Is it worth upgrading from i7 8700K w/ 2080ti to i9 9900K w/ 2080ti?

[Capricorn Anomaly]

So realizing that my Asus Prime Z390-A can take an i9, I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading from i7 8700K with 2080ti to i9 9900K with 2080ti. I don't wanna drop $400+ on a CPU if I'm not gonna see that much of a jump in frames, so I just want to make sure. If anybody can help me out it would be much appreciated!

I should also note that I use a 2560x1080 144hz Acer Predator, if that extra info helps.

[hawkeye]

Nope. The gpu is probably the performance limiter.

To confirm, what games and what screen specs?

[Capricorn Anomaly]

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

Nope. The gpu is probably the performance limiter.

To confirm, what games and what screen specs?

Yeah it seems so, according to PC-Builds website, 6 out of 10 games they list says GPU is bottlenecking the CPU by 0.84% 0n 1080p apparently.

Games would be stuff like:
Tom Clancy's The Division 2
No Man's Sky
Fallout 76
Generation Zero
Outward
TerraTech
Grim Dawn
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Nothing too, too crazy. As for screen specs I assume you mean what I listed above where I talk about the monitor I use and it's specs or are you asking something different?

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Waste of money.

[hawkeye]

The other thing is that once you hit the monitor's hz rate, then extra fps doesn't mean much.

You might be better off buying one of the new rtx 3000 series when they come out and selling the 2080.

[Capricorn Anomaly]

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

The other thing is that once you hit the monitor's hz rate, then extra fps doesn't mean much.

You might be better off buying one of the new rtx 3000 series when they come out and selling the 2080.

Actually the monitor is able to be overclocked to 200, but I never really hit those frames anyways unless it's an old game.
Also, you mean using an rtx 3000 series card with an i7 8700K or i9 9900K?

[AdahnGorion]

No

[Illusion of Progress]

While I would consider an 8 core CPU a worthwhile consideration if you were upgrading from an older quad core or something, it's not yet worth it (especially at a price like that) if you already have a decent 6 core CPU.

[Autumn_]

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

The other thing is that once you hit the monitor's hz rate, then extra fps doesn't mean much.

Please stop perperuating this myth; higher FPS increases smoothness and decreases input latency, especially on low refresh panels.

And in some games higher FPS benefits the player in aspects like movement speed, healing speed, jump height.

It does help, there is a reason to it.
It's up to people to decide if they want it.

Enigmatic One님이 먼저 게시:

So realizing that my Asus Prime Z390-A can take an i9, I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading from i7 8700K with 2080ti to i9 9900K with 2080ti. I don't wanna drop $400+ on a CPU if I'm not gonna see that much of a jump in frames, so I just want to make sure. If anybody can help me out it would be much appreciated!

I should also note that I use a 2560x1080 144hz Acer Predator, if that extra info helps.

It's not worth it, especially if you're overclocking your 8700k to 4.9-5.1ghz.

Stick with what you've got until it doesn't do what you want.

[hawkeye]

Enigmatic One님이 먼저 게시:

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

The other thing is that once you hit the monitor's hz rate, then extra fps doesn't mean much.

You might be better off buying one of the new rtx 3000 series when they come out and selling the 2080.

Actually the monitor is able to be overclocked to 200, but I never really hit those frames anyways unless it's an old game.
Also, you mean using an rtx 3000 series card with an i7 8700K or i9 9900K?

That's an unknown and it will differ by game and gpu. It will be a case of looking at benchmarks when the gpus are released.

[☄️⁧⁧Sneakydude555]

no. Intel CPU's are "good" for gaming since most games are optimized for them. Ryzen CPU's are apparently not which really bothers me.. idk how a 4 core and 8 thread CPU performs 5-10% better than a 6 core and 12 thread one...

[Autumn_]

Mr. Mirai님이 먼저 게시:

no. Intel CPU's are "good" for gaming since most games are optimized for them. Ryzen CPU's are apparently not which really bothers me.. idk how a 4 core and 8 thread CPU performs 5-10% better than a 6 core and 12 thread one... :rbrbr1:

IPC, Clockspeed, Cache, interconnect, among other things.

Current Ryzen CPUs have just as much IPC as Intel CPUs, but they've got a lower clockspeed, so performance will be lower.

You also have windows spreading the load out more on the higher thread count CPUs, which means you have a lower clockspeed, so less performance.

You also have interconnect frequency, on Ryzen, it is run at the same frequency of RAM, so if you don't have fast RAM your performance will suffer.
(The interconnect, infinity fabric, is what links all the cores together, and I/O die.)
Intel uses a much faster interconnect, Ringbus, I don't remember how it works, so I'm no going to comment.

But, 5-10% is pretty marginal, a couple of FPS difference, with the best GPU on the market, usually.
(There are a few outliers, but few and far between.)

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Just OC that 8700K as far as you can. Install better cooling on cpu and within your case if that is lacking

[Jelly Donut]

Enigmatic One님이 먼저 게시:

So realizing that my Asus Prime Z390-A can take an i9, I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading from i7 8700K with 2080ti to i9 9900K with 2080ti. I don't wanna drop $400+ on a CPU if I'm not gonna see that much of a jump in frames, so I just want to make sure. If anybody can help me out it would be much appreciated!

I should also note that I use a 2560x1080 144hz Acer Predator, if that extra info helps.

Unless you really need the extra 2 cores and 4 threads for multitasking it's not worth it.

Plus, 9900ks are EXTREMELY hard to cool, even with beefy air coolers or Liquid Coolers.

[Illusion of Progress]

Mr. Mirai님이 먼저 게시:

no. Intel CPU's are "good" for gaming since most games are optimized for them. Ryzen CPU's are apparently not which really bothers me.. idk how a 4 core and 8 thread CPU performs 5-10% better than a 6 core and 12 thread one... :rbrbr1:

It's an outdated mindset that AMD is "bad" for gaming and Intel is "good". That was true half a decade and more ago, but not so much anymore. The mindset partly persists. These days, they are rather close, so it's typically a small single to low digit percent difference for a either the same gain at cost or a much more extreme difference in cost. I'm not at all sure how 5% to 10% is the difference between good or bad.

Software has to be written to take advantage of extra CPU cores and threads. It's not like clock speed where it's just there and is a benefit by default. If it's only written to take advantage of, say, 4, then comparing a CPU (all else being the same) with 4 cores, 8 cores, and 12 cores will show minimal to no difference (there may be some due to load shuffling, cache, or margin of error, but it shouldn't be a wide disparity). When software IS written to take advantage of, say, 8 cores, that 4 core CPU that was 10% faster before might be performing much, much worse, with less consistency (stuttering).