hey, well i have been digging a lot lately for the universal debate amd vs intel, still i got some empty voids i need to fill, first let me say i use my desktop for gaming and browsing (chrome) only, i have 2400 mhz Ram, 60 hz monitor, GT730 dddr5, my head was swimming among hell of reviews about the notorious i5 8400 vs budget contenders R5 1600/x and slightly more expensive 2600/x, here's what i got so far, 8400/8600 beats 1600/x & 2600/x every time in game reviews and benchmarks, still ryzen got some credit for the multi tasking, yet for me the most of multi threading i can use is opening chrome to search for games' walk-through whilst playing, or playing a video while in the middle of a game, so i dont know whether this needs hyper threading or not, 8400 beats ryzen in terms of Fps by a remarkable shot, but since i got 60 hz monitor i think i wont notice the difference?? still that leaves another question, what if in the future some game was pretty demanding and i got fps below 60 then 8400 wins, also so far i know that volt and temp are the two factors affecting cpu lifespan, since i never overclock my cpu, volt is not a concern for me, yet for temperature i noticed in some game tests 8400 getting a little higher temp above the 1600 (whist 1600x is more hot than both) still many say that the 8400 stock cooler is pretty reliable (meanwhile ryzen x needs water cooler for which i have no budget) so in terms of longevity regarding temp, i dont know which shall survive more? also talking about ryzens's stock 3.2 or 3.4 Ghz hyperthreading getting beaten by just 2.8?? i still dont know how is this working... , some claim that ryzen architecture is pretty lousy for gaming when compared to intel, but will the clock difference will be some how prominent during desktop usage (in terms of copying and moving files, playing videos & browsing) ? then i go to the games of demanding nature (future proof), speaking of assassin's creed origins (the cpu slayer) for the first time i saw 100% of the 8400 drained, meanwhile ryzen didnt reach 90% and at some point at ultra setting both were giving the same fps,this is where i was totally lost, does 100% cpu usage affect its lifespan? was asssassin creed origin just a passing by anomaly or it is just a beginning for new gen of games focusing on cpu? and what really matters to me was the confusion, in the mean time according to most games tests intel usage percent is almost double that of ryzen, many addressed it as a more efficient gaming cpu, while others claimed it shall shorten the cpu lifespan?? i dont know which is true!! some claim that games dont tell the difference between physical and logical cores! others say that new generation of games that utilize hyperthreading more efficiently is yet to come, all i see is just an intel cpu with double the usage of the ryzen and i dont know if it is the same or not according to the hyperthreading system in terms of GAMING and LIFESPAN, please correct me in any of the above since i m in need for a reference, also i have 450 watt PSU and i dont know if it can support any of the cpus i mentioned above or not, Thnx in advance for your time