9700K priced at $200
9700K priced at $200
Right now many people focus too much on upgrades, almost like it's a joke. It's more about showing they're using old hardware, like an i5-2500 or FX chip. They're playing with 8-year-old tech and can't imagine getting better soon. Personally, I'm using an 8700k and upgrading wouldn't matter much to me. I wouldn't have wanted a 9900k or even swapped it for a 10900k if possible. When I need something newer, I'll also look for a better motherboard.
The situation doesn’t make sense to invest in a 9900k for $300, since MC has a 10700k for just $20 more. The 10700k tends to do slightly better on the market, OC performs marginally better, and it offers more options for your motherboard. The 9700k for $200 might fit a budget-conscious buyer who needs a CPU right away and isn’t heavily involved in multitasking or streaming. It still delivers solid performance compared to most flagship CPUs available now, and it outperforms anything in the $200 range in current titles. However, the 9700k may struggle with upcoming games like Battlefield 6, which will require 8C 16T consoles and hyperthreading support. If you plan to stay in the future, you might need to upgrade later if you want top performance. I believe a $200 price point is reasonable, and it could be worthwhile to buy now and sell later when better chips become available or older models become scarce.
We’ll see. Others had similar comments a few years back, and I’ve noticed people mention their 9600k has been tough in F5 multiplayer. F6 developers generally say they’ll fully use the extra cores on consoles to expand the game’s possibilities, and I think they’re not alone in that view. What I’m saying is if you intend to keep a CPU for many years, the 9700k isn’t worth it even at 200 MHz. I’ve kept mine for at least three years. My 4790k lasted me six.
After I shared that idea, Tech Deals responded with concerns. I don't see it from a value standpoint. I also support his view that a 9900k is more sensible when you plan to use it for five years, for instance. I think he’s being a bit flexible about practical limits when he suggests that if $100 can make or break your project, you might need to reassess what matters most. Some people stick to a fixed budget and remain committed. We can always come up with reasons or justifications for another X amount in terms of Y performance if we really want to, so having a strict budget actually has its advantages.