2080 Super / i7 9900k Bottleneck?

[Webby]

So I'm planning on purchasing a new gaming rig and fear bottleneck. I'm gaming at 1920x1080 res. I also thought about a 2080ti / Ryzen 7 3700 combo, but I'm not really sure whether or not it would be worth it and whether the cpu isn't too skinny for the 2080ti - purchasing a Ryzen 9 goes way over the budget.

[samcool55]

At what refreshrate are you playing?

 

[Webby]

Just now, samcool55 said:

At what refreshrate are you playing?

 

144hz

[dizmo]

What on earth do you mean by skinny?

The 9900k is a stronger performer in games.

[Mr Technician]

Why would you get a 2080 super for 1080p, though?

[Webby]

Just now, dizmo said:

What on earth do you mean by skinny?

The 9900k is a stronger performer in games.

Oh really? I thought I needed a Ryzen 9 or an i9 without bottlenecking the gpu

[Webby]

Just now, ThatFlashCat said:

Why would you get a 2080 super for 1080p, though?

I don't want to upgrade again in 3 years. I'd love to buy a 2k monitor in the future

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, ThatFlashCat said:

Why would you get a 2080 super for 1080p, though?

High refresh rate.

2 minutes ago, Webby said:

Oh really? I thought I needed a Ryzen 9 or an i9 without bottlenecking the gpu

The 9900k is an i9...

[Webby]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

High refresh rate.

The 9900k is an i9...

Yeah high refresh rate too.. 

oh right, I got 9900k and 9700k mixed up..

[Princess Luna]

I mean if the i9 9900K bottlenecks in games.... then welp... there's literally nothing else beyond it yet.

[SnowyMus]

13 minutes ago, Webby said:

Oh really? I thought I needed a Ryzen 9 or an i9 without bottlenecking the gpu

Well, at 1080p, if you're on a 2080 Ti, both the Ryzen 9 3900X and Intel Core i9-9900K will bottleneck your GPU in nearly all games if that's what you're worried about. Lots of reviewers use 1080p as a CPU benchmark.

[Guest]

Don't waste money on a 9900K. I would rather have a 3700X if it meant getting a better gpu. Having said that, an RX 5700 XT is really good value for a 1080p/1440p gpu. It is easy to upgrade the gpu later down the line. 

[Webby]

44 minutes ago, lee32uk said:

Don't waste money on a 9900K. I would rather have a 3700X if it meant getting a better gpu. Having said that, an RX 5700 XT is really good value for a 1080p/1440p gpu. It is easy to upgrade the gpu later down the line. 

I think 9700k would be enough, since I don't do much editing work so I won't really get the most out of the Ryzen. I watched the benchmarks and Intel is much better for gaming. What do you think?

[LogicWeasel]

41 minutes ago, Webby said:

I watched the benchmarks and Intel is much better for gaming. What do you think?

I think you either saw the wrong benchmarks or are very heavily putting weight on about 3% more avg FPS if that was your "short summary" takeaway.  An Intel 9700k in gaming is really not miles ahead of a Ryzen 7 3700x, the IPC difference converting to more FPS is pretty title-dependent and niche at best.

[Webby]

18 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

I think you either saw the wrong benchmarks or are very heavily putting weight on about 3% more avg FPS if that was your "short summary" takeaway.  An Intel 9700k in gaming is really not miles ahead of a Ryzen 7 3700x, the IPC difference converting to more FPS is pretty title-dependent and niche at best.

 

[LogicWeasel]

3 hours ago, Webby said:

-Bitwit CPU Video snip-

Yup, nothing wrong with the benchmarks, but I stand by what I said about the difference not being "miles ahead".  If you care about 5-7 more FPS in games like Ashes of the Singularity at 1080p then go ahead and get the 9700k.  But also it runs hotter and requires more cooling to maintain boost clocks.

 

If you think that's sort of a niche thing to care about and you'd rather have a motherboard that isn't dead-end for upgrades, PCIe 4.0 support, and double the CPU threads (  AMD's 16 vs Intel's 8  ) for other multitasking work improvements, then go for the 3700x (also it's a tad cheaper up-front so nice value there).

[Webby]

2 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

Yup, nothing wrong with the benchmarks, but I stand by what I said about the difference not being "miles ahead".  If you care about 5-7 more FPS in games like Ashes of the Singularity at 1080p then go ahead and get the 9700k.  But also it runs hotter and requires more cooling to maintain boost clocks.

 

If you think that's sort of a niche thing to care about and you'd rather have a motherboard that isn't dead-end for upgrades, PCIe 4.0 support, and double the CPU threads (  AMD's 16 vs Intel's 8  ) for other multitasking work improvements, then go for the 3700x (also it's a tad cheaper up-front so nice value there).

I agree with you on that one, but I worry that the intel would be better long term. I worry that the small performance boost might mean something long term. What do you think?

[LogicWeasel]

27 minutes ago, Webby said:

I agree with you on that one, but I worry that the intel would be better long term. I worry that the small performance boost might mean something long term. What do you think?

Based on what?  Your worry sounds like more FUD than science.  Point to evidence where an AMD CPU's performance over Intel shrunk just because another year arrived?

[Webby]

18 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

Based on what?  Your worry sounds like more FUD than science.  Point to evidence where an AMD CPU's performance over Intel shrunk just because another year arrived?

It seems you misunderstood me. Games get more and more hungry for performance. I want a computer that will get me about 100-144 fps in AAA titles for as long as possible.

[LogicWeasel]

5 hours ago, Webby said:

It seems you misunderstood me. Games get more and more hungry for performance. I want a computer that will get me about 100-144 fps in AAA titles for as long as possible.

If I misunderstood than your question was phrased (in a non-exact) way that makes you think Intel CPUs are less "age prone" than the alternative.  If you only cared about age than why did you suggest your worry was about a small advantage now could grow into a wider lead?  Older CPUs age, it happens to all product.  Innovation/improvement phases out older stuff.

 

What you've now clarified in asking about is far more GPU-dependent.  AAA Titles don't suddenly go from mid-range CPU needs to needing modern very high-end core counts/perf in a matter of 2-ish years.  It's a progressive toll.  A high-end CPU now (from Intel or AMD) only becomes a mid-range performer after roughly 5-10 years depending on growth and it won't make a big difference whether it's an Intel i7-2600k or an AMD FX-8350, they've both become a bottleneck in old systems due to being old hardware.

 

Consider an example:  Is a buyer of a Ryzen 1600 from 2017 going to see a huge difference in AAA-title performance had they instead opted for an Intel i5-7600?  No not really, if anything thanks to the Ryzen having 2 more cores (and 12 total threads) it'll age far better than a 4 Core/Thread CPU as 6 cores (12 threads) become the norm in gaming needs (that trend is pretty well already here for many games like Battlefield and Call of Duty).  But the fact was that both CPUs were new around the same time-frame, and both were in about the same price-range.  Those were the options for under $300 gaming CPUs just a couple years ago.