Intel's Budget CPU Dominance Over AMD in 2025: The Performance Shift

Something genuinely unexpected just happened in the CPU market, and it's worth paying attention to. Intel—the company that spent years getting absolutely demolished by AMD in the value segment—is now the one serving faster processors at the sub-$200 price point. And AMD? They're struggling to keep up, even with their supposedly premium offerings.

I know, I know. This feels backwards. AMD built their entire comeback on the premise that they'd outperform Intel while costing less. That was the whole strategy. For nearly a decade, that worked. But right now, in early 2025, the tables have turned, and the performance gap is uncomfortable enough to make you wonder if Intel has finally figured out the formula that AMD used so effectively against them.

The budget CPU segment is where most people actually shop. Enthusiasts obsess over flagship chips, but the reality is that millions of builders, businesses, and everyday users are making purchasing decisions in the

This shift has major implications. Not just for consumers trying to pick between Intel and AMD, but for the entire ecosystem. When the value leader changes, everything changes. Motherboard manufacturers adjust their roadmaps. System integrators update their reference builds. Marketing departments scramble. Platform longevity strategies get reconsidered. The CPU market isn't just about raw performance anymore—it's about which company understands what buyers actually need at price points where real purchasing power kicks in.

Let's dig into what's actually happening here, because the story is more nuanced than "Intel wins, AMD loses." There are real reasons this shift occurred, and there are legitimate questions about whether it's sustainable.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF: Intel's Budget Killer

Start with Intel's Core Ultra 5 245KF. At just under

That's not a typo. That's not marketing spin. That's a chip you can physically buy today for $220 that performs like processors that cost twice as much not long ago. For general workloads, content creation, and even gaming, that's a legitimately compelling value proposition.

The architecture makes sense for this price point. The hybrid core design—P-cores handling performance-critical tasks while E-cores manage background operations—means the chip isn't wasting power on cores it doesn't need. Windows 11 understands this architecture now, so thread scheduling works efficiently. You get the performance density of a much more expensive chip, but with the efficiency profile that lets the manufacturer hit an aggressive price.

What really matters is how this chip performs in real-world scenarios. When you're running a video export, jumping between Chrome tabs with 30 open pages, editing photos, and handling background cloud sync, this processor doesn't choke. It handles multitasking like a machine that costs significantly more. For creators working on a budget, that's huge.

The Core Ultra 5 245K adds integrated graphics and moves to the newer LGA1851 socket for $230. It's basically the same computational power, but with modern connectivity like PCIe 5.0 and larger cache. For someone building a system right now, the decision between these two often comes down to whether you need dedicated graphics or plan to upgrade the CPU later.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF offers better efficiency and similar performance at a lower price compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT. Estimated data based on architecture and market trends.

The Broader Intel Lineup Below $300

Intel didn't just nail one chip. The entire Core Ultra 5 and Core Ultra 7 lineups are aggressively positioned in the budget-to-mainstream segment.

The Core Ultra 5 235 sits around

This matters because Intel didn't just squeeze one good chip into the budget tier. They distributed strong performance across multiple SKUs at different price points. That's a mature product strategy. AMD would have killed for this kind of lineup depth when they were climbing out of their value position.

The efficiency gains from the Meteor Lake architecture can't be understated either. These chips run cooler and consume less power than previous Intel generations. You're saving money on cooling solutions and power supplies. Over the lifetime of a system, that compounds.

AMD's Ryzen 9 5900XT Problem

Now look at AMD's position, and the comparison gets painful. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is a capable processor. Sixteen cores, 32 threads, based on the proven Zen 3 architecture. It's reliable, stable, and performs well for multithreaded workloads.

But it's selling for

When you compare that directly to Intel's offerings, the value equation falls apart. The Ryzen 9 5900XT costs $90 more than the Core Ultra 5 245KF, yet performs comparably or worse on modern workloads. It's stuck on an aging platform. If you want to upgrade the memory or storage interface in two years, you're going to need a new motherboard. With Intel's newer chips, you have a clearer upgrade path and modern platform features.

That pricing premium used to be justified because AMD offered something Intel didn't. Now? AMD is asking you to pay more for less. That's the opposite of what built their comeback.

