I don't really see that happening based on the AT review of the 11700K. There isn't enough clock speed headroom left and the increased latency seems to be a bigger hit to overall gaming performance than the increased IPC is able to compensate for. If you compare the results it looks like this:
Title / CPU | 5800X | 11700K | 10700K | 9900KS |
Deus Ex MD (600p) | 269.8 | 217.4 | 211.8 | 214.5 |
FF XIV (768p) | 315.0 | 212.1 | 216.1 | 235.2 |
FF XV (720p) | 220.3 | 199.0 | 179.9 | 186.8 |
World of Tanks (768p) | 733.8 | 692.4 | 707.0 | 697.7 |
Borderlands 3 (360p) | 214.9 | 172.6 | 163.6 | 175.9 |
F1 2019 (768p) | 384.7 | 291.6 | 291.6 | 316.5 |
Far Cry 5 (720p) | 188.3 | 178.3 | 169.8 | 181.5 |
Gears Tactics (720p) | 389.2 | 310.9 | 309.9 | 306.2 |
GTA 5 (720p) | 180.8 | 176.2 | 175.4 | 176.7 |
RDR 2 (384p) | 190.7 | 149.8 | 157.4 | 167.1 |
Strange Brigade (720p) | 637.2 | 435.5 | 463.1 | 513.3 |
Moving to 1080p or beyond leads to a GPU bottleneck in most titles in which case there isn't much of a gap between any of the CPUs and there are even a few cases where one of the Intel CPUs will wind up on top, but those are almost always within a margin of error. The 1080p Max quality benchmarks have the CPUs clumped up together in almost every title to the point where there's no difference what you go with, but in most cases the 11700K is still at the bottom.
The AVX results suggest that the i9 probably has some room left if it could draw up to say 275W in non-AVX workloads, but this thin is already pretty close to the edge and the increased clocks really only get it to where the 9900KS is already at. It's impressive that Intel has been able to push 14nm as far as they have, but I don't think an extra ~3% clock speed or any firmware tweaks are going to change what we're seeing now in a substantial way.