MonstroMart:

This is really a personal preference. What do you value the most? Fps or gfx quality and resolution. Personally while i value fps and less clutters more in games like Overwatch I value gfx quality and resolution significantly more in all the other type of games.

Oh yes I agree, I've turned down everything in OW as well, and enjoy the graphics in singleplayer games anyway. A Gsync (or Freesync for that reason) screen also helps with the general feeling of things in SP games or games with lower fps or input lag required. Still, buying a 2080TI and missing out on max fps and lowest 1% simply shows a lack of CPU power, anyway.

jbscotchman:

You should have bought that 3800x when you had the chance. 😉 I guarantee the 10700k will be much more expensive.

It's on sale at or near that price often at Best Buy. My local shop had several left last I checked.

Ricepudding:

you got a reference for that, would like to check it out, but as always i think it depends on the game, some prefer higher cores others might like higher clocks. It's possible the 4000 series might change this if they can push the 4.7/4.8ghz. Though we so many of us going towards 1440p gaming, a few frames here and there is quite small and they more fight on this level. with 4k just putting everything on par. You speak about having a decent intel rig already, but changing the CPU beyond a few things you would need to replace the same parts as you would changing to AMD. Only thing I could see being an issue is RAM and that would depend on the motherboard

Yeah, Gamer Nexus recently did a video on the 6700k. And there is a 7700k in the charts too. And when you look at the 6700k overclocked to 4.8ghz, is just under the 3700x and 3900x in games, we're talking within margin of error. And the 7700k at stock is about 3-6 frames faster than the 6700k in their charts at stock, and if you look at the 6700k oc numbers and add a few frames on top (because the 7700k is slightly faster and it can go to 5ghz), suddenly you have a 7700k at 5ghz matching or beating the 3700x and 3900x at stock. Hence why I haven't upgraded. I can honestly say that my 4 year old 7700k performs great in games and I have zero need to upgrade. A 9900k at 5ghz would be an upgrade, but I'm holding out to see what the next year or 18 months bring.

Daytona675:

Define high frames, saying mid range cards can handle 2160p is grossly untrue -- maybe in Minecraft or relics like CS:GO. Even a 2080ti can't max most games at 144-165hz. There's an upwards of 30% loss in frames going from 1080p to 4k and for a competitive gamer like myself that is HUGE..

That's an understatement. People don't seem to grasp that going from 1080p to just 1440p is a ~78% increase in pixel count. 4K is exactly 4 times 1080 which I really think people keep forgetting as well. Going to 4K (I've only tried downsampling though if that makes a huge difference in performance results) has always been a way bigger performance drop than 30% for me on a 1080 Ti. I bought a Ryzen 2900, with an MSI X470 motherboard, and 3600MHz RAM, fully expecting to only need to upgrade just the CPU later. The 2900 overclocked was plenty for gaming at 1440p 144Hz. The worst I saw when not GPU bottlenecked was well over 100 fps (forgot exactly, think 120ish) and that was with basically squat for a load on the CPU since games still don't properly use Ryzen. Upgraded to a 3900X (and Asus X570 since my X470 exploded) and now, even at stock, I don't think I've ever seen a CPU bottlenecked scenario yet. My 1080 Ti chokes well before I could hit any sort of CPU limit, which again would only happen because of poor game coding. So for anyone thinking about a Ryzen at 1440, go for it, even if you have a 144Hz monitor, I'm extremely confident you'll get well over 100 fps. And for the 0.0001% of you considering a 3900X, don't bother overclocking it. It's an unbelievable pain in the ass to tune its OC to its full potential, and results in a massive amount of increased heat output. It's not like the past where you could just increase the voltage and crank up the FSB or multiplier. As a bonus pain, in AVX workloads the thing practically starts a fusion reaction, so you'd have to turn your OC way lower or set an AVX offset if your BIOS supports it. And no, it never holds a 4.6GHz boost clock, even with PBO. For a tiny fraction of a second it hits 4550MHz on 1 or 2 cores according to HWInfo, but it's literally a fraction of a second. Clocks it actually holds in boost are 4.2-4.4GHz. AMD's marketing team straight up deceived customers.