![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Welcome to the last 30 years of the 20th century, especially the 1990s.
Typically turn the old machine into some other computing device for the household. Like my 6700k is now soley a media server/HTPC. OP putting in a 4090 in his rig will be a big jump in performance and save the money for intels next socket 12 to 18 months from now.
So I mostly play older games because those typically have mods that allow me to play in 4K3D. The newest game I own is probably CBP 77 and Halo Infinite. I haven't seen any new titles that actually interest me. I do have CBP 77, bought it at launch and stopped playing like 1 hr into the game due to performance at 4k.
only in extremely cpu bound games.
if you dont care about ray tracing why not just get a 7900XTX? Its about 2/3 the price of a 4090 and has very close raster performance. Once the new intel socket comes out or if you like the performance of the Ryzen 8xxx series you can then upgrade the rest of your machine if you feel like you need to. You're not gonna be missing out on 30% of anything. Starfield is built on a shit game engine and lets face... its ugly for how much of a resource hog it is. My guess is within 6 months it will be better optimized and the performance difference will be more like 10% to 15%
Because I need to stick to Nvidia because of said geo-11 4K3D mods. And because the one thing I hate more than upgrading PC parts is buying something and it not being enough to last me a couple of years especially for 3D 4K VR. 4090 SHOULD last me for a bit while no?
IMO a 4090 will be a significant increase in performance from your 2080ti and your 10th gen i9 won't be some huge bottleneck the few others here are saying. It will be a bottleneck, but not a significant one. I'll give you an example... when I went from a gtx1080 to a rtx3090 in my 6700k I could play the games I wanted to at 4k with eye candy cranked at significantly higher frame rates then my gtx1080 could at 1080p... and I was able to squeek another 10 months out of my skylake before building my current 7800x3d last week...
Sure link some vids, but be sure that they are 4K+ VR rez like the OP stated.
Not all of them were 4k but they were to show his cpu struggling in a few cpu limited cases to even hold much over 60 while something like a 13900k was in the upper 80s. He has since said he is fine with only 50 to 60 fps so no point in posting that stuff now when I get home later.
I still would want to see it. Keeps me informed
No matter what I post here there will always be excuses from some people but unoptimized games are a real thing you need to deal with and cpu limited games are becoming more common. For now here is a link for Starfield performance that I mentioned earlier. In one of the most cpu intensive areas, the 10900k is only averaging 50 fps with minimums in the 30s where as the 13900k is averaging 110 fps with 80 fps minimums. Now this is of course not even close to normal for most games but it shows that having the brute force of a current high end cpu can help you get the most out of a 4090 in cases like that. And I said earlier it is night and day difference in Crysis remastered too where my 9900k was only getting in the 60s in several wide open areas my 13700 is now well over 100 fps in those same locations. And Witcher 3 with RT was a stuttery mess at times as my 9900k could not always hold 60 fps but its smooth performance with my 13700k.
We are looking for 4K or VR benchmarks like the OP stated. Delivering a single CPU intensive game benchmark review isn't contributing anything except your own narrative.
Maybe read a little bit closer before commenting. I was talking about an example right there of a massive difference that would even impact playability and gave experiences with a couple of games I had personally played on a 4080 with a 9900k and 13700k.