The real tragedy here is that AMD's Ryzen 7 9700X3D and Ryzen 9 9950X exist and are genuinely excellent chips. But they're priced higher and positioned higher in the market. In the budget segment, AMD's options are either these older Ryzen 9 5000-series chips or stepping down to the Ryzen 5, which loses the core count advantage that used to make AMD special.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF offers competitive performance in video editing, gaming, and productivity tasks, often matching or surpassing the Ryzen 9 5900XT despite being more affordable. Estimated data based on typical performance metrics.

The Architecture Advantage: Why Intel Is Winning

This shift didn't happen by accident. Intel's Meteor Lake architecture, refined in Core Ultra, represents a genuine leap in efficiency and performance density compared to Zen 3.

The hybrid P+E core design is the key differentiator. Traditional chips like the Ryzen 9 5900XT have 16 identical cores. They're either all on or all off, switching between power states. Intel's approach segregates workloads: performance cores for heavy lifting, efficiency cores for background tasks. This is genuinely smarter for how modern software actually behaves.

Windows 11's scheduler now understands this architecture deeply. When you're running a single-threaded task, it dispatches that to a P-core where it'll run faster. When you're handling multiple background processes, those farm out to E-cores where they consume less power. You get the best of both worlds without paying for it in heat or power consumption.

Manufacturing process matters too. Core Ultra uses Intel's Intel 7 process (essentially a refined 7nm equivalent), which is more efficient than whatever TSMC node AMD used for their current Ryzen 9 5000-series chips. Smaller features mean better power efficiency, less heat, and tighter performance characteristics.

The cache architecture also favors Intel here. Larger L3 caches help modern workloads that are increasingly memory-bound. For tasks like video compression, photo processing, and database queries, that cache advantage translates directly to speed.

Real-World Performance: Where It Actually Matters

Benchmarks are useful, but real-world performance is what actually matters when you're deciding where to spend $200.

In content creation workflows—specifically video editing and rendering—the Core Ultra 5 245KF holds its own against much pricier chips. When you're exporting a 4K timeline, that 14-core configuration with aggressive turbo pushes handles the workload efficiently. The efficiency cores don't hurt; they're off to the side managing your operating system while the P-cores are hammering the render queue.

For gaming, the story is interesting. Intel's single-threaded performance is excellent, so framerate tends to be strong. The efficiency cores actually don't hurt gaming either, because modern game engines are largely multithreaded. You end up with smooth 1% and 0.1% lows because there's always a P-core available to handle critical frame rendering.

Everyday productivity? The Core Ultra chips are noticeably snappier than older AMD offerings. That's partly the architecture, partly the higher base clocks, and partly Windows 11 being better at scheduling on these chips. When you're switching between browser tabs, applications, and background syncs, there's always something available to handle the workload.

The Ryzen 9 5900XT doesn't perform badly at any of this. It's still a capable processor. But it's not proportionally better than Intel options that cost $90 less. That's the problem.

Platform Features and Future-Proofing

Here's where this gets interesting beyond raw performance. Intel's newer platforms come with features that actually matter for longevity.

PCIe 5.0 support is standard on the newer boards. That's not just future-proofing for graphics cards; it's meaningful for NVMe storage. A PCIe 5.0 drive is already showing up in consumer systems, and within two years, the performance advantage will be obvious. AMD's Ryzen 9 5900XT systems are stuck on PCIe 4.0, which is already a generation behind.

DDR5 support is similarly important. Yes, it's more expensive now, but DDR5's bandwidth advantages are real, especially for AMD systems running Ryzen. The memory subsystem matters more for Ryzen's architecture than it does for Intel, which is why this matters more for AMD buyers.

LGA1851 socket longevity also factors in. Intel is promising multiple generations of CPUs on this socket, which means you could theoretically drop in a faster chip in three years without buying a new motherboard. AMD's Ryzen 9 5900XT systems are on AM4 or AM5, and AM4 is genuinely approaching end-of-life. If you buy an AM4 system today, you're committing to that platform with limited upgrade paths.

That's a real consideration for budget buyers. If you're spending $200 on a CPU, you want the platform underneath it to matter. You don't want to feel like you're buying into a dead-end socket.

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT is priced higher but offers less in terms of upgrade path and platform features compared to Intel's Core Ultra 5 245KF. Estimated data based on current market trends.

