Those who prefer an exclusive alternative can also count on the Intel Arc B580 12 GB (from $320), but in this case you will also have to accept a performance loss. In Full HD, the difference with the performance of the AMD/NVIDIA newcomers will be ~25%, and will decrease to ~15% in 1440p mode, especially if you lack 8 GB of memory.

Optimal Gaming PC of the Month ($1200–1450)

Processors. The optimal configurations on the Intel platform have received a significant update this time. After a very noticeable decrease in the cost per processor position, we suggest considering the Core i5-14600KF (6+8; 3.5/5.3 GHz + 2.6/4.0 GHz; 24 MB L3). The cost of a 14-core, 20-thread chip has recently dropped to $210 (tray version). An offer that is simply impossible to refuse. It seems that this model has fallen into the pool of "point" positions, thanks to which Intel is trying to regain the favor of users in the DIY segment who are used to counting money. This is a clear example of the fact that when necessary, Intel can use the price lever, although previously it was reluctant to resort to it only in exceptional cases. Looking at the user ratings of the popularity of desktop CPUs, it seems that now is the time to act in a similar way.

The Core i5-14600KF has long been a virtually unalternative option for advanced configurations. And until almost recently, we used it in this guise. A very balanced option specifically for gaming systems, where the maximum number of cores is not so important, but rather a successful combination with good performance per clock (IPC), fairly high frequencies, sufficient cache capacity and efficient work with memory is needed. And all this at a reasonable price. These are the criteria that the Core i5-14600KF met at the time, which at the peak of its popularity was offered for ~$350.

The price reduction to $210 makes the 14-core very attractive even for optimal configurations. Previously, this place was also occupied by a decent chip - the Core i5-12600K (6/12 + 4; 3.7/4.9 GHz + 2.8/3.6 GHz; 20 MB L3), but the Core i5-14600KF is clearly a more powerful solution, which will allow you not to think about the future CPU upgrade for a long time. Unlike the younger Core i5-14xxx models, the top Core i5-14600KF is an honest update with the Raptor Lake architecture, which provides better IPC, increased L2 caches and other optimizations. So the difference here is not only in the number of energy-efficient cores or operating frequencies, but also in certain architectural improvements.

An important nuance of the Core i5-14600KF is the increased level of power consumption. Despite the TDP of 125 W, under multi-threaded load the chip can require up to 180 W of energy. In games, of course, the performance will be significantly lower, but the CPU still needs an appropriate cooler. Regardless of the delivery (tray/box), the processor is offered without a standard cooler, so the costs of its purchase must be planned separately. Here you should not rely on a simple budget tower, as is the case with budget chips. It would be wise to choose a mid-level cooler for ~$50–70. During the initial platform settings, it will not be superfluous to experiment with downvolting, having previously studied the relevant guides. A minimal decrease in operating voltage will further improve the CPU temperature regime.

When choosing a Core i5-14600KF, we will pay special attention to the motherboard. It is also better not to use budget entry-level models here, so the rational ones will be versions for ~$150+ with normal circuitry of the power stabilizer unit and additional cooling of the power elements. We do not expect overclocking in general, so in this case we can limit ourselves to boards based on Intel B760. Of course, we are talking about models that work with DDR5 RAM.

In the case of the AMD platform, we continue to rely on the Ryzen 7 7700 (8/16; 3.8/5.3 GHz; 32 MB L3). The ability to purchase a tray version for the equivalent of $230 also looks like a "secret loophole" that allows you to save significantly. The retail version of the chip costs ~$310. Even though in the case of the Ryzen 7 7700 box-delivery assumes the presence of a standard cooler, a separate cooler for the same $50 will be more effective than the complete AMD Wraith Prism. Moreover, if you do not experiment with overclocking a 65-watt CPU, you can get by with an even more affordable model.

The Ryzen 7 7700 will be slightly less powerful than the Core i5-14600KF, but its capabilities in the optimal configuration category will be quite sufficient. Eight Zen 4 cores will provide the necessary margin even in projects with multi-threaded loads.

