beating a dead horse.. 9900k vs 3900x 4k 98hz+ gaming

[firedrop]

I really can't decide between a 9900k or a 3900x for my gaming PC. I have an asus pg27uq 4k monitor which can run anywhere from 98-144hz (i usually just keep it at 98hz)

 

I have a 2080ti

 

for pure 4k gaming, do you guys think i'd see any fps difference in a 9900k and a 3900x? do you guys predict that the extra 4 cores will be meaningful for gaming within the next 5 years?

 

pros/cons to both for strictly 4k gaming?

 

edit: the game I will be playing the most is CoD Warzone. I can't find any 4k warzone 3900x vs 9900k benchmarks

[juuuuukes]

If you plan only on gaming, 9900k will be good. If you do any other kind of workloads - pick 3900x.

 

For myself, I would take a 3900x. You might see a 2-5% less FPS now, but in the future 3900x should outperform the 9900k

[SavageNeo]

4 minutes ago, firedrop said:

I really can't decide between a 9900k or a 3900x for my gaming PC. I have an asus pg27uq 4k monitor which can run anywhere from 98-144hz (i usually just keep it at 98hz)

 

I have a 2080ti

 

for pure 4k gaming, do you guys think i'd see any fps difference in a 9900k and a 3900x? do you guys predict that the extra 4 cores will be meaningful for gaming within the next 5 years?

 

pros/cons to both for strictly 4k gaming?

 

edit: the game I will be playing the most is CoD Warzone. I can't find any 4k warzone 3900x vs 9900k benchmarks

i9 9900k will be 0-2fps better in 4k but 3900x is better. better for future, support pci e 4,0, 4 moire cores and 8 more threads for workload and future, use less power, heats less than 9900k

[Xkillerpn]

Not at 4k not at 1440p, 3900x is a better bet go with it. 

[Enderman]

The 9900k is very slightly better at gaming (in the majority of games).

If you care about 2 or 3 fps more then get the 9900K.

If you do literally anything else other than game like video or photo editing, streaming, running other programs when gaming, etc. then get the 3900X.

[firedrop]

i do very much care about 2-3 fps and know the 9900k is slightly superior for gaming ATM, but what I'm most concerned with is.. I don't plan on upgrading my mobo+cpu for about 5 years after this. I usually buy top of the line parts and try to have the PC last for 5-6 years and then replace/upgrade it.

 

I know i'm kind of asking y'all to predict the future, but.. 5 years from now do you guys think think the 9900k/socket 1150 will still be great for gaming? or do you think the am4 socket will be superior for gaming 5 years from now? probably an impossible question to answer.. but what are your thoughts?

[.Apex.]

34 minutes ago, firedrop said:

edit: the game I will be playing the most is CoD Warzone. I can't find any 4k warzone 3900x vs 9900k benchmarks

Maybe you can't but you can always look at 1080p benchmarks instead with an overpowered GPU to figure out the limits of the CPU, because the CPU isn't affected by resolution.
 

In this example the 3900X is consistently getting well above 144hz and is being the bottleneck as it reached the limit of what the CPU can output and since that same "limit" translates to 4K as well then it doesn't matter whether you go with the 3900X or 9900K in that particular game because in that scenario your monitor is the bottleneck as it can't display anything above 144hz, let alone 98hz.

 

The reason why the FPS is lower at 4K is simply because the GPU is being stressed out more, if you had a stronger GPU you'd hit that same FPS wall that you did at 1080p.