Any reason to upgrade from a i7-4770K??

M Diddy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
189
After reading a couple of threads on here, it looks like a no, but, just curious if there's any good reason to upgrade to something new. Have been out of the game for a while since I built my current system back in 2013. My 4770 is still running strong at 4.3 Ghz without a blip.

Thanks for any help!
 
Nah man, you're good.

Judging from your sig specs: a new graphics card would be your next logical upgrade.
 
In my main rig, I jumped from a 2600k to a 4770k to a 4790k to a 5930k and now to a AMD 2700x. To be totally honest, I think what made the most difference in those updates were switching from spinners to SSDs then to M2 NVME drives along with upgrading graphics cards (I can't even remember anymore what I had but I ended up with 2x Titan Xps in SLI which I just recently separated so I could put one in another box).

If you can run what programs you need to run, I'd keep it as is and just updates the parts that need it.
 
Nah man, you're good.

Judging from your sig specs: a new graphics card would be your next logical upgrade.

Funny you say that. Just installed an Asus RX Vega 64 today, so that's done. Was going to go for a Radeon 7, but heard there's going to be about 9 total units for sale when it releases next month.
 
In my main rig, I jumped from a 2600k to a 4770k to a 4790k to a 5930k and now to a AMD 2700x. To be totally honest, I think what made the most difference in those updates were switching from spinners to SSDs then to M2 NVME drives along with upgrading graphics cards (I can't even remember anymore what I had but I ended up with 2x Titan Xps in SLI which I just recently separated so I could put one in another box).

If you can run what programs you need to run, I'd keep it as is and just updates the parts that need it.

Agreed on the SSD. When I got my first one way back when, that was easy the biggest improvement I've ever seen by buying just one part.

Thanks guys. Looks like I'll hang onto the 4770 for a while yet.
 
I still sport 3770k and 4770k box's. Both do what they need to do. I plan to run them till they are dead.
 
depends of what kind of work you do, basically an 8 core cpu with fast ddr4 ram will do everything much much faster.

I went from 4790k to 9900k and the difference is mind boggling, in heavy multiplayer games my avg fps is very consistent now with the 9900k where with the 4790k I would get 50fps drops just by looking in different direction where the cpu had to process more stuff on the screen.

like I said, if you doing just browsing, playing very old single player games, unzipping 480p movies, photo editing flat polygons with no effects etc, then the 4770k will do just fine.

I know a lot of people in here will tell you that you are fine, but they are on the same boast as you, no clue what it is like to rock with a 9900k and 4000mhz ddr4 ram.
 
I think for what I do, the 4770 is just fine. Don't see a need to drop another 1K on a new mobo, ram, and CPU for a mild bump.
 
My quad core i7 is really showing its age in a lot of games, especially at 144hz+

In other games I play, I now know that a 6 core or 8 core scale nearly perfectly in performance and they simply put my quad core in the dirt.

Just be glad you are on a 4770k rather than a 7700k.
 
I know a lot of people in here will tell you that you are fine, but they are on the same boast as you, no clue what it is like to rock with a 9900k and 4000mhz ddr4 ram.
I think a lot of people in here do have a clue.

Is it worth it to upgrade, yes, is it an absolutely necessary in this case? Not really.
In this case, the OP could look into a video card upgrade, as already suggested, and get some more time out of the 4770k. Better things are waiting around the corner.

Upgrades are always relevant to budget and what is currently on the market.
 
I think a lot of people in here do have a clue.

Is it worth it to upgrade, yes, is it an absolutely necessary in this case? Not really.
In this case, the OP could look into a video card upgrade, as already suggested, and get some more time out of the 4770k. Better things are waiting around the corner.

Upgrades are always relevant to budget and what is currently on the market.

video card upgrade will make the online gaming experience even worse with that cpu.
 
video card upgrade will make the online gaming experience even worse with that cpu.
Why?

He already bought a video card upgrade. Let’s ask him if his gaming experience is worse. That makes no sense.
 