When considering alternatives, it is worth highlighting a whole galaxy of 6-core chips that could also potentially be part of the optimal configurations. The list is very long, starting from the Ryzen 5 7600 (6/12; 3.8/5.1 GHz; $175 tray) and Ryzen 5 7600X (6/12; 4.7/5.3 GHz; $200 tray) or the newer Ryzen 5 9600 (6/12; 3.8/5.2 GHz; $215) and Ryzen 5 9600X (6/12; 3.5/5.3 GHz; $230) with Zen 5 architecture, ending with the Ryzen 5 7600X3D (6/12; 4.1/4.7 GHz; $315) with an additional 64 MB 3D V-Cache. The latter option will probably provide the highest fps, but the $315 price tag remains a serious deterrent.

AMD is also planning to release the Ryzen 5 9600X3D. It is likely that the model will also receive an additional second-generation 3D V-Cache buffer on Zen 5, which will increase the total capacity of the L3 cache to 96 MB (32 MB + 64 MB). There are no exact frequency characteristics yet, as well as the expected launch date. Apparently, the increased L3 will do its job, allowing the Ryzen 5 9600X3D to significantly accelerate in games, where it will be inferior only to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and older X3D models.

Despite the extremely high variability of the available 6-core models for Socket AM5, subjectively, in the optimal configurations, I would like to see processors with a larger number of processors. The same 8-core 16-thread models provide additional confidence that in the next resource-intensive project, the CPU will not be the cause of possible microfreezes. Although this is more a story not about current challenges, but about future prospects. If there are no personal "prejudices" regarding 6-core chips, the models on the Zen 5 architecture look more interesting. Yes, they are a little more expensive than their predecessors, but somewhat more productive. Ryzen 5 9600X allows you to switch between 65 W - 105 W TDP modes with one click in the BIOS. In the latter case, due to the increase in the frequency limit under load on all cores, performance in multi-threaded tasks is significantly increased. A convenient option for those who don't like fiddling with platform settings.

Video cards. The final choice of a video card for optimal configurations can take a lot of time - there are many factors that should be taken into account and familiarize yourself with the capabilities of the key element of the gaming system in more detail. Not without compromises, but one of the current options is the GeForce RTX 5070 12 GB. According to the results of practical tests, the updated "seventy" is 20–25% more productive than its predecessor, the GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB, and is ahead of the accelerated version of the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER 12 GB. In general, a fairly balanced video card that has received improvements at all stages - a larger number of computing units, faster GDDR7 memory and its bandwidth. Unfortunately, the total memory capacity has remained unchanged. Although 12 GB is a logical indicator for a 192-bit bus, in this class we would still like to see 16 GB. Technically, the wish is feasible, but we will only see a practical embodiment in the form of the GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER 18 GB, which is already rumored. So far, it is a medium-term prospect.

The GeForce RTX 5070 12 GB is the ultimate option for Full HD gaming, allowing you to get the target 60 frames/s even in ultra-heavy projects with maximum quality settings without scaling. The video card also offers very good performance at 1440p, although in certain cases DLSS may be needed here. In general, the GeForce RTX 5070 is 60–70% more productive than the GeForce RTX 5060 8 GB, which is offered for basic configurations. Of course, the difference in the cost of video cards is significant, but this is the only opportunity to radically increase fps in games.

The recommended price of the GeForce RTX 5070 for the American market is $549, in Ukraine at the moment the models of the series start at the equivalent of $670. Conditionally the upper limit for optimal configurations. As for the previous generation NVIDIA solutions, these models disappear from sale quite quickly. The remnants of the GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB for almost the same price are of no interest, not to mention the even more expensive GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER 12 GB.

AMD also offers its own version of the video card with a recommended price tag of $549. The Radeon RX 9070 16 GB is simply a great alternative to the GeForce RTX 5070 12 GB. However, despite the identical MSRP, in Ukraine the new products on RDNA 4 are offered for $50–60 more expensive. Starting at $720–740. Here a certain block and rejection of such values within the framework of mid-range gaming platforms are already triggered. Recently, video cards of a similar cost were considered for progressive configurations. Under current conditions, you need to have a certain attachment to the "red" solutions to make a choice in favor of the Radeon RX 9070.

What will the Navi 48 XT-based graphics adapter offer in return? In terms of pure raster performance, the model is on average 5–10% faster than the GeForce RTX 5070 12 GB. Of course, the difference, as always, depends on specific projects, but in most cases a small advantage will be on the side of the Radeon RX 9070 16 GB. Interestingly, in this pair, even enabling ray tracing does not change the position of the AMD solution. The larger memory capacity also allows us to close this issue. The power consumption level is also very similar.