The Psychological Shift: When AMD Loses Its Narrative

Here's the thing that might matter more than raw performance: AMD's entire competitive narrative was built on value. "Better performance per dollar." "More cores for less money." "The intelligent choice for budget builders."

When that narrative cracks, it cracks hard. Because it's not like AMD suddenly became bad. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is still a fine processor. But fine isn't enough when the alternative is genuinely better and cheaper.

Builders talk. System integrators talk. Content creators share their builds. When the consensus shifts from "grab a Ryzen 9" to "honestly, just go Intel at this price," that's a narrative problem for AMD. It takes years to build a reputation as the value player. It takes about two quarters to lose it.

AMD's previous advantage was that they had the core counts and the performance, and they undercut Intel on price. That was simple. Now they need to explain why someone should pay more for fewer cores and older architecture. That's a harder pitch. It might be true that Ryzen 7 9700X or Ryzen 9 9950X are better overall platforms if you're willing to spend more, but that doesn't help them in the sub-$300 segment where Intel is currently dominant.

Manufacturing and Supply Constraints

One factor that might be temporary: Intel's ability to actually supply these chips at these prices.

Intel has been investing heavily in manufacturing capacity, particularly in the United States and Europe. They've got excess capacity in some areas, which gives them flexibility to price aggressively in the budget segment to build market share. It's a strategic decision.

AMD doesn't own fabs; they rely on TSMC. TSMC's capacity is increasingly dedicated to higher-margin products like mobile and AI chips. AMD's leverage there is limited. If TSMC allocates capacity toward more profitable work, AMD's CPU supply gets constrained, which happens to drive prices up. That's a structural disadvantage.

This matters because Intel might sustain this pricing pressure where AMD can't match it. If Intel has spare capacity and AMD is fighting for TSMC nodes, the game is tilted.

Specific Product Comparisons: The Value Breakdown

Let's do some actual math on total cost of ownership.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF system:

• CPU: $220
• Motherboard: $150-180 (LGA1851 board with modern features)
• Total platform: $370-400

AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT system:

• CPU: $309
• Motherboard: $120-150 (AM4 board, aging socket)
• Total platform: $429-459

That's a $50-60 difference just to get the Intel system up and running, and the Intel system comes with a newer socket and better upgrade potential. The performance difference? Negligible for most workloads, slight edge to Intel for single-threaded work.

Add storage and cooling, and the gap widens. A decent DDR5 system with modern features is genuinely better value than trying to build on AM4 in 2025.

In 2026, AMD is projected to lead in AI acceleration, while Intel maintains a slight edge in performance. Estimated data based on potential advancements.

Gaming Performance: Where Numbers Get Specific

Gamers are a particular audience that cares deeply about frame rates and value. How do these chips actually perform in gaming?

The Core Ultra 5 245KF can push 100+ fps in 1440p gaming at high settings in most modern titles. That's with moderate GPU pairing (like an RTX 4070). The Ryzen 9 5900XT does similarly well, but you're spending an extra $90 for it, and you're not getting better frame rates—you're getting older technology.

Where Intel pulls ahead is in newer games that heavily utilize multiple cores and are optimized for Intel's architecture. Titles like Starfield, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and upcoming Unreal Engine 5 games show the Intel platform pulling a few frames ahead, particularly in 1% lows where consistency matters for smoothness.

The gaming narrative used to favor AMD or favor Intel in specific scenarios. Now it's just "Intel is fine and costs less," which is a worse position for AMD to defend.

Professional Workloads: CAD, 3D, and Video

Professional users care about different metrics than gamers, but the value equation still favors Intel right now.

In CAD workloads (Revit, Auto CAD, Solid Works), single-threaded performance matters for responsiveness, and multicore matters for rendering. Intel's stronger single-thread performance actually translates to snappier performance in CAD interfaces, which professionals notice throughout the day. The Ryzen 9 5900XT offers more cores, but CAD doesn't scale perfectly with core count, so those extra cores aren't earning their price premium.

3D rendering is interesting because it genuinely benefits from more cores. Blender, Cinema 4D, and other professional tools love high core counts. The Ryzen 9 5900XT's 16 cores should dominate here, and for rendering specifically, it does. But if you're buying a system for general 3D work—modeling, texturing, occasional rendering—the Intel chip's superior responsiveness and platform features might actually matter more than the extra cores.

