- Jan 5, 2017
This is some seriously flawed logic, which is true only if you're going to be playing the same game year after year. Even a game like CS:GO or Dota 2 isn't the same game as it was a few years ago. How games utilize resources over time change. Just like it's silly to say 'wait for games to become multithreaded then Ryzen will kick a$$', it’s also quite naive to assume that with a CPU that is slightly slower today will end up bottlenecking a 3080 Ti tomorrow so bad that it'd make someone wish he'd got the faster CPU back then.Posted this in another forum, may as well post it here too:
People tend to upgrade GPUs faster than they upgrade CPUs, and GPUs become obsolete much faster.
I rather spend a bit more on a better gaming CPU which I won't upgrade again for many years than spend more on a GPU that I'll upgrade in just a few years.
2600Ks and 4790Ks are still going strong you know? The 2600K maybe not so much but 4790K holdouts aren't complaining about their gaming performance when compared against the 'Lakes.This was and should be the norm, but the people on the slower gaming cpu found a way to feel good about their setups with talks of "now" and "real world." And yet, they're the first to talk about platform longevity. It's always performance deferred with these guys; "too expensive," "only two fps," "no noticeable difference," etc.
You're basically arguing that those with a slightly slower CPU should feel bad for themselves for their choice of when and what CPU to get.