22 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Again, as stated, if Moores Law dictates CPU speed is nearing its end of life time, then obviously more cores is probably the only way to go.

Not really. In few months we would probably have desktop Intel CPUs made in 10nm technology. The smaler transistor is the faster it works. So we could have nice performance boost.

I am waiting for those CPUs. I don't need another cores.

17 hours ago, Evros said:

My 8600k @ 5.4GHz runs P3D better than 9900KS @ 5.1GHz. Huge core counts don't matter. If your worst case scenario is around 20FPS, then couple of FPS gain is quite a percentage to have.

Here my sim runs better with all 14 cores for P3D.... ( 2x 4K as 1 screen + heavy settings )

With just 8 for P3D 6 of them max out constantly to 100% .

This is however with TE GB London Area -+ Real Weather + AS Heathrow with AI

17 hours ago, Evros said:

And stop waiting for new sim and new processors. There will always be something around the corner that is going to be better and faster. Well, maybe not those 10th gen Intel desktop processors some are talking about. Currently, these are only rumors, but rumors say that you will get that same 5 year old architecture with another two cores slapped in to the die. With the same architecture, an increased thermal footprint is going to cost you overclocking capacity and you will just end up with worse performance.

So if you want best gaming performance, get Intel. If you are not interested in extracting every last bit of performance then go with either one of the manufacturers, doesn't really matter.

Totally agree.