"Buy the best you can afford" should always be the appropriate mantra.

And I don't disagree that the GPU does tend to provide a larger return on investment compared to the CPU.

But if you are spending big initially and wish to have your rig last a long time, quad-cores are not a wise investment.

Wake me up, when it doesn't take a whole damned minute for Civ VI to go through a turn late game. That's all I want from my gaming PC.

To this day I don't know what end game in Civ VI looks like, as its just not practical on my laptop:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M with 2GB GDDR5 VRAM
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Processor (6M Cache up to 3.50 GHz)
16GB 1600MHZ Memory

Yeah agree, that game could probably do with som code optimization (and better AI). But as I said in a previous post Civ VI (or any other Civs) can't use multiple threads for more than optimization of the UI since it can only compute one computer player at a time since all players do their turns in series and thus are dependant on the results from the previous player. (and BTW a minute? Late game for me in Civ VI takes around 5 minutes per turn)

I originally just purchased a new GPU instead of also a processor and altough my 2011' 2600k @ 4.2 Ghz was a monster and still outperforms lower end cpu's this day I did notice it had become a bottleneck in certain games so I had to upgrade.

Consoles target 30fps for a reason and pc gamers always demand high frames and high performance and altough returns are GREATER from a videocard on 4k when you target 1080p or 1440p there will always be a cpu bottleneck when using the highest-end graphics cards like the 1080 or 1080ti

I am pretty sure if someone has $2000 + mobo + ram and etc to throw around for a CPU... They have enough money to throw at a 1080Ti if not a Titan... At that point, most people aren't caring about money...

My 3930K which is the same era as your 2600K, still smashes every game I throw at it. That extra cache, extra cores has kept it gaming for longer.

In-fact, the upgrade between my 2011 CPU and a 2017 6-core cpu is so miniscule it's really not worth dropping $1500-$2000 on a new CPU, motherboard and RAM combo to replace it just yet.

In-fact, this is the kind of performance jump I can expect: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/552?vs=1727

In essence, if I cannot get 10 years worth of gaming out of this CPU, then I will eat my hat.

RYZEN!!!!! XD

If the AMD Threadripper 16c/32t $850 rumors are true, Intel might as well scrap their 12-16 core plans and just launch the 18 core. Even if Threadripper ends up being $999, which was likely based on their recent Ryzen pricing, Intel is in big trouble. Gaming and IPC won't be the main draw for these chips, and AMD clearly has the multi-thread advantage.

However with the i9, 16c/32t being $1699, and 14c/28t being $1399, I cannot see how AMD would leave too much money on the table at this point. Threadripper should also be out before most of these Intel chips, so why AMD wouldn't offer their 16 core chip at $1399, just to be able to say your getting 16 cores for the same price as Intel's 14 cores, $300 cheaper than Intel's equivalent 16 cores, with better multi-threaded performance, is beyond me.

Since AMD hasn't set pricing as of yet, even though Intel has, I would have to assume that these Threadripper chips won't end up being the same value as Ryzen. AMD may want market share, but leaving easy money on the table just wouldn't make any sense with i9 prices being as high as they are. Unless Intel is keeping something special secret by not unveiling the 12-18 core specs, I don't see them putting up much of a fight against Threadripper.