Sorry, but the 8 and 9 series cpus have 8 true cores. You must be confounding it with Intel chips like the i7-3770k which has 4 real cores plus 4 virtual cores (the virtual cores are not "
real").
I said that Crysis 3 is
optimized for four cores/threads, not that the engine cannot use more cores/threads. At very high quality settings, Crysis 3 loads a 4-core chip above the 95%, but fails to max. load 6 and 8-core chips
As said in #232 the top Centurion chip will run Crysis 3
faster than the i7-3930K and i7-3970x.
You omit to mention that the claim was made in a very specific scenario: it was about using the 8-core chip in multithreaded scenarios
not in games developed for single or 3-cores.
In multithreaded scenarios the i7-3770k (HT activated) can be up to a 42% slower than the FX-8350. Imagine how much slower will be the 2500k... No wait, you don't need to imagine it
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=293f200&p=2
2500k: 36.44
3700k: 33.05
8350: 23.34
The 2500k is a
56% slower. Therein the claim made by another poster who correctly said (bold from mine):
Moreover, the 8350 @ 4.6GHz scores 20.30. The FX-9590 would break the 20 seconds barrier with easiness.
Eurogamer discussed precisely this and did a poll with interesting results:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen