yeetgod

I just use a 4k 60Hz panel because one of those 4k 144Hz panels are quite a bit off of my budget. I am interested in upgrading my CPU because
firstly it's overclock is mediocre (Needs more than 1.4V for a somewhat stable overclock to 4.5Ghz when others online can reach 4.7 to 4.8 on the same sort of voltage).
 
Also, I feel that games like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey are extremely demanding on my hardware and I suspect my CPU might be bottlenecking my entire rig when I really struggle to reach 45 FPS at 1080p. to reach a reliable 55-60fps in 1080p I have to really bring low settings which just seems odd and frustrating considering the enormous price that came with 2 GTX 1080Tis (probably like more than $1,600 when considering shipping and taxes). Also to consider how capable these cards are supposed to be and then to see them struggle so much in running the game immediately suggests to me that 1. the game was optimized by a team of fucking apes and 2. the cpu might be a bottleneck. My computer has been able to handle dreadfully unoptimized games with no problem before, such as in Just Cause 3. The issue might just be limited to Assassin's Creed, but the fact that the game is very new brings me on to my next point.
 
In general my performance issue considering all the games I play are fine but I do expect the gaming requirements to just get more hard on my hardware and I am the sort of person that cannot stand to have to lower a setting in a game because I decided to make the switch to PC not just for the convenience and all the fancy lights and everything else but for the advantage over consoles in clear graphical superiority. For Assassin's Creed odyssey to give my computer a stroke leads me to believe that my older parts do need to be upgraded at this point to continue to use high settings in new games. The level of detail that is being put into games these days is  incredible and being able to experience it in the highest settings is a great experience. Right now I can reach a somewhat stable 60fps in Battlefield 1, Star Wars Battlefront 2, Beam NG Drive, GTA V, Skyrim Special Edition, and F1 2018. All of those examples except TES V SE were not able to get 60fps until I overclocked to 4.5Ghz and a lot of them still experience some amount of lag spikes and stuttering. I'm sure future titles are going to require more powerful hardware and I saw a significant performance increase when I upgraded my CPU from an i5-6500 to an i7-6700k (when I had a GTX-1060 3GB) and now I am seeing a noticable performance improvement since overclocking. I know that getting a more powerful CPU can have a real benefit to performance and upgrading to a higher end motherboard is probably not a bad idea considering my mobo is nearing it's fourth birthday. 
 
Considering that 8k and 4k 144Hz monitors will start to lower in price in a few years and triple A titles will only continue to get more demanding, I would rather upgrade my CPU right now before upgrading my graphics cards considering the enormous investment I have put into them. I'm sure I will replace them with a new top of the line graphics card whenever 8k or high refresh rate 4k panels become cheaper but you raise a good point on how the new Titan V or the RTX 2080 Tis might have more significant performance benefits from more pcie lanes so it makes it difficult to really gauge whether in the future the ability for cards to have x16 will or will not be more valuable than CPU clock speed when considering gaming performance. 
 
first of all bud its a hot flex  and also there are nice fps benefits in most games I've played. The only game that had no improvement that I can think of is Assassins Creed Odyssey. Overall it is not as much of a waste as people say. Especially now in the new cards like the RTX 2080Ti an SLI setup is pretty good. 
 
A source for the data you presented