Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
IMO the extra cores route has not borne fruit...


Agree with your analysis.

I'm buying 8 because, in looking at the leaked specifications, the 1800X 8core/16thread is faster per core than any of the rest (unlike the fastest Intel CPUs). I'm glad its that way (see the "strictly psychological" reason below).

Also, 2 cores is plenty for most games (across all game eras). However, I'm guessing that the newest high-graphics games will tend toward many threads -- over the years I own the Ryzen. So, I'm not buying to play current games better (they all work for me and I do not expect to see a difference). Rather, its one or two future games I buy that may show a difference (not really cost effective -- just for fun smile ).

I do make videos and do some things that can be a bit faster with more cores/treads.

And, strictly psychological: I have an 8 core CPU now. I'd hate to take a step backwards in core count -- I tend to always want things that work better and "seem/sound better" (even if they are not always that much better).

My understanding is that the actual performance of an 8 core / 16 thread unit is only about 20 percent (on average roughly) faster than the same design 8 cores / 8 threads units. And, 8/16 may be no faster but, rather, slower in some cases. So, CPU raw-core count means more than thread count. On that basis, the cheaper 8core/8thread Ryzens make "dollars and sense".


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro