iwhat will help more cores in future is better game coding .
Here's hoping - the annoyance being that 'now' INTEL are consistently pushing greater core counts the gaming industry will probably sit up and take more notice. All this, despite AMD building on their successful last couple of years and their console tie-ins.
As an aside, INTEL must be relieved at the 9700K/motherboard performance : price relative to 3xxx - it's the CPU that constantly divides the AMD spread (ignoring b450's/MAX). I'm grateful for it - as it should re-enforce the above as the more 'real' cores that become the norm (especially as it's hyper thread'edly[sic] challenged) the less time the industry, as a whole, can ignore idle cores...
Either way in the grand scheme of things a 8-16 core ryzen or fast 8 core intel is going to last a good while,
True dat (god, i would feel a t**t saying that out loud.).
Keep speccing those i7 builds Orbi, they're still justified by performance merit and price (just) - cooler cripples this a bit (but will deny it if asked
). But, personally, i will still struggle to spec them purely due to the average percentage performance taken as a whole (including minimums) and that it's still imperceptible to the average user once you're batting over a certain FPS or when using higher res panels. Plus, the overall performance value of the Ryzen 3000 series is nuts - the 3600 being the new 2500K and donning an AMD lid. But, admittedly the 9700K is the out-and-out enthusiast gamer's CPU for budget...
Are you still tempted to get one?
*And why did AMD release such crappy blowers again on a thermal generator?!? - ruined a perfectly good card/launch (i'm bored while waiting to bXLLXck someone - can you tell?).