So what I like is 60FPS in games, I don't need more for a RPG, when I play games like ARMA 3 in MP I want as high FPS as possible and turn down the eye candy.
My point regarding CPU and GPU balance with regard to all of this is that once you have a CPU that lets you reach your target FPS,
whatever that is, there is little practical limit to the GPU you can make use of, because you can keep that frame rate and just turn up the eye candy. If one doesn't care about eye candy, then they can opt for a cheaper GPU.
Since I'm not going to rebuild my PC 100% just adding a new GPU and a NVSSD card via the PCIe port because rebuilding is going to be more expensive from last time, as I always build one that will last for many years, and that is not cheap these days, my last build in 2014 was a asus extreme black edition x79 and a 4960x cpu with first a gtx980 then a gtx 1080 gpu with 32 gb RAM installed, it was top dog in 2014-2016 now it's a low end PC
The attempt at future proofiness is generally more expensive in the long run. That Rampage IV Black Edition was a ~$500 board in 2014, and the 4960X was a ~$1000 CPU. That nearly covers my last three boards and CPUs. The system I built back in early-2012 had a ~220 dollar board paired with a 3930K (that I ran at 4.3GHz) and would have provided the similar performance performance as a 4960X, to this day (they are both 6c/12t parts, of the same architectural tock, with the same instruction sets, extremely similar IPC, and similar clock speed potential).
Even for builds where I'd recommend a $1600 GPU outright, the entire system (well, the contents of the case any way) is probably going to cost less than $2500 (including that GPU), because there is little or nothing to be gained from a general use or gaming perspective from spending more. If a gaming-focused system's budget isn't
at least 60% video card, it's probably wasting money somewhere. Such a balance allows every bit of it's performance to be leveraged day one, and generally still alows the platform to be kept through two or three top-teir GPU upgrades, if necessary.
For example, my next gaming-box upgrade is going consist of a 7800X3D (or it's immediate successor), a $125 motherboard, and the absolute cheapest memory kit that has the ICs I'm looking for that I can find (probably about $100 for 32GiB of Hynix M-die stuff, or $120 for A-die, should the 8000 series be ready and have a meaningfully better memory controller), and it will be still fast enough that there won't be anything out there that would be a meaningful improvement upon it for it's intended purpose (submitting frames to my overclocked RTX 4090).
Not that I haven't personally built plenty of systems that are far from exemplars of budgetary efficiency, or don't build more systems than I actually need (I average about one build a year for my personal use), but in my case the process is the goal; I'm often building them as a PC enthusiast/hobbyist first and a user second. Those with purely utilitarian goals don't need expensive boards at all, rarely benefit from the most expensive CPUs available, and can usually get away with relatively infrequent platform upgrades.