My actual performance is higher than I was getting from my 10900kf. That's just my personal experience. If it wasn't, I would have kept the 10900kf. And in GPU bound games (ie. 4K gaming) where higher clock speed has more of an impact than core count, the higher boost clock on the 11900k allows for frames to be prepared faster. Again, we're talking about very small difference here. I'm not saying that the 11900k is going to get you from 50fps on a 5950x to 55fps. As for performance of the 11700k...it is literally impossible for it to be faster than the 11900k. It's the exact same chip. The 11900k just happens to be a higher binned version with the additional option of thermal velocity boost.What is your 11900K ahead of? The 11700K or Ryzen counterparts? As in every review video I've seen, it sucks. The older 10900K and it's smaller brother, 11700K, are both faster in most workloads. The 11900K only comes ahead, marginally, in certain titles, that are very few.
Extremely poor for a new CPU to not only be beaten by it's older generation, it's competitor, but also smaller sibling.
PCIe 4.0 is more or loss pointless today for the general and average consumer. This has also been proven several times. The only time you'll see the difference is between benchmark runs, in numbers on a sheet. Nothing you'll notice on a day to day basis.
The problem with a lot of the reviews is that they're sticking to "base intel guidance" on how they run the test. That's not really helpful to me because I'm not running my 10900kf with base guidance. I buy a proper motherboard with proper overclocking support to let the chip do what it can do. But in the reviews they've actually gone and disabled many settings which are enabled by default on most motherboards, so they end up with actual lower performance than you'd get if you literally just bought the cpu, stuck it in the motherboard, and powered it up and went straight into windows. I understand why the reviewers are doing it. Intel shouldn't pretend the TDP is 125W and have motherboard manufacturers remove all the limits and have the chip pull way more power and etc etc etc...but again...at the end of the day, what those reviews show is not indicative of what you'd get by simply buying the chip and plugging it in, so they are in no way at all helpful in determining whether it's going to be a good chip for my usage or not.
And in this case...after my own testing...I found it a valuable upgrade for me. Is it better than the AMD CPUs? I never said that. There's a lot of value to be had in having the additional cores. However I went this path because I game at 4K with always GPU bound scenarios and as I mentioned, I saw many indicators that suggested there would be higher performance due to higher clock speed in those GPU bound scenarios. Just as an example I ran Crysis Remastered with the 11900k and it blows the 10900kf out of the water. Of course that's to be expected since it's a ridiculously single threaded game. But there are definitely real scenarios where the 11900k can easily come out on top, even if as I mentioned, those differences in general are rather small.
Regarding PCIe 4.0 being useless...you couldn't be more wrong. What's the highest IOPS you can get from a PCIe 3.0 NVMe drive outside of Optane? I have an SN850 coming with 1,000,000 IOPS. Outside of just transfer speed of large files, it also greatly improves the reading of a lot of smaller random files. So streaming data while gaming which can cause stutters and fps loss become less problematic. Or your OS and applications can launch faster. I mean if these things don't matter to you then good for you. You could probably be happy with a $200 3770k system off of craigs list as that is a very capable chip as well.