i9 9900k to 7800x3d?

[Ralphio1337]

Hi...ive got an i9 9900k OC to 5.0ghz on all cores. Ive recently bought a RTX 4080 and us a 34inch 1440p ultrawide 144hz monitor. I've been told that my GPU is probably bottlenecking?

Full current system is I9 9900k, 32gb DDR4 @ 3600, RTX 4080 and a 1000w psu.

System i'm looking at is A 7800X3D, Asus Strix X670e-a gaming board....either 32gb/64GB{just to fill all 4 slots) Corsair Vengence 6000 c30.

All the parts I need are currently in stock at last....I just kinda of wondered if ill see much of a performence increase?...i've googled ect but theres not much comaparison between these chips that I can see, and haven't really been keeping up to date
over the last few years. I mainly game, do a lot of VR and have multiple devices running off my PC.

Is it worth the upgrade?....or should i wait for next gen?....Thanks for any advice.

Just curious if you (or anyone else) went down this route, as i've found myself in a similar situation with a i9900k@5gz with same specs as you (Except a 4070ti) and wondering if its worth making the jump to a 7800X3D. The graphs in the first reply dont mention what GPU the benchmarks are running either, but with the increase from DDR4 3600mhz -> DDR5 5600mhz should be significant? I'm also taking into account the additional of PCIE5 lanes on a B650 motherboard vs the ROG XI Hero, as i believe they share a lane on the Z390 whilst on the b650 they're either seperate or have enough bandwidth to not make a difference. Also, Dont tell my wife, she'll kill me..

 

[Tetras]

The graphs in the first reply dont mention what GPU the benchmarks are running either

4090, see here.

but with the increase from DDR4 3600mhz -> DDR5 5600mhz should be significant?

It depends on the resolution, the game and the timings, but the impact of this is not much (video) and higher settings/resolutions make it less so. Bottom of the barrel DDR5 can even be slower than DDR4.

I'm also taking into account the additional of PCIE5 lanes on a B650 motherboard vs the ROG XI Hero, as i believe they share a lane on the Z390 whilst on the b650 they're either seperate or have enough bandwidth to not make a difference. Also, Dont tell my wife, she'll kill me..

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the ROG XI Hero has a (full) 16 lane primary slot unless you use the second one (then it drops to 8), but the performance impact of running a 4090 on a PCI-E 3.0 board like Z390 is minimal in most cases, a few percent (article) and so far as I'm aware PCI-E 5.0 is not enabled anyway, since the 4090 is PCI-E 4.0.

 

[Ralphio1337]

4090, see here.



It depends on the resolution, the game and the timings, but the impact of this is not much (video) and higher settings/resolutions make it less so. Bottom of the barrel DDR5 can even be slower than DDR4.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the ROG XI Hero has a (full) 16 lane primary slot unless you use the second one (then it drops to 8), but the performance impact of running a 4090 on a PCI-E 3.0 board like Z390 is minimal in most cases, a few percent (article) and so far as I'm aware PCI-E 5.0 is not enabled anyway, since the 4090 is PCI-E 4.0.

This is what I mean: Intel is now allowing motherboard designers to add Gen 5 M.2 NVMe slots on their upcoming 700-series motherboards, but they're going about this by stealing PCIe lanes from the x16 PEG slot. This means that when 13th Gen Core users install an SSD in that M.2 slot, it will redirect eight lanes that were used by the x16 graphics slot, and use those on the M.2 slot.

 

[Tetras]

This is what I mean: Intel is now allowing motherboard designers to add Gen 5 M.2 NVMe slots on their upcoming 700-series motherboards, but they're going about this by stealing PCIe lanes from the x16 PEG slot. This means that when 13th Gen Core users install an SSD in that M.2 slot, it will redirect eight lanes that were used by the x16 graphics slot, and use those on the M.2 slot.

Yeah, because unlike Zen 4, alder/raptor doesn't have any PCI-E 5.0 M.2 lanes, the same issue is present on existing boards. But, based on the scaling results in the article I linked, the performance impact should be fairly minimal for a high-end card.

 

[Twinz]

I think a 9900K is long past its best days as a high end gaming CPU.

If we assume the 10700K is equivalent then even at 1440P the 7800X3D is some 53% faster. This with a 4090 but a 4080 is not far behind...

If the 9900k can get 160fps on a 144hz monitor, I don't see the problem, or a compelling reason to upgrade.

I would like to see 1% lows, but if those are also good, I wouldn't bother.

I considered upgrading my 5800X3D / platform, but my Reverb headset runs at 90fps. The 5800X3D still has a lot of headroom on the driving sims I run. Even if another CPU is capable of 500fps, I'll never see it on my headset.

 

[mattyfez]

Short answer is no, it's not worth it.

Ask again in 3 years unless you have money to burn.

 

[kute]

It probably is bottling it a little, but I feel like the 9900k still gives more than playable frames.

 

[MartinPrince]

If the 9900k can get 160fps on a 144hz monitor, I don't see the problem, or a compelling reason to upgrade.

I would like to see 1% lows, but if those are also good, I wouldn't bother.

I considered upgrading my 5800X3D / platform, but my Reverb headset runs at 90fps. The 5800X3D still has a lot of headroom on the driving sims I run. Even if another CPU is capable of 500fps, I'll never see it on my headset.

This is the point. My monitor can do 180Hz but I've long since realised that if I can do at least 90fps then I'm perfectly happy and can barely notice the difference with 180fps. Which is why, depending on the game, I will limit it (in Nvidia Control panel) to between 90-120fps, thereby saving on heat, noise and £'s.