Advice on Last Gaming Build EVER

[Dryspace]

I am finally going to replace my February 2014 build (Win 7, 4770K, GTX 770 -> 980 Ti -> 2080 Ti) with a new build. I also see this as being my last gaming PC, unless a AAA PC Gaming Renaissance or general industry revolution occurs. I waited this long because Life interrupted serious gaming for the last few years, and because I was hoping that prices would generally return to a more palatable state (What a maroon!)

I am building it mainly to:

* ...play DX12 games from the last several years
* ...be able to run Steam/Connect/etc. again, and therefore play any existing/older games that can only be played via Web-based DRM accounts.
* ...play the two or three future AAA games that may possibly interest me

It will only be used for these purposes --- I will continue to use my Windows 7 rig for general computing, and for all games that do not require DX12 or Web-based DRM accounts.

I would like feedback primarily on the CPU, but I implore anyone who is kind enough to respond to take my specific use case into account. First, I don't even want to use Windows 10, but I certainly will never, ever touch Windows 11. Hopefully other options will be practicable by the time Valve et al. ditch Windows 10. At any rate I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

I'm sticking with Intel simply because I play mostly older games, and for those games which I will be forced to play on the Windows 10 rig I don't want to run into the problems that AMD processors occasionally have with performance or compatibility.

To finally get to the point: The newest Intel processors are garbage for gaming, and frankly the entire "Big/Little" architecture does no favors for the gamer. I need the highest single-core clock speed possible, and the highest overall clock speed, in order to brute force through various issues that result in framerate drops.

Also, the newest CPUs have no hyperthreading, and it is not clear to me what impact this has for older games. Older games can already have performance issues as a result of newer HW/SW/drivers, so I don't need anything that further exacerbates the issue. Quite the opposite, as I said earlier.

So, given that I'm resigned to Intel, it seems my only option is a 14900K / 14900KF. Or a 13900K / 13900KF with a small speed sacrifice. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[Intel_man]

Contrary to my username, I would suggest you get an AMD Ryzen 9800X3D. The extra cache it has does wonders for games that are CPU intensive.

I can't really recommend the 14th or 13th gen Intel CPU's with their whole microcode issue that were killing CPU's. That problem should be fixed by now, but it's not something I would necessarily roll the dice on just because of the nature of the issue.

 

[Dryspace]

Contrary to my username, I would suggest you get an AMD Ryzen 9800X3D. The extra cache it has does wonders for games that are CPU intensive.

Thank you for your reply. You don't forsee any problems or annoyances for games from ~1998 - 2013 if I go with an AMD processor like the 9800X3D?

As I'm sure you can understand, I am hesitant to go with an AMD-based system when I have only built Intel since 2003, but I am willing to consider AMD if the pure gaming performance is that much better than Intel, and since the new system is only meant for games from ~2014+, but as I said will have to be used for older games that require Steam et al.

Also, I was surprised to see that AMD's specs actually recommend liquid cooling for the 9800X3D.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I'm not happy about the measly 5.2GHz max speed of the 9800X3D. I was really looking forward to going from 4.2GHz (4770K mildly overclocked) to 6GHZ.

 

[Dryspace]

Contrary to my username, I would suggest you get an AMD Ryzen 9800X3D. The extra cache it has does wonders for games that are CPU intensive.

After a bit more research, it seems that the 14900K/KS generally performs equal or better than the 9800X3D at 4K, in both average framerates and 0.1% lows, which are most important for me, as I target a VSync-locked 60 fps.

It seems that the 9800X3D is better at lower resolutions like 1920x1080 and for people who target maximal framerates. I'm hoping that if I never run the Intel CPU at consistently high usage --- which should not happen --- I won't have to worry about degradation.

 

[Intel_man]

You do you man... if you're dead set on grabbing a 14900K, I'm not stopping you.

I wouldn't touch a 14900K with a 10 feet pole for multiple reasons. I definitely wouldn't get that over a 9800X3D.

 

[beers]

My man you have some weird ideas about computers.

 

[Dryspace]

Thanks again for the replies. Which specific points do you guys believe I am wrong about? I need all the help I can get.

But I'm sure you can understand, I like reasons for suggestions, and also --- as I made clear in my original post --- I expect that a person's specific use case be taken into account, as there is no such thing as "one size fits all" in the computing realm.

Thus far, the only two reasons presented for going with a 9800X3D are CPU-intensive applications, which don't apply to me, and microcode issues, which Intel_man thinks should be fixed by now.

Does the microcode issue affect users who don't max/stress their CPUs, and never run them at more than, say, 50% utilization?

 

[beers]

Buy what you like, you already decided.

 

[Intel_man]

Does the microcode issue affect users who don't max/stress their CPUs, and never run them at more than, say, 50% utilization?

It was a voltage issue. Specifically it was overvolting the chips and degrading the performance prematurely and at the end causing instability.

You're also not going to get 6GHz from a 14900k. You'll be glad to even run at the advertised boost clocks with normal cooling solutions. That thing draws a lot of power.

But as I've said before, you do you. I've already said my suggestion. Take it or leave it.

 

[Dryspace]

It was a voltage issue. Specifically it was overvolting the chips and degrading the performance prematurely and at the end causing instability.

You're also not going to get 6GHz from a 14900k. You'll be glad to even run at the advertised boost clocks with normal cooling solutions. That thing draws a lot of power.

But as I've said before, you do you. I've already said my suggestion. Take it or leave it.

Alright, thanks. Regarding the 14900K though, 6GHz _is_ the advertised boost speed, with the KS being 6.2GHz.

 

[Dryspace]

Buy what you like, you already decided.

