I am still pretty sure that you don't really need 8 cores, but it's your money.

I hope you thought about B450 vs B550.
Max II is a bit newer so slightly higher chance of the 5800X working out of the box, kind of irrelevant though since they can both be updated without a CPU installed, which is one of the reasons why I recommend them. Also HDMI 2.1, which you obviously can't use.

I haven't checked specific temperatures, might work, you can obviously just set the fans to 100%, not sure how much voltage PBO will try in that case though, but I doubt it would heat up too much.
No idea if you'd need dual tower for your specific goals. They might be worse for RAM compatibility and two fans are usually louder than one (especially at low loads they're not that much better that lower rpm could compensate for that). Noctua might have the nicer mounting system but it's always hard to justify the NH-U14S when a dual tower Dark Rock Pro 4 only costs ~7€ more.

Nah, this is about single vs dual rank RAM. Zen likes having two ranks per memory channel which means either 4 single rank DIMMs or two dual rank DIMMs.

Yes, there are some bugs where HPET can lead to getting like one third the normal fps. You will notice those because your fps will be dogshit.
No, your fps varying by 1 between runs is not a sign that HPET is evil.
No, screaming "input lag" and "microstutters" when you did not measure input lag and the 99th percentile frametimes stayed the same does not change that.

Why a 9900K? He doesn't need that many cores and there's newer and faster CPUs. Nor does it fit his mobo, buying an older CPU that he needs a new mobo for doesn't make any sense.

Not worth is a relative term, PBO is definitely worth trying at least.
The thing is the 5600X comes with a stock cooler (10700K and 5800X don't) and you can overclock on B450/B550, it's not locked like with Intel.

Those super expensive X570 boards rated for 200A or even 250A are great and all but you don't need that. A 5800X with half the cores physically can't draw much more than half the power without catching fire and a 5600X will obviously need even less. A 125A B450 mobo would do the job just fine, that means 80-90€, something like a MSI Mortar/Tomahawk. B550 would cost you 120-130€. It's nice, but you probably won't need most of the features. Now if you want X570 you better have a damn good reason for spending that much money.

Cooler depends mostly on how quiet you want it to be. Stock cooler would do for the 5600X, could get something nicer for 30€, midrange that would also be plenty for the 5800X for 50-60€ or if you thing it'll help with the OC (it won't) or want it really quiet you can look at the high end for 70-90€.

Beyond a certain point the mobo doesn't really do anything for the OC and it never does anything for performance directly, it's all about features and connectivity. I'd focus on getting Dual Rank RAM (or 4 SR DIMMs) instead of obsessing over overclocks because that'll matter far more.

Depends on who you're asking. If we stick with tomshardware then a 5600X at stock with the stock cooler (and pretty good RAM I think) beats a 10700K@5.1 in games at 1080p. Slightly "worse" at higher resolutions, but does it really matter at that point?

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NgcARhwkfbyirrZScknbCb.png

Yes, you can throw a lot of money at a Z490 mobo, a high end cooler and a new PSU to maybe beat a 5600X with a B450/B550 mobo and stock cooler, but at that point you might as well get a 5800X (+B450/B550) for about the same amount of money. Yes, you might not get much of an overclock (though that's a given with Zen anyway), but it'll be faster all the same.

I did tell you that it's a tradeoff. The 5600X is faster single-threaded and the 10700(K) is faster multi-threaded, you will not get the 10700K to do both. If you want both you'll have to pay for a 5800X.
Not that you need it if you don't render that much.
If you did a ton of rendering a 10700 (non-K) would be a good choice because then you actually get more for less, looking purely at multi-threaded vs the 5600X, but that is not your use case.

Or let's summarize it: Why do you think street prices for the 10700K are lower than its list price and lower than street prices for the 5600X, which has a 75$ lower list price? Do you really think that would happen if an overclocked 10700K beat a 5600X in single and multi-threaded?

About the PSU: You've seen the power consumption. <100W for a 5600X with PBO. You could fit a 300W if you really wanted to. If there's ever a "midrange" 300W GPU I'd have some questions about the highend.