I wish I hadn’t upgraded from my 4770k @4.5ghz to my 6850k at 4.1Ghz to spare the expense. I don’t think I saw any significant difference at all. There are a few very specific games that use more than 4 core/4 thread and the rest rely on clock speed. That is changing, but at a snails pace. I wouldn’t buy new with less than 8 cores right now because the next gen consoles will use 8 core Ryzens and console gaming development helps drive PC gaming. You don’t want to slip behind the console bar on core count for future gaming considerations given the potential to be left slighted. But is it needed right now? Not so much.

Here’s some benchmarks showing how CPU scaling works in modern games.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html
 
Last edited:
I missed the part where OP got a new graphics card.

Still do not see the need to spend for a new Mobo, processor or ram though until they are ready too.
 
I wish I hadn’t upgraded from my 4770k @4.5ghz to my 6850k at 4.1Ghz to spare the expense. I don’t think I saw any significant difference at all. There are a few very specific games that use more than 4 core/4 thread and the rest rely on clock speed. That is changing, but at a snails pace. I wouldn’t buy new with less than 8 cores right now because the next gen consoles will use 8 core Ryzens and console gaming development helps drive PC gaming. You don’t want to slip behind the console bar on core count for future gaming considerations given the potential to be left slighted. But is it needed right now? Not so much.

Here’s some benchmarks showing how CPU scaling works in modern games.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html


that's all single player benchmarks, Multiplayer performance is a whole different animal, 4 core cpus choke with latest MP games with games like BF5 inside a full 64p server takes tha six core 8700k to 93% cpu usage. The 4 core 4770k chokes when playing bf5 inside a 64p server, you get a lot of stuttering, 40fps drops by looking at a more complex scene in the game, streaming will even further reduce the MP performance by at least 20%.

single player benchmarks with nothing going on in the game are meaningless when you want to see how different cpu's perform.

what is wrong with some of you, 4 core cpu's are done for multiplayer games, get rid of them, unless you enjoy benchmarking single player games with nothing going on in it.
 
Last edited:
what is wrong with some of you,

Some of us gave been around long enough to know there’s nothing “mind boggling” about the upgrade from a 4770k vs 9900k

And that a nice graphics card upgrade on a older competent system goes a long way to pacify the urge to upgrade the full system. I did say I wouldn’t buy a quad or hex core now for future proofing if you plan to keep the CPU longer than three years, but I wouldn’t discount a quad core with 8 threads and a top tier GPU for 95% of the games out there at the current time.

If you game at 1080p resolution is one reason to upgrade your CPU, but I’d venture moving to a 2560x1440 16x9 or 3440x1440 ultrawide would be a more enjoyable upgrade for most gamers than a CPU upgrade from his position — and then you are right back at GPU being the primary bottleneck.

The other reason would be if you do a bunch of intense multitasking or video editing. He already has the quad core. It’s running good, we aren’t saying never — we are saying, perhaps, not yet.
 
Last edited:
Some of us gave been around long enough to know there’s nothing “mind boggling” about the upgrade from a 4770k vs 9900k

And that a nice graphics card upgrade on a older competent system goes a long way to pacify the urge to upgrade the full system. I did say I wouldn’t buy a quad or hex core now for future proofing if you plan to keep the CPU longer than three years, but I wouldn’t discount a quad core with 8 threads and a top tier GPU for 95% of the games out there at the current time.

If you game at 1080p resolution is one reason to upgrade your CPU, but I’d venture moving to a 2560x1440 16x9 or 3440x1440 ultrawide would be a more enjoyable upgrade for most gamers than a CPU upgrade from his position — and then you are right back at GPU being the primary bottleneck.

The other reason would be if you do a bunch of intense multitasking or video editing. He already has the quad core. It’s running good, we aren’t saying never — we are saying, perhaps, not yet.

