You pretty much only need enough CPU to push whatever GPU you have and most people are not rocking a 4090.
Frankly, that's one of the few things that can really take advantage of these processors, we're still trying to get heavy multi-threading to work at doing anything other than pumping raw data.
This is why you don't actually need 12, 16, or 32 cores, almost nothing you do can really take advantage of it. Servers, CAD, and virtual machines can (if you load up enough of them), Photoshop can (under certain loads), but notice these are all static or perform multiple operations by default. Things that require time sensitive stuff such as a video editor cannot. Same for gaming, the actual game isn't using a ton of of processor cores except to feed the GPU. It's slowly getting better but really for 99% of what you do, 4 cores was/is actually peak, you get more performance from newer cpu's from the clock speed and optimizations than you do from core/thread count but benchmarks won't show you that. You do get some real world advantage from more, but beyond 4 or so you very quickly start getting diminishing returns. Which is why Intel E cores actually work pretty decent, there's a lot of little things going on in the background that don't really require a top speed performance core most of the time (streaming radio, video, uploading video, running the network and peripherals, running a anti-virus, etc) leaving your P cores to do the heavy lifting as needed. That being said, I still hate e-cores in desktops.
Do I want 32 cores, YES!
Could I actually take full advantage of it... Yes, but only for about 10-20 minutes once or twice a year.
Oh, side note, with a big cpu like this, you're actually going to be SSD bound in some of these operations and no, PCIE 5X will not fix the issue, the real problem for them is I/O. Just because you can flow 5x the previous amount doesn't mean you can gather, collect and prioritize it fast enough to flood that bus. This is part of why servers use raid, it's not just about bandwidth and these newer/faster drives will have less I/O than an older raid system even if you have more bandwidth because each generation slaps larger storage chips onto the same number of chip controllers. This is why an older 1Tb SSD can (but not always) have more I/O and bandwidth than a newer 1 TB ssd, it has more controllers and chips doing the work (less parts is also why the newer one is cheaper). Remember what I said earlier, more cores are really only good for dumping raw data, well that's all a drive does so therefore more memory chips/controllers the better.
