I'm confused about 2 things.
1) This article was updated today, but the comments both here and in the forums haven't been archived.
2) But more importantly, I really just don't *get* this article.
Your Best Monitors article is broken down into type (G-sync, Free-sync, no-sync 60Hz, no-sync hi refresh). Now that I have a GTX 1070, I know which page I want to look at and I can compare and contrast features and price; especially monitor size and resolution.
Your Best GPUs article gives direction based upon your monitor requirements (FHD, VR, QHD, UHD). It allowed me to feel informed about my purchase of a 1070. I have an HD monitor that I hope to upgrade to 1440 soon. And I hope to get into VR in the next year. Also, I'm about 3 years behind on games, so it will take me a while for my 1070 to get old. I feel very well informed about that decision.
But your CPU article? There are "Best Pick(s)" and "Runner(s) Up" at wildly different price points ("Bests" at $87, $160, $310, $227 and $319), but no breakdown of what the price points mean or what the target usage is. Where is the mapping between tier of CPU and target usage? What I see is a selection of prices with no context for the choice.
Example: For what reason am I choosing between a Ryzen 5 1600x and Core i5-7600K? Is it pure gaming at HD with no streaming? Is it gaming at QHD? Is it gaming while watching Netflix on my second monitor? I just don't know.
Again, I understand easily how your GPU, Monitor, and even RAM articles work. But I'm not getting a good sense from this CPU article and it annoys me.