Although 4k performance today is the same, and i agree that if you only game at 4k then the 2700x is a no brainer for value. It may not be such a big difference as i read being described.
2700x cant reach the same high framerates as the 9900k. When the high end gamers start picking up 4k 120hz+ screens over the next year or two and a couple more gpu generations, we may see the 9900k start to pull ahead even at 4k.
Im not saying this makes it worth it, or that it is even anywhere near a good idea for the budget minded, but it wont always be the case that the two chips match each other at 4k.
It's not just a no brainer for value at 4K, it's a no brainer at 4K period. The 9900K offers nothing more of note at that resolution. In a couple of years, those people making an argument for the 9900K today won't be interested in it, as something faster will have come along. The 9900K will be a boring relic to them by then. So why spend twice what you have to today for no real benefit?
At 1080p, if you simply MUST have the highest possible frame rates at any cost, don't care about value and have the money to burn, the 9900K is the obvious choice. But this thread is about pricing, and no one can argue that its pricing makes sense in the grand scheme of things, even if you want max FPS at 1080p and can afford it (which is irrelevant to pricing in and of itself). You just have to be honest, submit, bend over and let Intel have their way with you. It's rather odd how some people do this with a smile on their face or pretend like it's something different, as though the size of their bank balance alters reality. Someone's personal financial situation really doesn't come in to the equation when discussing the inherent pricing of an item, it just doesn't. That's a personal thing and each to their own, but many purchasers do seem to feel the need to justify and vindicate that pricing, simply because that amount of money doesn't mean anything to them. Completely missing the point.
For those people who are at 1080p and enter in to a 9900k purchase with ALL the facts, in full knowledge of the poor value and exorbitant price, there is no problem. Eyes wide open and all that. The puzzling thing is how some people appear to be deluding themselves as to what they've actually bought and the real world benefit it brings, more so if they're at higher resolutions... it's quite evident some people just wanted it for the sake of it and either didn't realise its true performance merit (or lack thereof), or are in denial about it.
I also don't think it's necessarily a healthy thing for the industry as a whole (other than retailers and Intel shareholders), nor does it bode well for future pricing... I mean, do these people WANT to keep paying such high prices purely for the sake of it? It's all well and good saying you can easily afford it, but you have to be incredibly selfish and short sighted, or just ignorant, to not see the potential damage that could result in the long term. I'm sure most people don't care, but it's something that should be considered. After all, we're enthusiasts, not rich aristocratic collectors of expensive things... well, most of us are.
More to the point, and arguably the most important thing to state, is that there will be a lot of people out there buying a 9900K for use at 4K, under the mistaken belief they are getting far superior performance over a CPU which is half the price... that's probably quite a logical assumption on the surface of things after all. Threads like this that discuss pricing should absolutely set out to make those people aware of the reality though. All this talk of "I can afford it, I want it, don't tell me what to do" is puerile and not at all helpful to anyone.