Let’s simplify the question to what matters in practical terms for you as a buyer, e.g. what you can control with your wallet.

I think its safe to say that GalCiv is CPU bound more than GPU bound.

So a modern CPU coupled with ample DRAM will benefit you far more than a top of the line GPU.

I run;

Intel i5 12th gen 12600k 

Asus ROG 690 E Gaming

Corsair Dominator DDR5 5200/40 32GB

1TB 4.4 850 M.2

Nvidia 3080ti

I only run everything in 1080p for max graphics at highest performance.  *Decadence*

Runs great. I max every game and wait for the games to adjust to my build. This game shows no sign of stress on my system when I set the universe to 12 random opponents and abundant all except off races/pirates minimum. 

I have 10 cores, so will 16 cores help this game if I upgrade to i9 12th gen?  

I have 32GB RAM, will higher ram configuration, like 64GB, be addressable for the game to use? Would it use it?

To the poster, I would say your GPU isn't meant to run 8k. The thought of 8k on a 3060 makes be think record low fps, lag and jerks.  You have a 12th gen CPU so your 32 GB is probably DDR5. Your bottleneck probably is that GPU for high FPS with hi resolutions. I did an upgrade from 3060 to 3060ti on other PC. I miss the extra 4k ram loss for textures and more detail, but the 3060ti just runs smoother and faster. 

It was a very hypothetical example and no parts have been purchased. By the time I get around to building, Raptor Lake, Zen 4, Lovelace, and RDNA 3 may be options. I may even consciously wait for them, who knows? My current machine remains serviceable. While I appreciate generalized advice about computer part selection, I want to make very clear that is not why I am here. I want information about part selection specifically as it relates to GC4, because GC3 is where I've run into the most performance issues on my current PC.

The 8k TV purchase is essentially independent of the computer purchase. I'll still have a different primary computer display, and plug into the TV by choice when I want to watch a movie or play certain games. Best Buy occasionally has open box deals on 8k TVs for ~$900, and by this time next year, those prices will dip even lower. Places like Craigslist and FB marketplace will have more options too, because 8k TVs will have been around for a while. To be very clear, the 8k TV will only be used for certain games for which it makes sense. My 1060 can handle 8k gaming for less demanding titles, but I would probably wouldn't attempt to play Cyberpunk at 8k, for instance. I have a local Best Buy that's fairly generous with allowing me to test things, and while I didn't try GC3 the last time I was there, I wouldn't rule out 8k working just fine. The performance issues I run into are likely CPU bottlenecks, where even turns on tiny maps with one remaining CPU are slow, and movements are full of hitches.

Quoting Yskonyn,

reply 7

My 1080 isn't able to consistently play 4k at 60hz, so I very much doubt your 8k claim on a 1060, but its besides the point I guess.

I don't mind the sidebar. What are you trying to play in 4k/8k? Like I said, I doubt you're doing Cyberpunk 4k60, but there are plenty of old games that will perform well. Some require mods, and even then some will definitely look odd because they're from the 90s or 00s and have no way to scale the UI. But for turned based or real time strategy and building games utilizing sprites with a fixed amount of pixels, more pixels and more screen real estate is fantastic. Pharaoh, for instance, was released in 1999 and originally designed to run at most at 1024x768. But mods enable Pharaoh to run at modern resolutions. Because of the good quality of the original sprites, it looks fantastic in 4k IMO. I wouldn't rule out 8k for it.

The next question I'd ask is whether you need 60 FPS for all games? Make no mistake, I can tell the difference between 30, 60, and 120 Hz even just using a mouse cursor, scrolling a web browser, or watching the card animations while playing Hearts. But the option to sometimes trade refresh rate for resolution interests me. Few people are getting 4k60 in MS Flight Sim right now, but I'm pretty sure they're still having fun. Some are consciously make the choice of 4k but lower than 60 FPS, instead of higher FPS at a lower resolution. Satisfactory is another chill game where you might be willing to trade frames for resolution. Once you leave the realm of first and third person games, and get to games like Anno 1800 and GalCiv, more people than you might realize would be willing to tolerate 20-30 FPS if there are no drastic hitches. Especially in turn based games, the higher refresh simply isn't as important. I wouldn't increase resolution at the expense of frames in games like Halo or Control where you might be rapidly moving the camera in all 3 dimensions to search for enemies - 240 Hz panels shine here, though often you're sacrificing color quality, suffering backlight bleed and blooming, and perhaps other things if you've prioritized refresh rate over other panel qualities. For things like designing ships in GalCiv, I'd need to see the differences in 4k and 8k for myself before casting judgement on whether more frames and fewer pixels looks nicer than fewer frames and more pixels. Speaking of ship design, it slows to a crawl in GC3 endgame for me - what's the bottleneck in this specific scenario?

Here's one particular TV I've got my eye on, which can do both 8k60 and 4k120. And of course I still have the 1080p option that I'm typing on right now if that's the right tool for the job. Maybe by this time next year prices on that 8k TV (or something similar) will be low enough that I'll buy. Maybe not. Who knows! Everything in here is all very exploratory. But I would say 8k is more 'when' than 'if.'