When you get a chance, can you tell me more about what I do and do not think, lol? *shakes head*

In fact, I had fully made up my mind to go with the 9800X3D until yesterday, when I did a bit more research and found that the 9800X3D is not a clear winner when it comes to 4K gaming at 60 fps. I use VSync to lock a solid framerate, so 0.1% lows are very important.

I haven't done a lot of research overall, but I needed to make a decision, which is why I took the trouble to find a forum in hopes of feedback. I suppose the worst-case scenario is that I make a mistake and have to sell what I have and buy something else.

 

[Darren]

Frankly, your whole post reeks of early 2000s computer mentality. I imagine your qualms with Windows after 7 are based somewhere in security concerns and forced updates, which I understand, but you're missing out on a lot of stability and software improvements. Particularly in modern games, which seems to be your target use case. Computers aren't appliances. They change over time, including the software you run on them. If you don't like the new stuff, that's fine, but if you want to play new stuff, you need to accept this. Windows 7 as a whole isn't even supported by Steam now. Also, any remotely modern processor (Intel 8th gen and higher) flat will not work on Windows 7 (barring weird hacks).

AMD pretty much dominates the CPU market across the board now. This is VERY different from what you're probably remembering in the mid 2000's into the late 2010's. As a general consumer at 60 FPS, you might be fine with the Intel, however you're flat wasting your money dollar/performance. Your focus on clock speed is indicative that you don't really understand the generational improvements. A 4770K at 3.9GHz (boost default) isn't even on the same playing field as a modern 4 core 8 threaded chip at the same speeds. Power consumption, instruction sets, architecture within the chip, all change and have improvements that go beyond clock speed.

Check out the scores of the Ryzen 3 3300X (released 2020), a 4 core 8 thread CPU at 4.2GHz boost, 300MHz higher but otherwise matching the 4770K in core/threads. It is more than 30 percent faster per thread, based on this. This is also a 5 year old CPU, so improvements clock per clock are even higher now.

UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs Intel Core i7-4770K

Based on 188,180 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and the Intel Core i7-4770K, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,477 CPUs.

cpu.userbenchmark.com

Consider this, driving 100MPH in a 90's Honda Civic feels like you're about to die. 100MPH in a Mercedes S class or Lamborghini, is a completely different experience. Is the speed the same? Yep. Is the experience and real performance of each the same? Not at all. This is a gross over simplification but gets the idea across. There's more than just the raw speed at play, and it's not a linear comparison.

 

[beers]

When you get a chance, can you tell me more

Sure man, I was tempted to write a reply but honestly ChatGPT did a pretty good job.

-----------

Alright, man, I've read this entire thread, and honestly, we need to pump the brakes here. You're confidently tossing around some hilariously wrong takes, so let's quickly clear these up before you drop thousands on an ill-informed build:


1. "Intel CPUs don’t have hyperthreading"?
Dude, Intel’s 14900K literally lists hyperthreading as one of its main selling points. You're not just a little wrong here; you're spectacularly wrong. Two seconds on Google would’ve saved you from this embarrassing claim.


2. "Big/Little hybrid cores are garbage for gaming"?
This isn't remotely accurate. Benchmarks clearly show modern Intel hybrid CPUs manage games—and background tasks—extremely well. If your frames are tanking, it's not because Intel dared put efficient cores in your CPU. Your gaming problem isn't the architecture—it's your misunderstanding of it.


3. "AMD compatibility paranoia for games from 1998–2013"?
Are we seriously worried about compatibility with games from literally two decades ago? This isn't the Athlon 64 era anymore. Modern Ryzen CPUs run legacy titles just fine. You're clinging to outdated fears from 2003, not 2025.


4. Your weird obsession with 6GHz:
You're fixated on raw GHz like it's 2004. Modern CPUs deliver huge gains from architecture, instructions-per-clock (IPC), cache improvements, and thread management—not just clock speeds. You're chasing empty numbers instead of actual performance. Plus, good luck consistently hitting those 6GHz turbo numbers without serious cooling investment (like premium liquid cooling)—your stock air cooler dreams are DOA.


5. "I'll never exceed 50% CPU usage to dodge Intel’s microcode issue"?
Who exactly will enforce your imaginary CPU usage ceiling? Are you going to panic when it hits 51% and shut down the game? You're buying top-tier hardware only to deliberately neuter it with imaginary restrictions. It's not only unrealistic; it's outright ridiculous. If Intel chips really had such catastrophic voltage degradation, they'd be recalling chips, not shrugging it off.


6. Windows 7 & 10 fixation and hatred of Windows 11:
You're literally building a state-of-the-art gaming rig but refuse the operating system specifically optimized for modern hardware. Refusing Windows 11 isn't clever—it's stubbornly sabotaging your own build. It's like buying a Ferrari and only driving it on gravel roads because you're "loyal" to potholes. Enjoy lag, bugs, and driver compatibility hell!


7. Irrational fears about AMD due to "only building Intel since 2003":
It's been two decades—AMD CPUs today are nothing like they were in 2003. The Ryzen 9800X3D with massive 3D cache is literally dominating gaming benchmarks. Refusing to even consider AMD now isn't loyalty; it's nostalgia poisoning your wallet and performance potential.


8. Ignoring AMD’s platform longevity advantage:
AMD consistently provides multiple CPU generation upgrades per motherboard, which offers huge flexibility. Intel is historically far more restrictive. You're sacrificing future-proofing and value just because of stubborn Intel brand loyalty.


Finally, your dramatic "last gaming PC ever" proclamation:
Look, we've all said it. Yet here you are again. You'll probably be building another rig within 5 years, repeating these same outdated worries. Just build a modern rig now, enjoy gaming again, and drop the drama.


Bottom line: your post reeks of nostalgia and paranoia from early 2000s tech forums. Before you burn money, update your mindset, fix your facts, and maybe you'll actually enjoy gaming again instead of worrying about imaginary problems.