Even reviewers with all the CPUs and GPUs in the world still use the 9900k in reviews, no matter how much they said "Intel is dead, AMD killed them, omg AMD so good", because of better performance. And as I said many times, there is a reason Intel didn't manage to upgrade their technology to something smaller, with smaller architecture and stuff, any very small defect or issue, may make the whole CPU stop working or die completely.
Generally done because they want to ensure that when measuring GPU performance, there's no bottleneck in terms of frame rates - ie: whatever the FPS you get is limited by the video card, not the CPU. This is particularly useful when testing high end video cards at low resolution.
Most people don't run top end cards at 1080p.
And while for many people this may come as a shock but you don't need to upgrade your CPU (and usually with this, your motherboard and RAM too, usually) every year.
I had a 4770k OC for 7-8 years, no issues, ran perfectly, still kept close to newer CPUs, beat the crap out of the first Ryzen generation still. And yet I still regretted many times I didn't see or know there is a 4790k which is better and at the same price.
My son's still got a Sandy Bridge i5 at his mother's house, which handles his needs just fine. Likewise with my own Haswell i5.
The 4790k, with ~10% higher clock speed, same number of cores and threads, was released at the same price as the 4770k, but ONE YEAR later. So, not at all the same situation as with the 9700k/9900k, except for the fact that real-world performance gain was minimal, if noticeable at all.
[/quote]
Now if he plans to switch around his system every year or so, he could probably get a 8700k and be happy, he could get a third generation Ryzen and be happy (tho from what I still saw or heard, they are still a pain to make work as intended or even OC properly), he could get a 9700k or a 9900k and be happy, sure. But if he plans to keep his CPU for at least 3 years, I would very much recommend, to someone that buys a 2080ti, to get the 9900k. I'd rather he buys a 2080 but gets the 9900k (if you are asking why, it's because changing your GPU and selling your old one, is much easier to do from generation to generation).
Why? 3 years? You think in 3 years that 8 threads for gaming will be obsolete?
And, again, you don't know what resolution/refresh the OP is going to use. So you can't make the "get the better CPU and step down to a lesser GPU" argument.
"How many games do you know if that require more than 8 threads?" well why are you talking about Ryzen then anyway, all Ryzen CPUs still lose by a margin to Intel.
Really? In what scenarios? And YOU are the one that brought up the need for more threads. You seem to think that only 8 threads will be obsolete in 3 years.
Secondly this is a future proof build.
There is no such thing.
For someone that can afford a 2080ti it seems like a shame if in 3 years or so, some new games take better advantage of more threads so he now needs to change his entire system, to fit a new generation CPU, or worse, buy the 9900k after wasting money on the 9700k because some "dude that is kinda into PCs" thought he can give his opinion without any real arguments and not reading the whole conversation.
So, your argument is that the OP will, in 3 years, need to buy a 9900k to replace his 9700k? Based on what, exactly?
tl;dr
Get the 9900k if you don't plan on changing your whole system again in 2-3 years or less. Otherwise get anything from a 8700k, 9700k, even a Ryzen 3700x tho you will lose fps in gaming.
This is not good advice at all. The OP isn't after benchmark numbers, but is interested in gaming. You can't play the "you need more threads" for half your argument, then turn around and say "but Ryzen's bad because more threads are less important than speed."
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram