It really does depend on what games you play, and on what resolution, and what is your FPS target . At FHD/60FPS, I think there is very little chance you can hit the limit (I am in that category too, used a email@example.com, and it felt fine, only upgraded for better future-proofing, and because I tend to use my pc for other things beside gaming...and now I like my 3600 )This is a great gaming CPU. Especially as we all know it’s going to be years before we need a minimum of 6 cores for a good experience.
It’s good that it beat a 7700K (or almost matched, whatever). But if you have a 7700K or even most quad Core Intel chips from the last decade then there still isn’t really a chip that you can buy that provides a significant upgrade in gaming performance. I think a lot of gamers are in this position. I’m on a 4790K OCd to 4.8. Even if I buy a R9 3950X it’s not going to be more than what 10-20% faster than my 4790k at gaming if that? And it costs a bomb.
As soon as there’s a chip out there than can beat something like a 7700K by 50%+ in games then I think a lot of people will start upgrading. I would, for me extra cores don’t mean much. I want extra gaming performance.
However, if you want higher FPS (say rocking a 120Hz monitor), especially if you want to keep even the 1% lows above that rate, you will hit that limit more often, and will have better results with more than 8 threads. Or, if you plan to game at 1440p or even 4K, god forbid aiming again for high refresh rates, you most definitely will hit that wall.
All I'm saying is that there is a viable use case for many-core CPUs, even just for gaming, right now, and maybe you just don't belong into that category (I know I don't...but there are many who do).