I agree with everything you said (very nice way of summing things up, btw), however you're not exactly making a case for beefy CPUs here when you bring up Vulkan/Metal/DX12. If anything, these new generation low-end graphical APIs have lowered overall CPU usage in games, not increased it - to a point where even a slower multi-core CPU might drive a game which on DX11 would choke due to poor single threaded performance.

Sorry, but no. It does make a difference. The lower you go, the more you will expose CPU bottlenecks, that's a given. So OP is a bit unfair by using 4K, since that will put less load on his CPU than an uncapped (high framerate) 1080p resolution would.

WOW 25% of CPU being used.....

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2650422551

Now you're throwing a tantrum :P.

If you really want to see some heat on your CPU (though it's still a very good CPU and will handle it), drop to 1080p at least...

And turn off G-Sync/V-Sync and any frame limiters, of course.

P.S.: That's also how most reviewers run their CPU game tests, btw.

NOW (s)he's throwing a tantrum? The thread has been a tantrum by the OP since it was opened.

Reviewers also use overlay benchmarks so they can see what their hardware is doing in real time rather than relegating their processes to the background while they check performance. This is is all about "look at my beefy Ryzen CPU, will nothing actually challenge it?"

Fair enough, but now we've reached tantrumception :D.

A reminder that many games either use only a few cores, or even only one, and cannot spread the load evenly across all cores and also the memory may be a bottleneck.

I could also repeat what others have said but see no reason to chorus.

not much have changed
do looks absolute ugly at 1080P geeze how can people stand it.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2650437929

An in-game FPS counter would be nice... I'm not entirely sure if you're capped at 60 fps in windowed mode. The Windows compositor does tend to enable VSync of its own accord...

You get older and your eyesight won't be top notch, kiddo :P. At which point you won't care about the fine print.

frame rate was around normal and it's not about the FPS it's about CPU that people claim "those" Flashy games suppoce to consume.

also ah i not entire sure how to frame rate it fraps only capture the active window i think

There's your problem. Unless your FPS are through the roof you won't notice any CPU bottleneck, since you've got a fairly good CPU.

We've already established the CPU is not that relevant for 60hz gaming (or even 144Hz at 1080p, really), though some games will indeed load it a bit more than others. You'll still be fine for many years to come, rest assured.

Jay has two cents about that :P.

Must be quite a few if stacking loads of extra cache on top of the compute cores helps in a lot of game as AMD says. To my understanding the added cache should help exactly when the RAM is slowing things down. Name one? Sure, to me it looks like X4:F likes decently fast RAM with tight timings but I do not have an Intel processor to test on to make sure.

Of course, if you run OUT of RAM things will slow down very quickly.

Integrated graphics use a slice of the RAM and so do graphics cards with too little VRAM and then RAM speed matters a lot, more than timings even, but this was not what I meant.

I thought FRAPS had not been updaed in a long time and does not properly understand modern graphics cards.

Extra cache helps AMD because of their chiplet design which involves inter-core syncs. Indeed if a sync ends up relying on RAM that is bad for overall performance. But it's not a limitation which affects the monolithic design of Intel CPUs in any way, which is why you won't see Intel CPUs caring that much about RAM, at least not as far as per core performance goes.

In short it's a data locality problem, not a RAM bandwidth problem per se.

Interesting. Not a game you'd see in any of the usual benchmarks, for sure :P.

That's an entirely different can of worms... you don't want to run out of RAM in a gaming scenario. Ever.

Hmm alright well but right now they have eight cores per chiplet but the IO is on its own though.

Bandwidth seldom seems to be a big problem beyond a certain point but maybe games where there is a steady huge flow of data, like a high speed racing game in a procedurally made world perhaps? Of course running DDR4 at an SPD setting at 2133MT/s is just asking for trouble.

Well said. I join the complaint despite I am not a Benchmarks believer.
Bear with me for a second: Most of the benchmark results are provided by the makers or ,,3rd parties with a specimen borrowed from the maker,,
And when not, are compilations from a bunch of anonymous users submitting them (what are the odds to find your exact -parts combination- to compare?)
Does that sound trustworthy? ...Useful?

Then we arrive to your point: Series of established benchmarks that have been a tradition and most of -the experts- don't fully understand how/why/what they measure...
I'd say they love to focus mostly on graphics because what is more impressive?:
-A boring CPU benchmark that is calculating prime numbers or pi digits that barely throw you numbers so fast to read?
-OR-
-A nice fast show of graphics, patterns and renders on your screen that gives you the sense that something very advanced/important is being measured?

Anyway, sometimes when I need to laugh, I just go to the Windows system page to see the Windows Experience Index and its very meaningful and useful info.
*rant over*

Who knows Abishia, maybe this is an opportunity to you to provide CPU benchmarks using Turn based games. I would take a look to those... :)
But I am not sure they would be popular: Just measure the reaction of the community here on your thread :S