Yeah that's really interesting and all. The point is whether a bottleneck exists. You liked his post so therefore you agree that "Every cpu bottle necked is utter nonsense at 4k, it’s not unless your real low end cpus"?
People have been complaining of large bottlenecks on high end 10th series cpu's. If you pit a 5800X3D vs a 13900k at 4k with a 4090 the 5800x3d is going to get lower fps in some, maybe many games
You aren't describing a bottleneck, just the 'measurable' difference between CPU's. Bottleneck is where you GPU isn't reaching high 90's % usage. Both results show the GPU @99% so no bottleneck. If GPU was at much lower usage then that is a bottleneck.
Your RAM looks like it could bottleneck your CPU though. Not sure if the bench picks up native timings but your RAM looks slow if not. You want 3600Mhz+ for AM4.
Difference between 5800X3D and 13900k is normal architecture differences. If 5800X3D is lower, it isn't a bottleneck just the differences in efficiency in the architectures. @ 4k results across many CPU's are single figure differences and near as makes no difference in the experience when gaming. It's the 1% lows in FPS that are usually most telling as max fps figures are so close and is usually considered as measurable error.
If you have a 4090 @ 4k and you are in high 95%+ GPU usage I wouldn't bother changing the CPU. LOts of money for little difference when actual gaming. 2560x1440 is ~45% of 4k, and 3440x1440 is ~60% of 4k (~1.5M more pixels than 2560).
Both resolutions will be bottlenecked with a 4090 as these resolutions are still a long way off 4k. Waste of a 4090.
i got a 2080 super at the moment.
) I certainly didn't upgrade from a 3080 to this to play in any lower resolution.
