i7-9700K and rtx 2080 ti, or i9-990k and rtx 2080?

[ole.b.eide]

I’m thinking about building my first pc. My focus will be gaming. My budget is not unlimited, and Im wondering if its better to prioritize the video card or the processor. I can afford the rtx x2080 ti and intel i7-9700k or, intel i9-9900k but then I can only afford the rtx 2080. Regardless of this choice Im thinking z390 motherboard, 16gb of ram, and a decent SSD. I plan to game on a 4K 60hz screen.Thanks for any help or comments!

 

[Eximo]

Certainly prioritize graphics at 4K. 8 cores should be enough for most titles. Keep in mind that quad cores are becoming more mainstream with the low end Ryzen and Intel platforms.

 

[Dugimodo]

Definitely prioritise the GPU, most of the time even dropping down to an i5 9600K will not hurt your gaming performance enough to notice.

Also I have noticed a trend comparing benchmarks that the CPUs without hyperthreading tend to have more consistent performance with less difference between average fps and 1% lows which should translate to a smoother experience when the CPU is being pushed hard.

I just built a ryzen 2700X machine and I'm happy with it, but if I hadn't I would be looking at the 9600K or 9700K. The 9900K only makes sense if you have cash to spare and just want the best

 

[ole.b.eide]

Thank you very much Eximo and Dugimodo!

 

[llunde3n30]

Thank you very much Eximo and Dugimodo!

OP, if you could, please post your final decision and what you think about it. I'm thinking of upgrading as well, with either the 2080 (ti or non-ti) and I'm pondering the same CPU choice. I'm also thinking about the Ryzen 2700x as well since it's cheaper, and 4k gaming is more about the GPU than the CPU. I'd be almost identical to you in: 4k 60hz screen, 16gb ram, and a Samsung 860 1 TB SSD.

I've read that the i9-9900k is pretty much overkill since it performs on par with the i7-9700k for gaming (again, at 4k I've heard it's the GPU, not CPU), but Battlefield V is going to experiment with the ray tracing in the 2080 cards in the future, so really sitting on a fence here....thanks!

 

[ole.b.eide]

I am also on the fence waiting, Im beginning to have second thoughts about it since the rtx cards are so expensive, and the ray tracing benchmarks are not exactly promising. After I wrote this I found 2700x and considering that one (Im not that into computer stuff), perhaps even 2600x will do. Right now Im thinking about just getting a ps4 and wain until next generation graphics card, perhaps then there are some more competition.

Thank you very much Eximo and Dugimodo!

OP, if you could, please post your final decision and what you think about it. I'm thinking of upgrading as well, with either the 2080 (ti or non-ti) and I'm pondering the same CPU choice. I'm also thinking about the Ryzen 2700x as well since it's cheaper, and 4k gaming is more about the GPU than the CPU. I'd be almost identical to you in: 4k 60hz screen, 16gb ram, and a Samsung 860 1 TB SSD.

I've read that the i9-9900k is pretty much overkill since it performs on par with the i7-9700k for gaming (again, at 4k I've heard it's the GPU, not CPU), but Battlefield V is going to experiment with the ray tracing in the 2080 cards in the future, so really sitting on a fence here....thanks!

 

[Eximo]

Yeah, 4K gaming just isn't quite there yet.

If you want to out-do the consoles then you should be looking at high refresh displays. 2560x1440@144hz is a very good experience. As is 3440x1440 @75-100hz. Cards like the RTX2070 and RTX2080 (or GTX1080/1070Ti or GTX1080Ti) are really good at that. The RTX2080Ti can certainly do 4K @ 60hz at ultra settings, just not that worth it. Not even sure why they've released 4K 120hz panels, still not really anything that can run them.

Unless you have eagle eyes and like to sit within a foot of your monitor 4K monitors, just not quite there. Rather have the better performance over the high resolution. Problem is that 4K monitors and 4K gaming are still very much a premium experience. Not a huge demand for game developers to target that directly when only a few percent of people can afford it. Vast majority of gamers are still running 1920x1080 and the mid-range cards available now are enough.

 

[Dugimodo]

Yeah I tend to agree about 4K, I won't even consider it until monitor prices come down and a mid range graphics card can at least game at medium settings on 4K. For myself I settled on an ultrawide 2560 x 1080 and GTX 1070 combo and am loving it. I could spend many times more money and the games would look a little better but I get most of the same experience much cheaper this way.

 

[captainbackfat]

I'm running an i7-9700K with RTX 2080ti FE output to an Acer Predator 27" 1440p IPS panel at 144hz. It's absolutely nuts. Looked into 4K monitors with high refresh, but for how close I'm sitting and how expensive they were, AND the fact that even the mighty RTX 2080ti struggles to run at Ultra 4K past 60FPS, it just wasn't worth it for me.

 

[logainofhades]

A Ryzen 2700, with a 2080ti would be my pick.