Video editing is where Core Ultra really shines. Editing is primarily single and dual-threaded (you're interacting with the interface), but rendering is multicore. The Intel chips handle both well. Export times are competitive with much pricier alternatives. For freelance video creators operating on margins, that's meaningful.

The OEM Response: What's Happening in System Integrators

Where this becomes real is in what system integrators are actually building right now.

Budget system builders are increasingly using Core Ultra chips. Alienware, HP, Dell, and other major integrators are designing reference builds around Intel in the sub-$600 gaming segment. That's significant because it means the ecosystem is reorganizing around Intel leadership in this segment.

Those OEM relationships matter enormously. They drive volume, they influence consumer perception, and they create momentum. When integrators switch their reference specs to Intel, consumers buying those systems start thinking "Intel is the value option," which then reinforces the narrative.

AMD isn't losing customers in the high end where they still have compelling advantages. They're losing customers in the segment that's actually the biggest volume market.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF system offers a newer socket and better upgrade potential at a slightly lower cost compared to AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT, despite a $50-60 initial price difference.

Intel's Execution: The Strategic Elements

What Intel did right here deserves actual credit. They focused on what matters to budget buyers: performance density and value.

They didn't try to compete on price alone—they could have undercut AMD further if they wanted to race to the bottom. Instead, they built architecture that delivered performance efficiency, so they could hit aggressive prices while maintaining margins. That's sophisticated.

They also timed the market well. Core Ultra's release came when AMD was between platform generations and had stretched out the Ryzen 9 5000-series to preserve inventory. That created a window where Intel could establish dominance before Ryzen 7000-series really ramped up in inventory.

The marketing could have been sharper. Intel didn't trumpet this advantage loudly enough. They let reviewers and community members discover it rather than owning the narrative. That's actually a missed opportunity, but it didn't hurt their actual sales.

AMD's Path Forward: Can They Reclaim This Segment?

This isn't necessarily permanent. AMD has Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 9 7900X processors that are exceptional, but they're priced in the $350+ range, which is above where this battle is being fought.

To reclaim the budget segment, AMD could cut prices on remaining Ryzen 9 5900XT inventory, or release an aggressive mid-range chip specifically designed to compete in the $250-300 range. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D could theoretically fill this role, but it's specialized for gaming, not general computing.

The real opportunity for AMD is Ryzen 9000-series ramp-up. When Ryzen 7 9700 and Ryzen 9 9900 processors hit mainstream availability at $250-350, they'll have modern architecture and platform features. They could reclaim dominance if priced correctly. But that requires AMD to be aggressive with pricing, which cuts into margins, and that might not be acceptable to AMD's finance team.

Alternatively, AMD could lean into platform loyalty. If you've already got an AM5 system, upgrading to a Ryzen 7000 or 9000 chip is cheaper than jumping to Intel and buying a new motherboard. That ecosystem lock-in has value, and AMD should exploit it more explicitly in marketing.

Long-Term Implications: Where This Leads

If this trend continues, it reshapes the entire CPU market. Intel regains credibility as the value leader, which they'd largely lost. AMD becomes the premium option, which changes how they need to market and position products.

That actually might be healthier for competition in the long term. The CPU market works best when there's genuine differentiation and different companies own different positions. For a while, AMD was dominant everywhere. Intel tried to own everywhere and failed. Maybe the healthiest state is Intel owning value, AMD owning performance, and Ryzen Pure owning absolute value or specialty segments.

For consumers, the immediate impact is positive: competition is fierce, prices are aggressive, and performance is exceptional at every price point. You can build a functional, capable system for under $300 total processor cost now. That's genuinely remarkable and only happens when two competitors are genuinely fighting over the same ground.

The danger is if Intel uses this advantage to raise prices once they've cleared AMD out of the budget segment. If this is a temporary aggressive posture just to grab market share, and then Intel pivots to higher margins, then AMD will recapture ground. The CPU market has seen this cycle before.

