I get your point but that's not the most fair comparison. Haswell was released at a time when there was no competition. But even then, the fact that an 8 year old CPU can still play some modern games at 1080p and 60Hz shows how slowly CPU demand has evolved in games. People keep thinking that more cores automatically means better performance, but that's simply not true. Software has to be designed to scale up, and games tend to scale up very poorly. For every thread you add, you are decreasing the maximum frame rate. That's why most modern games tend to not really get any faster with more than 12 threads, I assume because that's the point of diminishing returns (in other cases, there's no functional purpose to add more threads). Many things that could use more CPU cores (like physics engines or improved computer player AIs) are done by GPUs instead. So, I think @TheDeeGee is right - unless games see some revolutionary change in the way they demand CPU power, getting something with at least 16 threads will serve you for many years. So long as you have a CPU that exceeds the performance of consoles, you don't really need to get anything better. Yup, and don't forget the hefty increase in power draw too. I agree. This is why I hate the stock market - all these businesses care about is higher profits (obviously every business cares about profits, but not all care about exceeding their previous year's profits). They do the bare minimum to stay ahead only to make sure they get more sales than the competition. They are only incentivized to lower prices when their sales doesn't meet/exceed their expected revenue. They are only incentivized to make a better product when customer complaints are getting a little too loud.