It'll probably move in favour of the 5600X.

The GPU should be around 180W TDP then.
Now do the math. It's just PBO but at worst the OC would add another 50W to the 5600X.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SbtaxozLH6TV4fvofLDHQm-1920-80.png

A 5800X might still be doable, a 5600X is easy (probably around 100W left even with everything else added in), a 10700K at 5.1 is very tight, I would not recommend it. Yes, it would work most of the time since you'd rarely have 100% load on both CPU and GPU at the same time, but nominally you'd be one bad spike (remember, that's 214W average, not peak) away from the PSU triggering an overcurrent shutdown.

Most of that doesn't make any sense.
For gaming you're more interested in single/per core performance so an overclocked 5600X is better than a 5800X at stock.
Either buy a high end air cooler or don't overclock. Both don't make sense. Why would you spend that much on a cooler if you don't overclock?
Entry level boards are almost always a mistake. Don't cheap out on the mobo.
PSU should be fine, depending which the 1070 it is, but most don't consume enough to make it a problem.

What do you want the 5800X for? I just told you that more cores don't really help in editing and don't really help in games, at least nowhere near what it costs more. Most of the performance increase in both is due to the clockrate.

For a no overclock setup you'd want a 10700. Don't buy an unlocked (overclockable) CPU for not overclocking.

Alternate isn't that cheap. When in doubt check https://geizhals.de/

5800X is never going to be that close in price to a 10700K(F), 449$ vs 374/349$ list price just doesn't allow it.

Remember that editing isn't that multithreaded. Rendering is though most of that sees better SMT scaling on Zen on top of the better single threaded performance so it's more like 10-20% between the 10700K and 5600X, depending on the program, instead of the 33% that 8 vs 6 cores would suggest.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/7.html
In editing the 10700K just straight up loses.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/11.html

Future proofing is a fool's errand and in this specific case you'd be trading better performance today for the hope that a 10700K will fare less badly when it is outdated.
Neither editing nor games will suddenly become purely, nicely multithreaded workloads in the next couple of years (if we could do that we would've done it 20 years ago) and even if rendering shows you what the advantage would look like: 10-20%. Not something that will save your wallet when looking at that shiny new 16 core CPU in 5 years that's probably 150% faster or thereabouts thinking "damn, I wish my CPU were faster".

Like I said 4.7 is the stock boost clock so your current cooler should be able to handle that, probably slightly more.
There's always delidding...

The MSI Z370 A-PRO is as bad as it gets for Z370, so any Z370/Z390 you can get will be at least as good. It might even be worth to use the "new" used mobo for the 9900KF instead. Yes, if you can find an Intel fanboy who is upgrading to a 10900K and selling a 9900K(F) that wasn't overclocked insanely high + mobo it might be an even better deal.
Remember that a 9900K(F) is simply the best you can get that would fit your mobo, but a 9700K or 9600K would still be an upgrade by 100/50% in multithreaded.
For SSDs https://www.anandtech.com/show/9799/best-ssds or other guides.
You should be able to find entry level 500GB NVMe SSDs around 50-60€ and mainstream starting at around 65€.
For the 8350K any 120mm or more single tower cooler should be more than enough.

10700K vs 5600X is a slight tradeoff on multithreaded vs singlethreaded. There's only so much 6 cores can do if that program doesn't show vastly better SMT scaling on AMD.
Z490 mobos are slightly more expensive and don't have PCIe 4.0 though.
10700K is basically a 9900K, very similar power draw, 5600X would be less.

EDIT: Just so we're clear: I didn't forget about mobo recommendations, I just didn't feel like doing a whole bunch of them for different levels of overclocks, depending on how much are willing or able to afford depending on how much you're spending on the SSD and RAM and other stuff for the second pc and doing it twice for both 10700K and 5600X.
You're smart and motivated enough to make a decision on those on your own, which will give me a much clearer budget and narrower restrictions to work with, drastically reducing the time and effort needed.
tl;dr
me lazy

It's a 450W PSU and it isn't trash so you can actually draw 450W. There's no need for a 100W buffer. It's supposed to be within spec at 100% load and will be completely fine with spikes to 110% since spikes from the sustained load are expected. Non-oc with a FE 1070 you'd be at <350W under full load, "normal" aftermarket 1070 (~180W) + lightly oc'd 9900K would be around 400W for the whole system. Even with some spikes that's well within the PSU's capabilities.