What This Means for Your Actual Purchasing Decisions

If you're building a system right now in 2025, the data is pretty clear: Core Ultra 5 or Core Ultra 7 chips offer exceptional value at the sub-$300 price point.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF at $220 is genuinely hard to pass up if you don't need integrated graphics. The performance is modern, the platform has longevity, and the price leaves room in your budget for better storage or cooling solutions.

The Core Ultra 5 245K at $230 is worth the premium if you're unsure about your GPU situation or want to keep upgrade options open.

If you're specifically considering AMD, the Ryzen 9 5900XT at $309 is hard to justify when Intel options are better performers for less. If you want to stay with AMD, either spend more on modern Ryzen 7000 or 9000-series chips, or look at Ryzen 5 options at lower price points.

Platform considerations matter. If you've already got DDR5 and an LGA1851 motherboard, staying Intel makes sense. If you're starting fresh, Intel's platform advantages (PCIe 5.0, DDR5, newer socket) are worth the slight premium.

The Broader Narrative: Is Intel the New AMD?

The question posed in the original analysis is whether Intel has become the new AMD—the company winning through value and efficiency while the former leader struggles with perception and pricing power.

Yes, but with caveats. Intel isn't yet where AMD was at their peak. AMD built overwhelming dominance across nearly the entire market. Intel is dominant in the sub-$300 segment, but AMD still owns high-end performance, platform longevity in some cases, and has accumulated brand equity in certain communities.

But the trajectory is clear. Intel is executing well in a crucial market segment. AMD is playing defense. That's a significant shift from where we were just 18 months ago, and it's going to reshape CPU strategy and marketing narratives for the next few years.

For Intel, the challenge is sustaining this without becoming complacent. The moment they get comfortable, AMD will exploit a gap. For AMD, the challenge is recapturing the value narrative before Intel becomes too entrenched. Both companies understand this. Expect aggressive moves from both sides in the next 12-18 months.

Looking Ahead: What Changes in 2026

The CPU market moves in cycles determined by architecture generations and manufacturing capabilities. 2025 is clearly Intel's year in the budget segment. 2026 could be different if AMD executes well on Ryzen 9000-series pricing and availability.

Both companies will release updated generations, hopefully with modest improvements and reasonable price points. Intel will continue pushing efficiency. AMD will try to regain performance and value leadership. The competition will intensify, which is exactly what consumers want.

New manufacturing nodes might come into play. If TSMC's N3 or more advanced nodes become available for AMD's CPU products, that could shift the efficiency equation. Similarly, if Intel's Intel 20A process materializes with the performance promise Intel claims, that could reinforce their advantage.

The discrete GPU market will matter too. Arc GPUs with strong price-to-performance could influence Intel's total platform value, while AMD's partnerships with GPU makers could provide ecosystem lock-in.

One more factor: AI acceleration. Both Intel and AMD are racing to include capable AI accelerators in consumer CPUs. If one company cracks this first with meaningful performance, that could reset the value equation entirely. Neural engines and AI accelerators might become the new cores-vs-cores comparison that consumers care about.

FAQ

What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and why is it significant?

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is a 14-core processor priced just under $220 that delivers performance previously found in much pricier chips. It combines six performance cores and eight efficiency cores with boost clocks to 5.2GHz, making it significant because it represents Intel winning the budget CPU segment against AMD for the first time in years. The architecture and manufacturing process give it efficiency advantages that allow aggressive pricing without sacrificing performance.

How does Intel's hybrid core design (P-cores and E-cores) work differently from AMD's approach?

Intel's hybrid design separates performance-critical tasks to specialized performance cores while background operations run on efficiency cores, whereas AMD's traditional design uses identical cores that handle all workload types equally. Windows 11's scheduler now understands this segregation, dispatching single-threaded work to performance cores for speed and multi-task background work to efficiency cores for power savings. This delivers better performance-per-watt than AMD's monolithic core approach, allowing Intel to hit lower prices.

Why is the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT struggling to compete at its $309 price point?

The Ryzen 9 5900XT is based on older Zen 3 architecture with DDR4 and PCIe 4.0 support, while Intel's Core Ultra chips offer newer platform features like DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 for less money. The 16-core advantage doesn't overcome the architecture generation gap, and the older socket (AM4) offers limited upgrade paths compared to Intel's LGA1851. AMD is essentially asking customers to pay a premium for older technology, which violates the value proposition that built their comeback.