I had that same mentality when I had the 4790k, I ordered the i9 9900k/mobo/ram out of curiosity to see if the other side of people who told me I need a new cpu were right, and yes they were right.

its a whole different ball game between the 4 core cpu and a 8 core cpu with todays multiplayer games, everything is just more fluid and smooth, fps always stay high, they dont dip from 90fps 40fps when i had the 4790k.

but I will agree that single player game mode performance didn't benefit much, but I don't play single player mode, I only play multiplayer mode so for me the upgrade was huge after replacing the 4790k with 9900k.
 
Funny you say that. Just installed an Asus RX Vega 64 today, so that's done. Was going to go for a Radeon 7, but heard there's going to be about 9 total units for sale when it releases next month.

I've been running a custom cooler/pcb factory OC'd Vega 64 since last summer and love it. I paid way more than what they are going for now, but I don't regret it a bit. Great card then and a great card for the money now!

depends of what kind of work you do, basically an 8 core cpu with fast ddr4 ram will do everything much much faster.

I know a lot of people in here will tell you that you are fine, but they are on the same boast as you, no clue what it is like to rock with a 9900k and 4000mhz ddr4 ram.

Sounds like one of the dudes on facebook that says "stop being poor" when people say when they don't want to upgrade something, or are happy with existing performance.
 
I don't think anyone is saying a 9900K would not be an upgrade. We are saying is it enough of one for the OP to justify the cost. What it boils down to is what you have now enough for you, or are you just bitten by the upgrade bug? Also, where can you get the performance you want for the lowest cost. Then there is the question of "future proofing".
 
what is wrong with some of you, 4 core cpu's are done for multiplayer games, get rid of them, unless you enjoy benchmarking single player games with nothing going on in it.
Some of us do. If I feel like the 4 core processors aren't cutting it, I go to my Threadripper or upgrade the system in question.
I think that's the point being made. Upgrade if your personal experience requires it. Not because some other fella, who doesn't play the same games, says you have to.

Being snarky about your system and how people in this thread just don't understand is unwarranted.

There are better ways to convey your point.
 
Being snarky about your system and how people in this thread just don't understand is unwarranted.

There are better ways to convey your point.

I'm thinking he blew a huge wad upgrading to a 9900k and is just trying to justify the purchase.

But what do I know, I just read trusted reviews and own a calculator.

(There's a very real reason you don't see the 9900k in droves of [H] signatures)
 
I dunno, I feel like I should trade both Threadripper systems in for something he does approve of.


Ignore works better
 
FWIW, I play a lot of BFV with a 1080ti at 2100mhz, 7700k at 5ghz and settings to get my monitor at 120-165hz. I never get 50fps dips.
 
I'm upgrading from a 4770 to 9900K, and I'm doing it because I wanted to :p. Just finally got the last piece for my upgrade today and will be swapping it all out this weekend.
 
I'm upgrading from a 4770 to 9900K, and I'm doing it because I wanted to :p. Just finally got the last piece for my upgrade today and will be swapping it all out this weekend.

damn, and you have a 2080ti, expect that monster gpu to be awaken when you swap the cpu's.
FWIW, I play a lot of BFV with a 1080ti at 2100mhz, 7700k at 5ghz and settings to get my monitor at 120-165hz. I never get 50fps dips.

I was talking about going from like 120fps to 70fps due to CPU bottlenecking in BF5, especially on the map with the destroyed bridge, the fps tanks hard when being on the bridge in a full server with a 4 core cpu like 4770.
 
Wouldn't you feel better if you rubbed peoples noses in it?

I'd like to try a 9900k sometime. I know my 3770k is starting to show it's age. It's just a matter of re-purpose and budget I suppose.
 
I was talking about going from like 120fps to 70fps due to CPU bottlenecking in BF5, especially on the map with the destroyed bridge, the fps tanks hard when being on the bridge in a full server with a 4 core cpu like 4770.

