More powerful CPU is not absolute thing. Remember Pentium G3258? Overclocked it was considered even faster than i7-4790K when looking at benchmarks. However it only has 2 cores. Guess what happens when benchmarking games that utilize more than 2 cores? Is it expected to perform better in future too?
Information might be relevant but like I stated above, there is difference between review and future prediction. If it's future prediction, then everything should be considered. If it's today's review, then it's OK to concentrate on performance today. What Techspot seems to do according to article is to partially (but only partially) predict what future would be.
This summarizes my point:
Techspot is trying to say CPU A is better in future but at same time refuse to say which CPU is better buy for future. What?
Leaving GPU out of equation I disagree. I played somewhat lot a game that uses all available CPU cores but stress for GPU is minimal. Because it utilizes all available cores, it will slow down computer IF it has all cores available. Solution? Give it only few cores.
You do want to give at least two cores for other applications. With quad core Intel, you can give only 2 cores for it. With Piledriver you could give six out of eight. Now it's 6 FX cores vs 2 Ivy Bridge cores. I doubt Ivy Bridge would be clear winner. That is gaming basically without any GPU stress.
Like Pentium G3258 will be future proof gaming CPU because it performed well when launched?
And if Ivy Bridge is only dual core part, then what? You seem to assume it's quad core that was more expensive than 8-core Piledriver.
I agree that today
we have mostly enough cores for gaming but again dual cores were not enough for future, no matter what benchmarks at that time said. Just like with single core vs dual core when dual core CPUs came out. Single core CPUs usually dominated benchmarks but in reality dual cores were much more usable and very soon faster ones. Good example where benchmarks didn't tell anything about future.