What real-world performance difference exists between these processors?

In most real-world scenarios like video editing, 3D modeling, and professional productivity, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF performs comparably or better than the Ryzen 9 5900XT despite costing $90 less. Gaming performance is nearly identical, with Intel having slight advantages in titles optimized for its architecture. The Ryzen maintains an edge in highly parallel workloads like bulk rendering, but this doesn't justify the price premium for general users.

Should I buy an Intel or AMD processor for a budget gaming build in 2025?

For budget gaming builds, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF or 245K offers the best value. Both deliver over 100 fps in 1440p gaming on high settings, have excellent platform features for future upgrades, and cost significantly less than competing AMD options. The newer socket and DDR5 support future-proof your investment better than AMD's aging AM4 platform, making the slightly higher relative cost worthwhile.

What platform features matter most when choosing between Intel and AMD systems?

PCIe 5.0 support enables faster storage and future graphics flexibility, while DDR5 offers bandwidth advantages that matter for professional workloads. Socket longevity is crucial—Intel's LGA1851 socket will support multiple CPU generations, whereas AMD's AM4 is reaching end-of-life. These platform features justify Intel's position and affect the total cost of ownership when you factor in future upgrades and component compatibility.

Is this Intel dominance in budget CPUs permanent or temporary?

It's likely temporary but could last 12-24 months. Intel's current advantage comes from manufacturing capacity and architectural efficiency, but AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7000 and 9000-series mainstream availability will offer modern architecture at competitive prices. The battle will intensify in 2026 as both companies release new generations. AMD's recovery depends on aggressive pricing and rapid platform ramp-up, which they're capable of but haven't yet executed aggressively in the budget segment.

What should I consider if I already have an AMD AM4 system?

If you already own an AM4 system with a Ryzen 5000-series CPU, upgrading to a Ryzen 7000 or 9000-series chip is more cost-effective than switching to Intel, since you can reuse your motherboard and DDR4 memory. The ecosystem lock-in saves you money on a platform switch. However, if you're building completely fresh, Intel's newer platform offers better long-term value despite slightly higher upfront costs for the motherboard and DDR5 memory.

How does the manufacturing situation affect Intel's pricing power?

Intel owns manufacturing capacity in the United States and Europe, giving them flexibility to operate at lower margins in the budget segment to capture market share. AMD relies on TSMC, whose capacity increasingly prioritizes higher-margin products like mobile and AI chips. This structural advantage allows Intel to maintain aggressive pricing longer, while AMD faces supply and capacity constraints that limit their ability to undercut Intel significantly in the budget segment.

What future developments could shift this competitive balance?

New manufacturing nodes from both Intel (Intel 20A) and TSMC (N3) could dramatically improve efficiency and performance. AI accelerators integrated into consumer CPUs could become the new competitive differentiator, resetting the value equation. AMD's execution on Ryzen 9000-series pricing and availability is crucial for recapturing market share. Platform lock-in with GPU partnerships or AI software optimization could shift advantages unexpectedly.

Key Takeaways

• Intel's Core Ultra 5 245KF at
  $220 outperforms AMD's Ryzen 9 5900XT ($
  309) while costing $89 less, flipping the value proposition that built AMD's comeback
• The hybrid P-core and E-core architecture combined with modern manufacturing delivers superior efficiency, allowing Intel aggressive budget pricing without margin sacrifice
• Platform features favor Intel: LGA1851 socket supports multiple generations, PCIe 5.0, DDR5, while AMD AM4 systems face end-of-life socket limitations
• Real-world performance across gaming, video editing, and professional workloads shows Intel slightly ahead or equivalent, making the price difference decisive
• This represents a significant narrative shift where Intel regains credibility as the value leader, reshaping CPU market strategy and OEM reference builds

Related Articles

• TV Winners and Losers 2025: OLED Dominates as 8K Struggles
• Best PS5 Accessories for 2026: Ultimate Gaming Setup Guide [2026]
• Best PS Plus & Gift Card Deals for PS5 Pro [2025]
• Best After-Christmas TV Sales & Deals [2025]
• Best Distraction Blockers for Focus and Productivity [2025]
• PlayStation in 2025: Sony's Strategic Pause and What's Next [2025]