I mean if someone can convince me enough, I'd love to spend less on the 5600x. I was just under the impression we'd wanna do 8 cores minimum?
Consoles have had 8 cores since 2014 and it has not stopped my 4 core 7700k from entirely outclassing them. Getting caught up in core counts is counterproductive. You don't have to take my word for it, any review of the 5600x shows this to be true.
You're not wrong, friend. The difference is minimal, but the 5600x is a 6 core chip, which may come into play in the next 5 years. At close to $300 I'd go for the i9 9900k (which is on sale for $319) which gives you basically the same performance at 4K with a 3090 like the 5600x with a higher core count. If you're only gaming, I think that's a better choice price/performance.
It won't. I wouldn't mind the 9900k pick if it wasn't for pcie gen 4 ssds being standard in consoles and there being games that clearly showcase their use already (Spiderman: MM, Ratchet and Clank). Once devs start to work this into multiplatform products in likely 2 years I won't want to be on a platform that is missing gen 4.