Considering the price differences between the 10900k and the 11900k before making a decision.
Considering the price differences between the 10900k and the 11900k before making a decision.
I purchased the R7 5800x to achieve better performance for modded and building games. My i9 10900k handles these smoothly with TVB or a 5.2/5.3ghz boost. The 5800x works fine on its own. Since the i9 11900k offers similar IPC, it should perform similarly for these types of titles. If it costed nearly as much as the 5800x, I’d have thought about it. I run multiple machines. For this purpose, I use my i9 9900k with a 1080 ti. For standard games, I opt for the i9 10900k via TVB and 2080 ti. The 5800x can manage games like Space Engineers that have extensive content, making them unplayable on older Intel CPUs (8th, 9th, 10th gen) without a full 5ghz overclock or with TVB. If I had one machine, the i9 11900k would be ideal, but like with the RTX 2080, I wouldn’t feel good about the price.
Occasionally, in certain games, performance varies, but not consistently. Most results are fairly balanced, with some favoring one path and others the opposite, and the 11900k wins reflect a narrow margin. For me, a genuine successor must consistently outperform. That’s why I struggled to accept the 9700k when it wasn’t always superior to the 8700k. Since it doesn’t always match the i9 at every level, it shouldn’t have been labeled an i9. It should have simply been an i7, as it remains better across all scenarios than the 10700k. Was the 5800x only marginally better than the 3800x? Or the 3800x versus the 2700x? Or the 2700x compared to the 1800x? No—it was consistently stronger every time.
Other titles favoring similar performance will behave similarly across both processors. Those seeking greater efficiency will perform better on the i9 11900k due to its higher IPC. Building games would benefit from its extra core since it’s primarily for gaming rather than multitasking. I wouldn’t use the additional cores if I were working on 3D content.