Speaking of logic - why are you considering VR and 120hz a great investment if EVEN with that 30% higher single thread performance and top end gear, you STILL experience stutter?
Would it not be much more effective to lock at 90 fps, and scale a system on that, avoid stutter because you don't have that high a frame time variance altogether, AND reduce the total cost of the system so you can invest more towards GPU / future upgrades / whatever else in peripherals?
The only real logic here, is that high FPS/high refresh gaming AND VR simply aren't ready for market yet, because the performance level and optimization of the technology is far beyond the spec of the hardware it is used on. You're basically pointing that out yourself.
The fact still is, that the market for high refresh gaming is purely competitive of nature and VR and competitive don't mix at all, for now and the foreseeable future. The only failure in logic lies with you and your view of what is feasible, and what is possible with todays' tech.
The only real high refresh gaming that happens realistically is playing CS:GO and MOBAs at the lowest detail settings and at a high competitive level. Everything else is just a personal preference of which the vast majority of 'hardcore gamers' are just overinflated ego's like yourself that achieved nothing in life but a rank on some silly video game. You then apply that ego to everyone's buying decisions with regards to CPUs while the ONLY niche that the 7700K excels in, is high refresh gaming. For everyone else, Ryzen is the go-to CPU right now.
Get a life and some sense in your gut. Shit. Speaking of faith in humanity...
you experience drastically less. The difference between my 4.4Ghz 1650v3 vs 4.8GHz 6700K is noticeable
my 1650v3 is probably slightly faster single thread than a ryzen but not by much (probably depends the type of processing). A 5.2GHz 7700K would be even better.
For War Thunder and NS2 (both single thread) my 6700K has a much better gaming experience over my 1650v3. Same goes for day to day tasks which is why I have the systems I have.
running lower FPS for ULMB is not a bad idea to be honest. The games I play at 4.8GHz are just barely below a consistent 120hz. A 5.2GHz KBY could probably be good enough. But that is a good idea for other games that can't do anywhere close to 120hz but can do 85hz. I'll take note of that for other games so thanks!
I game for fun and experience. Cutting corners to save a few bucks is not worth it. It is also why I only play older games and don't play new ones. I save money on buying games when prices are low. I also get the chance to play and experience the game at 100% max settings. So by time I buy 2017 games. I'll save a ton of money and have a killer rig at the time that can run 1440p or 4K at 120hz. So the cost of a binned quad is worth the money since it is my main hobby and I use my rig daily.
Again as I referenced and talked about the IBM study. I get a large amount of investment back in regards to time saved with having a snappier system.
I dont care about ego or rank...your resorting to personal attacks because you lack merit. I play for enjoyment and stutters drive me nuts. Just like crappy screens annoy me. Why buy 300-800 dollar monitors when a cheap 80 dollar TN screen works? It shows images.....Yea, hell no. I want good viewing angles and good colors with minimal ghosting. I also calibrate all my screens too.
So not devoid of logic. It is 100% based on logic but keep the personal attacks up because you lack merit lol.