Cross posting from the other Ryzen thread, but the AAA game market has already moved on past 4 threads:
Some AAA games benefit from having more than 4 cores, not all of them.
There are
many more which are still
very reliant on per-core performance:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=230046573&postcount=240
Nearly anything older than a year or so does not scale well above four cores at all.
Looking ahead, having more than four cores is certainly the way things are going.
I'm definitely going to want 6-8 cores a year or two from now, and some of the applications/games I use today would benefit from it.
The question is whether it's worth buying an 8-core CPU now and potentially sacrificing performance in many games, or going with a fast hyperthreaded quad-core and waiting a year or two for it to become the majority of games which start to take advantage of more than four cores.
Based on the Cinebench scores, the 1800X at 4.1GHz (162cb) would still be about 10% faster per-core than my current 2500K at 4.5GHz (148cb). But a 7700K at 5GHz is about 45% faster per-core. (215cb)
That's not insignificant when only some games/applications can make use of >4 cores - especially when you factor in Ryzen's half-rate AVX2 performance, since many of the applications using >4 cores also benefit from AVX.
That's why we need benchmarks from sites like DigitalFoundry/GameGPU/Techspot and others that know how to set up a proper CPU test for games.
I certainly hope Ryzen does well, because who doesn't want to be paying half as much for the same level of performance?
But having all that multithreaded performance doesn't mean anything if the software you run can't take advantage of it.
Unfortunately the main games I actually care about CPU performance in right now are
HITMAN and
Dishonored 2, and I don't see them showing up on many benchmarks these days.
I just want to know what I have to buy to run those games smoothly.