In a similar vein, the confrontation between the DLSS and FSR ecosystems remains. The current state of affairs in this case is well known. With the announcement of DLSS 4 with transformer models and multiple frame generation, NVIDIA has further strengthened its position in the field of "AI enhancers". AMD also offers FSR 4 based on neural network models, trying to catch up with its opponent. So the final choice can rather be made based on your own beliefs and a certain attachment to NVIDIA/AMD products. In both cases, we get very good options for comfortable gaming in 1080p/1440p.

For the Chinese market, AMD has offered a variant of the Radeon RX 9070 GRE 12 GB based on Navi 48 XL with a slightly smaller number of processors, a 192-bit bus for 12 GB of onboard memory. According to the results of tests in 1440p mode, it is 10–15% inferior to the classic Radeon RX 9070 16 GB. With a rational pricing policy, such a version could become a more affordable alternative to the GeForce RTX 5070 12 GB, and would potentially be quite successful. Perhaps later the geography of availability will expand, as we have already seen in the case of the Radeon RX 7900 GRE. Well, the price lever is exclusively in the hands of AMD. Do they really want to increase their share in the niche of discrete video cards?

What should you pay attention to if the cost of video cards in $670–740 is confusing and clearly goes beyond the previously formed budgets? In the middle class, the Radeon RX 7800 XT 16 GB had a good position. In general, a fairly well-balanced model, which may not surprise you, but will not disappoint either. The number of offers here is also decreasing, but if you manage to buy such a version for ~$550, it will be a good option. Yes, the Radeon RX 7800 XT will be 25–30% slower than the Radeon RX 9070, but this is approximately proportional to the decrease in cost. Unless, unfortunately, you will lose performance with ray tracing (here up to -50%) and support for FSR 4, which really offers higher picture quality.

On sale you can still find the Radeon RX 7700 XT 12 GB. This is another -15% to the performance and some chaos in pricing for the remnants. And in general, the justification for purchasing this model becomes questionable after the appearance of the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, which has significant advantages for a similar cost. In pure raster, it almost catches up with the RX 7700 XT, when RT is activated, it demonstrates the performance of the RX 7800 XT, has a larger memory capacity, is more economical (-40 W) and supports FSR 4. So it is not a pity to "let go" of the Radeon RX 7700 XT 12 GB - it has a worthy replacement.

So, with a limited budget, you can consider options with Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB. Although these solutions fall between the categories of basic and optimal gaming configurations, such a classification is quite conditional and, of course, allows for deviations. There is only one priority here - user needs and capabilities. If you have to optimize configurations to balance them, then this is always a personal choice. So if you want to get a little more than the starting platform, but are not ready to spend on a mid-level configuration, Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB can be a good compromise. Excellent capabilities in Full HD at maximum settings and decent performance in 1440p mode with high quality settings. Memory capacity is not limited at all, both video cards support new generations of scaling (DLSS and FSR4, respectively) and allow you to experiment with ray tracing.

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with a recommended price of $429 (for the USA) are offered in Ukraine from $520, while for top modifications they ask up to $650. The assortment is very large (about 30 items), so choosing a specific model is not difficult. Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (MSRP $349 USA), despite the $80 difference in the recommended price from the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, is offered in Ukraine for about $40 cheaper - from $480.

As comparative tests have shown, both models are very close in performance. The GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is slightly faster on average, which may justify the higher price. In our review, you can also evaluate the gain that the transition to the RTX 5070 12 GB provides. Usually it is easier to navigate and determine whether the difference in performance is worth the additional ~$150.

If you have decided on the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB or Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, for overall balance and greater savings, it may be worth using more affordable processors - the potential of such video cards will be revealed by the Ryzen 5 7500F or Core i5-12600KF.

In the context of optimal configurations, we do not lose hope for the appearance of a relevant video card for systems of this class from Intel. The presence of a mention of support for Intel Battlemage MG-G31 chips in the AIDA64 utility logs adds a little optimism. If the conditional Intel ARC B770 16 GB can compete on equal terms with the RTX 5070/RX 9070, and also receive a more attractive price, this will add competition to this category and, perhaps, allow the manufacturer to return at least the lost 1% of the delicious "graphics pie". Unfortunately, there are no official confirmations, estimated prices and announcement dates yet.

