The one that says it's overpriced, I read it. It still proves you wrong and I'm not your bud. So unless you post anything proving your sweet spot statement (to which you have constantly failed) i'm done embarrassing you...bud.
Look, you can go out looking for proof that tests the small variety of games that now run into this problem, or you can speak from experience.
Speaking from experience, I
know that quad core CPUs are no longer sufficient. I also
know from my experience with the 8700K with HT off that it is already running into very high loads (90%+ in a game such as Ghost Recon Wildlands) and I also
know that in that game, I get not only slightly higher FPS, but also no stutter (as in - none -) with HT active versus it being off.
Reading reviews =/= first hand experience. While a review might touch on a subject in its own way, it never puts that focus on it as it should, because really, if you want quality gaming, there aren't a huge lot of CPUs capable enough these days (and its not a reviewers' job to determine a 'playable quality' beyond what the mainstream says it is - ie 30 or 60 fps), and you're looking at upper-midrange by default if you seek to eliminate stutter. And, within that upper midrange, you need to select carefully based on your FPS target as well: whether its high refresh, or high resolution, or both.
I'm not sure what you (both) are doing up here throwing Gamers Nexus back and forth and frankly I don't care what another reviewer says is important or not. I read the numbers, not the text that comes with it, and I mirror them with my own experience in gaming and wrt quality and smoothness of the experience. For one that is elitist, for another that is understandable - whatever - its just info you can or cannot do something with.
CPU performance is like RAM, VRAM and all that stuff; zero benefit from having too much, and major nuisance from having too little.
