Krogoth wrote:Even if you were correct that the majority of games including WoW were dual-threaded
Already did it and still came to the same conclusion. Outside of a small minority of mainstream applications and games, the benefits of going from dual-core to quad-core are still kinda small. The majority of the reviewers out there are cherry-picking games that are known to use more than two-threads (Doom (2016), Witcher 3, GTA 5, Battlefield 4/1). It is no shock that you see considerable returns, however they are the exceptions not the rule as far mainstream applications are concerned. The benefits of going beyond quad-core are even smaller with the aforementioned games unless you do CPU streaming at the same time.
From 2010, from arguably the most mainstream game of the decade.
WoW is still dual-threaded like the majority of gaming titles out there in the field. The only reason you see a small jump from gaining an extra gain is because of OS and other overhead in an "artificial" dual-core setup.
(and you are not) we still see a jump going to 4 cores. It is not a "kinda small" jump.
The GPU driver thread, and all the other threads on the system, have to compete with the (supposed) 2 game threads on a 2C CPU and so a 4C CPU produces kinda not small
Dude, it is not 2006
Just notice how there's no returns after going beyond three threads and the 6-core Phenom is only faster when it is unlocked because it has full access to L2/L3 cache pool at its disposal. "Artificially" gimping silicon's core-count can possibly restrict is access to its cache pool depending on CPU topology.
My emphasis, because
the benefits of going from dual-core to quad-core are still kinda small
is disproven by the bit where you admit there was benefit in going to 3 cores even in 2010
even for WoW.
Also, plenty of reviews show modern 2C chips getting stomped by old 4C ones, e.g. https://www.techspot.com/article/1313-i ... page2.html
where the 2015'Q4 i3-6100 is comprehensively beaten by the 5 years older 2011'Q1 i5-2500K, though it does manage to beat the 10 years old C2Q's...
The reason why reviewers pick the outliers is because they want stuff that stresses the CPU. The reviews would be awfully boring if they stuck what the masses are playing these days (LOL, TF2, COD, CS:GO, DOTA, MMORPG stuff) not stuff that taxes current CPUs. The listed 99th percentile FPS ratio graph only includes the titles that do take advantage of more then two threads. If you were to throw in content that is still stuck in two-threaded world (What the masses still play to this day). All of the quad-core CPUs and beyond would be around a much tighter cluster distancing themselves away from dual-core chips by a small gap. The differences between the quad-core chips and beyond would be just price.
Reviewers review in reviews, news at 10. PUBG? The devs have optimized that for 6-core or higher CPUs, they obviously see a reason. Doom? Quake?? &c. &c.
You're not wrong that reviews are somewhat artificial, though. One thing reviewers typically do not do is replicate normal user behaviour, as they don't want loads of random crap running on the systems ruining reproducibility. IRL, though, having a 4C or higher CPU helps normal people with running their games, even those ones that have only 2 threads, because the average person does have all sorts of rubbish going on with their PC while gaming.