How does that make you sound like an AMD fanboy?
I don't think we should have seen a core increase. There's no real reason for it. It also sees a performance increase. So, I have no idea what you're on about.

What proof do you have people are losing interest in PC gaming? Most polls show the complete opposite.

They're more expensive than usual, yeah. But how is that disrespecting gamers? We don't need high core counts in the first place, other than chasing percentages in a few titles. 

@dizmo Some AMD fanboys perpetually dissapoint themselves by overhyping and believing in a product too much and building up too much expectations so that they find every launch dissapointing.

We're still at the same performance tiers as 2017 or 2018. Performance being improved despite core counts being the same is unrelated.

If the 5800X performed like a 3900X then okay fair enough. The performance per dollar is acceptable. Same for if the 5600X performed like a 3800X. Same for if the 5900X performed like a 3950X. Same for if the inevitable 5300X performs like a 3600X.

The performance hasn't drastically changed enough to warrant the price that each tier has.

@Zando Bob A 2013 video game I play will absolutely take advantage of 8 cores.

A 4 core 4 thread CPU would have terrible frametime stutters and an awful experience.

On an 8 core the frametime graph is mostly flat. There are ocassional spikes even on an 8 core 16 thread 1700X. A better CPU would result in a 100% flat frametime graph that never moves at all.

AMD wanted us to wake up from Intel's decade of 4 core CPUs. So we did, we got on the more cores train. AMD needs to continue to deliver. Not just as a one off core increase.

I think I know the reason why we haven't seen more cores: we're getting that at Ryzen 6000 series. Lisa Su has said she wants to bring 32 cores to AM5 and obviously Zen 3 is on AM4. So perhaps we'll see it when we get a new chipset, new motherboards and AMD can build up a new platform for the next 3 years.

If they still don't even on AM5 then it means AMD is making too much money to care.

Ahhh fair enough. I did find it hilarious that a lot were so certain pricing would remain the same.

We're not, however, at the same performance we were back then. it's seen on average a 17%ish percent increase overall during that time frame, and we'll see an even further performance lift now. You can't really state that it's not a performance increase when it's pretty easy to prove that there is. Why is performance increasing despite core count increasing unrelated? When have we ever seen continuous increases in cores? Never. It's simply not necessary.

No, a game with 4 cores won't have terrible stutters and an awful experience, unless you're talking about some random single title you've managed to find.

Again, talking out your ass.

32 cores is unnecessary for all but the most heavily threaded workload, and isn't needed by 99.99% of the buying public.

You clearly want far more than is to be expected. You're just setting yourself up for constant disappointment.

"We're still at the same performance tiers as 2017 or 2018. Performance being improved despite core counts being the same is unrelated."

Then we're not in the same performance tiers anymore. Modern 8 cores can challenge or beat my 10 core. Same level of performance from a lower core count due to performance improvements on cores themselves (vs just slamming more in). 

You can't separate performance per core from core count and then claim one doesn't matter. 

"The performance hasn't drastically changed enough to warrant the price that each tier has."

That may be a fair claim, we'll see how 3rd party benches go and then have hard numbers to work with. 

"A 2013 video game I play will absolutely take advantage of 8 cores.

A 4 core 4 thread CPU would have terrible frametime stutters and an awful experience."

Which game? If it's Battlefield 4, that runs like butter on a 4c/8t 2.6Ghz 32nm i7 from 2009, even with SLI 780s. So yeah it'll use some threads, but it really isn't that CPU intensive. 

"AMD wanted us to wake up from Intel's decade of 4 core CPUs. So we did, we got on the more cores train. AMD needs to continue to deliver. Not just as a one off core increase."

They have or have had 2c/4t, 4c/4t, 4c/8t, 6c/6t, 6c/12t, 8c/16t, 12c/24t, and 16c/32t chips on their mainsteam platform. Their 6c/12t offerings are usually in the midrange pricing wise. Games are not scaling much past 12 threads in the mainstream, certainly not choking on that amount, so there's little reason to actually offer more cores unless you're shooting for rendering/other allcore workloads as well. AMD has the massive core count options too for people who need them, so I'm failing to see the issue. 

"You clearly want far more than is to be expected. You're just setting yourself up for constant disappointment."

Essentially this. I think you're confusing what you personally desire in a computer, with what AMD should - and can be reasonably expected to - provide. 

@dizmo Actually I have played that game and many other games on both a 4C 4T and 8C 16T. The difference is staggering

Games have been designed for 8 threads for 7 years because of the 8th gen Consoles. New games are being designed for 8 cores.

The biggest problem though is the massive price hikes. If they hadn't jacked up the prices then it would have been easier to forgive the 8 core R7.

Me: They are competing with Intel performance wise (unlike FX, or even really Gen 1 Ryzen - yes high core Gen 1 blah blah not the point), so are going to charge more but keep it under Intel pricing to beat them in the value proposition.  Until Intel lowers their price, AMD doesnt have to.  Their shareholders want to make money, and until there is some reason to lower prices...newp.

Also me: You dont sound like an AMD fanboi

Also also me: moar cores.

Funny, because the consoles have up till now only had 7 cores to play with

Still, having had a 4 core CPU, none of the experiences are what I'd call terrible.

Of course they're going to jack up the price. They have better performance. You can fully expect the same from the GPU line. That's how businesses work.