Does the avg. guy need more than a quad core desktop?

[TonyJZX]

I'm not a huge desktop fan these days. I used to be a fairly keen gamer and had a q6600 and i7 920 and an i7 3820... you guys will know what these chips are.

I have two desktops now, a Xeon quad core w/ 16Gb RX480 etc. this is my main machine.

I have a 2nd spare machine, a Xeon e5 2670 8/16 threads 24gb thing.

Kinda look at the new AMD cpus and feel like, my 8 core Xeon is more power than I'd ever need and I feel like AMD and Intel in a core race is outstripping actual avg. usage patterns.

So the new Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5 second gen. cpus are under $200 and are either quad or 4/8 threads.

Isnt this really sufficient for 99% of people.

Are people really needing 8 cores 16 threads? I applaud AMD for doing this but its way overkill.

[RealBlackStuff]

My desktop with AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition Callisto Dual-Core 3.2 GHz (sorry for the big mouthful) from 2010,
a simple nVidia Geforce GT730 from about 2014, plus 16GB RAM (avg. use maybe 3-4GB) is more than enough for my daily needs.
It's running W7 Pro/SP1 64-bit and hasn't had any updates since about early 2015.
Don't want 'em and don't need 'em.
Don't need any more cores either...

[Cigarguy]

For a lot of people, hardware have long out paced software. For myself a 2008 T61/X61T is sufficient for my daily mobile computing needs. A quad core Sandy bridge desktop with 32 GB RAM, 8 TB storage, and a decent GPU is way overkill for 99.9% of my needs. I still want and crave the latest hardware but do I need it? Nope.

[Neil]

My 2core CPU handles my needs just fine. I think I'm an avg guy, so no, I don't need more than a quad core CPU.