You'd need RAM for the secondary PC or buy new one for your primary, obviously.
10700K would be within budget, but it would be very weird since the ridiculous prices for Z490 mobos mean a 9900KF (same speed) + a cheap quad core including mobo might actually be cheaper, let alone just a cheap-ish used mobo for the 8350K.
5800X is expensive enough that I don't think a cooler and mobo good enough for a decent overclock would leave enough for an SSD without maxing out the budget completely.
5600X would be a tradeoff, slightly slower in multithreaded than a 9900K, but faster singlethreaded, though obviously more expensive since you need a new mobo and cooler.
3700X would be definitely weird, if you can even find one for a reasonable price. Multithreaded about the same as the 5600X, maybe slightly better, but at best the same singlethreaded as the 8350K you already got.

5.0 single core boost, 4.7 all core seems good enough to me. The cooler is good enough that it shouldn't overheat on stock clocks (especially if you undervolt it a bit) and I doubt the VRMs will burst into flames at stock either. Wouldn't expect much of an OC, but it's faster than what you've currently got at stock speeds so I don't see that being an issue.
You don't have to go all out and get a 9900K(F) either, that's just the fastest (and most expensive) CPU you can get without replacing the mobo.

Depends on the 1070. Reference design/FE is 150W, aftermarket goes up to 250W in theory, but most are 180W, with peaks to 190-200W.
Yes, overclocked you can push the 9900K to 250W on a dedicated CPU stresstest like Prime95 and that's awfully tight with your PSU (though barely doable), but actual, real-world all core loads at stock? 120-150W, plenty of headroom there. Light OC like permanent 4.7 all core instead of only boost for x seconds is fine.

If you're running out of RAM you need more, otherwise it's fine.
PSU should still be fine.
Same with the GPU.

Unless you need more than 8 cores/16 threads keeping everything and only getting a new CPU would be the cheapest. Even a new 9900KF is cheaper than a 10700KF/3700X/5800X + mobo.

A new SSD should be easily within budget, so why not?

It's a bit late but I have to correct Pete's explanation:
Routing is not to blame here, Comcast is.

There is a fairly direct, nice and fast fiber connection Seattle-Denver-Dallas. I think Level 3 (now owned by CenturyLink) owns that. And that is the problem. You see, usually an ISP would send any traffic that goes outside their local network to an interregional/international carrier with all those nice, fast fiber routes and they'd pay them for it so they can maintain and expand that network and everyone is happy. Except Comcast doesn't want to do that. Comcast wants the tier 1 carriers to pay them for the privilege of getting access to Comcast customers. It makes no sense, wouldn't be a sustainable business and is generally going nowhere. So while Comcast can bully local ISPs into those deals and sometimes even companies that depend on their traffic getting to Comcast customers with decent bandwidth (like Netflix) the tier 1 carriers won't ever agree to a deal that will only ever cost them money. The reason why Comcast can get away with that is that they've got local networks everywhere and simply connected them to pretend that they can do everything a tier 1 carrier can do. The quality of that substitution is what you can see.

Basically this:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/how-comcast-became-a-powerful-and-controversial-part-of-the-internet-backbone/
Has been going on for years.

tl;dr
Good connection exists, Comcast wants to get paid for using it instead of paying.

stl;sdr
Comcast bad.

#3774
Depends on your definition of 10/10 and whether it's exclusively for TF2, but it should be less than 1600$.

#3775/3776
Unless manage to find a GPU older than 10 years, not really. 1660S is very much overkill.

It's the same as expecting someone whose feet you shot with a rocket to be launched upwards. Demo mains have simply learned to think in 3D instead of 1D.

Sometimes our brains just go full billiards simulator, perfectly predicting any and all movement paths including knockback.