Progressive Gaming PC of the Month ($1800+)

Processors. This time we are already "fully" using Intel's price concessions when forming all categories of systems. As part of progressive configurations, the focus is on the Core Ultra 7 265K (8 + 12; 3.9/5.5 GHz + 3.3/4.6 GHz; 30 MB L3) for the LGA1851 platform. With this model, we have a virtually unprecedented case when the manufacturer officially reduced the recommended cost of the CPU by $100 at once. The Core Ultra 7 265K/KF chips have become cheaper from $399/384 to $299/284. At the same time, their promotional price on Western platforms was even lower. In our market, the Core Ultra 7 265K in tray-delivery can be purchased for $330. Well, not so bad against the background of ~$500 for the same chip at the beginning of this year.

We are dealing with a 20-core processor that received 8 productive and 12 energy-efficient processors. Without using Hyper-Threading technology or other pseudo-multi-threading methods, the chip relies exclusively on physical cores with considerable IPC. At the end of 2024, we superficially got acquainted with the capabilities of the Core Ultra 7 265K during a review of a motherboard on the Intel Z890 chipset. Even then, it looked quite decent, but got "nuts" for the lack of progress in gaming performance, and sometimes even a certain loss of valuable fps compared to its predecessors. Over the past period, Intel has spent a lot of effort to improve the gaming potential of the Core Ultra 200S processors. Not all solutions were effective, but in the end, the developers still managed to speed up Arrow Lake somewhat in entertainment disciplines.

One of the latest initiatives is Intel 200S Boost. The mechanism involves the use of a profile that automatically significantly increases the operating frequencies of the internal inter-chip communication buses (SoC Tile/NGU and D2D) and provides for the acceleration of RAM (up to DDR5-8000). At the same time, the manufacturer's warranty is preserved. Intel 200S Boost has certain limitations - the technology is relevant only for Core Ultra 200K/KF chips with an unlocked multiplier, a motherboard on the Intel Z890 chipset with the appropriate firmware version is required, as well as a memory kit from DDR5-6400 with support for XMP 3.0 profiles. The set of requirements is quite feasible within the framework of progressive configurations, so there is an opportunity for additional experiments.

When using LGA1851, you need to be aware that the new platform actually does not have great prospects. It is quite functional in its current form, but you should not count on interesting further updates. The release of Arrow Lake Refresh chips is expected in the second half of the year. It was initially assumed that these will receive a significantly accelerated NPU block of 48 TOPS, which is used for mobile Core Ultra 200V (Lunar Lake), but it seems that this improvement will remain only a wish, while for the "refreshes" the developer will limit himself to adjusting the operating frequencies. So when making the final choice, it is worth taking LGA1851 as it is.

All expectations for the future are already connected with the next LGA1954 platform and Intel Nova Lake series processors, which are due to be introduced in 2026. There are already new computing architectures, and configurations with 52 cores (16P+32E+4LP), and basic support for DDR5-8000. Rumor has it that Intel is also working on its own versions of chips with significantly increased L3 cache capacity. Similar versions of processors with bLLC (big Last Level Cache) should compete in the gaming field with current and future AMD X3D chips. But all this is already within the framework of the future LGA1954.

Returning to AMD solutions, this time we suggest equipping a progressive configuration with the top-end Ryzen 7 9800X3D chip (8/16; 4.7/5.2 GHz; 96 MB L3). The uncompromising model does not raise any special questions - it is simply the fastest gaming processor at the moment. An 8-core model with Zen 5 architecture and 3D V-Cache buffer can already be purchased for the equivalent of $550. Expensive, but the opportunity to own the best always requires additional costs.

Unlike previous models with an increased L3 cache, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D has an aggressive frequency formula and noticeably accelerates even at maximum load on all cores. Moreover, the CPU even supports the possibility of additional overclocking, which was made possible by the new layout. This makes the processor versatile, so it demonstrates champion gaming conditions, while offering good performance in multi-threaded work tasks.

If you are only interested in high fps and additional savings are not a problem, you can also consider the option with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D (8/16; 4.2/5.0 GHz; 96 MB L3). In tray-delivery, such a chip can already be purchased for $400. In games, it will be somewhat inferior to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, but in multi-threaded tasks it will mostly be able to compete only with the Ryzen 7 7700, which is almost half the price.

