Consider upgrading if you want better performance for demanding tasks.
Consider upgrading if you want better performance for demanding tasks.
The advantages of a 1440p display are now available. Even with a 1080i resolution or limited by refresh rates, you’ll get a real upgrade for the coming year. Choosing 9700k offers some speed but won’t significantly improve your gaming experience. How much of a difference does 110 fps versus 130 fps make? Or the jump from 90 to 120 frames? For competitive titles, 8400 still delivers more than expected. In a year, there’s no certainty it will boost high frame rates in games. The screen quality remains unchanged. Unless your GPU is already struggling, this isn’t a guaranteed win today—it’s a hope for tomorrow. I understand you’re investing $300, which makes the upgrade decision tricky. It’s not worth risking unless you’re certain about the next steps. It doesn’t fix anything right now; it’s a chance to improve later. I’m unsure if you have to pick between nothing or a bigger investment. Maybe try a 10600k with a better motherboard (around $200 plus another $150) instead? That could give you a newer platform and the chance to get the latest 11th-gen chip later, or go for a 5600x ($300 plus $150)—faster than both but pricier. Spending a bit more might be smarter than discarding the older model.
I'm focusing on getting solid frame rates above 90 without straining the CPU in CPU-heavy titles. That's why I looked at the 9700k and decided not to upgrade the motherboard. My next PC will likely be powered by a Ryzen processor since replacing the GPU every few generations can get costly.
It depends on your plans, but it seems the discussion was about your future upgrade path. If you were using 1440p, you'd likely hit a GPU limitation sooner rather than later, whereas a 8400 would give better value and more consistent performance compared to the 9700k over time.
He mentioned he doesn't own a 1080ti. What I meant was that it seems he likely doesn't have a strong GPU right now if he's thinking about upgrading to a 3060. I can tell you the difference between 90fps and 120fps clearly. A 9700k will definitely handle high FPS games in a year. If someone last year said an 8700k wouldn't play modern titles well, I'd have laughed at them. The absence of hyperthreading is a bit disappointing, but in gaming performance, the 9700k remains one of the top choices, regardless of motherboard compatibility. With this in mind, I understand your perspective better. It really depends on the games he plays—less competitive ones might make his choice more sensible, while FPS titles would benefit more from a new CPU.
Then a CPU upgrade is unlikely to make much difference right now unless it's close to a 1080ti level or less. Unless he’s running MMOs, it might slightly ease some strain. So check if that’s the issue he’s facing. 2. I understand, but the jump from 1080p to 1440p isn’t the same. That improvement is quite significant. 3. It could be, or it might not be. Over the past year there’s been a noticeable boost in performance and game design. A year ago, a 5ghz 8700k still limited AMD’s best games compared to even strong i9-9900k models. Today, with the arrival of Ryzen 5000 and Intel’s new high-core, thermally optimized 10th gen CPUs that can reach 5ghz easily, things have changed. I own a 5.1ghz 8700k, which struggles to maintain high FPS in some games now compared to the latest chips at lower settings. Generally, a CPU with similar clock speeds is about on par with a 9700k most of the time. It doesn’t always perform as expected today, and I wouldn’t count on it delivering consistently tomorrow either. 4. If he’s playing competitive games, an upgrade probably won’t hurt much. But for esports titles like CS2077, SOTR, or Death Stranding, I think an 8400 is usually enough. Since he mentioned CPU saturation, it seems he isn’t focused on CSGO but likely on more demanding titles. Still, if he wants extra frames now, upgrading is an option—though I’d suggest spending the money elsewhere.