Maybe I wasn't clear. 24 or 32 core CPUs are only useful for the select few who are running a lot of intensive and parallelizable computations. The majority of

Maybe I wasn't clear. 24 or 32 core CPUs are only useful for the select few who are running a lot of intensive and parallelizable computations. The majority of people buying these mainstream CPUs do not get any more use out of a 24 core CPU than a 16 core CPU and yet would be paying hundreds of dollars more. It would only make sense to have these kinds of CPUs for server-grade or otherwise specialized tasks which do not fall under the mainstream performance line of CPUs as seen and talked about here. That is why I think AMD will go no further. There is no benefit, only cost to the kind of mainstream consumers who are buying these CPUs. > aren’t even the actual use cases for a high core workstation CPU. I was talking about 16 core CPUs in general which also includes laptop CPUs. Another reason why 16 cores makes sense for a general consumer CPU is because of the power efficiency gains with efficiency cores in laptops.