"On the table" there is also always an economical option for a progressive system - Ryzen 7 9700X (8/16; 3.8/5.5 GHz; 32 MB L3) for ~$320. A classic 8-core processor based on the Zen 5 architecture. Despite the fact that the CPU has a base TDP of 65 W, this has almost no effect on its gaming capabilities. If necessary, you can always select the "105 W TDP" mode, after which the processor will add ~15% in multi-threaded tasks.

When configuring the system, we should also mention the cooling system. All of the models listed above, regardless of the type of delivery (tray/box), are offered without standard coolers. They will have to be purchased separately. For the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 7 7800X3D, a mid-level air tower will be enough, but for older chips from AMD and Intel, more efficient solutions will be needed.

During testing the Core Ultra 7 265K in multi-threaded mode, the processor "rocked" to ~180 W. Ryzen 7 9800X3D will also require up to ~160 W under high load in normal mode. Both values are moderate, but they already require increased attention. To maintain the aesthetics of the internal space of the case, it is quite possible to focus on an entry-level liquid cooling system (LCS). If the dimensions of the case allow, a simple three-section model for ~$100 will be a rational choice. In the event that "water" for one reason or another is not considered at all, a good overall tower of approximately the same price range will help.

Video cards. The graphics "base" for progressive gaming configurations is the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti 16 GB and the Radeon RX 9070 XT 16 GB. Video cards with very similar capabilities. But, as is usually the case with fairly equal opponents, the advantage fluctuates in one direction or another, depending on the degree of cooperation with the developers of specific projects. AMD managed to significantly increase performance in ray tracing mode, so for the most part the top model is not inferior to the RTX 5070 Ti here, but when it comes to better path tracing, NVIDIA still has an advantage. The Radeon RX 9070 XT will also require slightly more energy, under equal conditions the video card's consumption is usually 30–40 W higher than that of its opponent.

Despite the close potential of both models, their recommended prices differ significantly. For the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, a recommended price tag of $749 was set, while for the Radeon RX 9070 XT, an MSRP of $599 was announced. The model from AMD was presented two weeks later than its opponent, so the developers had the opportunity to analyze the balance of forces in detail and make an interesting offer. According to the results of the first quarter of 2025, the company's share in the discrete graphics card segment has significantly decreased, so AMD needs to make certain financial concessions to correct the situation. It seems that the recommended price of the RX 9070 XT is just one of the arguments for persuasion and an attempt to win over more supporters of virtual entertainment to its side.

Actual retail prices in Ukraine also vary. If the Radeon RX 9070 XT 16 GB can already be purchased for the equivalent of $850–900, then potential owners of the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti 16 GB need to prepare ~$1000–1050. The difference is significant. However, when it comes to solutions of this class, the difference of even $100–150 is unlikely to be decisive, especially if we consider it against the background of the total cost of the system. The own perception of the products of one or another vendor is very important.

For ease of calculation, the summary table shows the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti 16 GB. If you choose the Radeon RX 9070 XT 16 GB, which also definitely deserves a place in a progressive gaming system, feel free to reduce the total budget for building a PC by at least $150.

If we focus solely on the price/performance ratio in games using a classic raster, here the positions of the Radeon RX 9070 XT are undeniable. However, the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti also has its advantages, which may not be obvious when looking at the diagrams with fps indicators. This is a better implementation of the DLSS 4 scaling technology and frame generation. The list of projects with the integration of such mechanisms is also much wider. A separate issue is work tasks with GPU acceleration. Here too, the positions of NVIDIA solutions are significantly stronger.

In any case, the presence of such opponents is a good opportunity for users to choose the best option based on their own needs. Both video cards will be an excellent choice for games at 1440p with maximum graphics quality settings. For 4K in "heavy" projects, you will have to make certain compromises, but increasing the resolution usually compensates for certain graphical simplifications. In addition, there is always the opportunity to see the quality of the DLSS/FSR implementation, it is for such cases that they were developed.

Owners of 4K screens can probably look towards the GeForce RTX 5080 16 GB. A larger number of GPU functional blocks and L2 capacity, faster memory, higher operating frequencies, an additional NVDEC video decoder. All this allows you to improve fps by ~15% and increase efficiency in work tasks. The asking price is from $1300. This amount will need to be doubled if you encroach on the ultimate GeForce RTX 5090 32 GB. After that, the fps in 4K will increase by another 50%, but usually owners of such video cards play "intelligent games", probably knowing exactly how to unlock their potential.