I know you were. Granted that 4770 isn't probably doing 5ghz. My point was, I'm on a 4 core, 8 thread cpu same as he is. I ran a fraps benchmark through 10 minutes of the Arras map and I saw a minimum frame rate of 100fps. In post #16 you said "get rid of them" to 4 core cpus. I have no reason to. I'm a high FPS multiplayer gamer and I do not see major dips in PUBG or BFV. I do in Tarkov - like every user with every kind of cpu. :)
 
I know you were. Granted that 4770 isn't probably doing 5ghz. My point was, I'm on a 4 core, 8 thread cpu same as he is. I ran a fraps benchmark through 10 minutes of the Arras map and I saw a minimum frame rate of 100fps. In post #16 you said "get rid of them" to 4 core cpus. I have no reason to. I'm a high FPS multiplayer gamer and I do not see major dips in PUBG or BFV. I do in Tarkov - like every user with every kind of cpu. :)

you ran a bf5 fraps benchmark and you bragging about how you got minimum 100fps, lol.

I had a 4790k at 4.9ghz and it chocked the 1080ti inside a full bf1 and bf5 server, fps was dropping like flies.

if you had a 8700k or 9900k you would be smacking your self in the face and you would be deleting all these mindless posts.

comparing a benchmark run to a real mp game inside a full server, lol, that is just insane.
 
you ran a bf5 fraps benchmark and you bragging about how you got minimum 100fps, lol.

I had a 4790k at 4.9ghz and it chocked the 1080ti inside a full bf1 and bf5 server, fps was dropping like flies.

if you had a 8700k or 9900k you would be smacking your self in the face and you would be deleting all these mindless posts.

comparing a benchmark run to a real mp game inside a full server, lol, that is just insane.

Not bragging man. Just saying as someone who would certainly move to a 9900k if I could justify it. I'm saying I can't bc there are no stuttering or dips in my fps.

Not just me. Do you read the hardocp articles? They recently showed DX11 5ghz 7700k vs 9900k with a 2080ti and there are no note worthy differences. Maybe a 4790 is different.

No need to be so defensive though. Just sharing experiences to help others better determine when and what to upgrade.
 
4770k here at 4.2ghz since day 1


Being the nerd that I’ve been my entire life, I always find reasons to burn through cash and get the latest tech but this cpu combo’d with the other stuff in my build has kept me happy for 5-6 years now.

Recently got myself a 1080Ti and holy crap, even more amazed at how well it holds up at 1440p, maxed out on all the most recent popular games ( PUBG , Black Ops 4, Overwatch, BF5 and what not )


I absolutely love it. I still see no reason to upgrade at all for my gaming needs.
 
video card upgrade will make the online gaming experience even worse with that cpu.


...for people who can't stand lows of 70fps in their online games.

Last time I checked, that was still pretty damn respectable, even for the owners of 144hz monitors.

Since I can't tell the difference between 85 hz and 120+hz (was doing multiplayer FPS gaming on my CRT from 1997 until 2015, I tested with DOZENS of twitch games over the years), I'm going to say that my 4790k has at least a couple years left on it.


AS IT DOES FOR 99.99% OF GAMERS. I could barely tell 75 from 85, but dropping from 75 to 60 is noticeable. So yeah, going to take the next generation of games before we hit the 60hz mark (that's usually two years for a totally new generation of engine).

Also, encoding an entire movie in h.265 iat 1080p only takes two hours. if you use Constant Quality Mode. It's not 2009, and you no-longer have to waste time with two-pass manual setup. You'd have a point if you were live streaming or cutting-edge 4k blu-ray watcher, but otherwise 8 cores is extremely overrated for gaming/media consumption.
 
Last edited:
BFV sucks anyway....EA sucks....multiplayer sucks too. Once you have played as many years of MP as I have, they all suck. New graphics you won't notice, and micro transactions or server fees, yipee. It got old along time ago, and MP has nothing new to offer.

So for games, unless you are an "e-athelete", or not on any budget, there is no justification of the cost.
 
BFV sucks anyway....EA sucks....multiplayer sucks too. Once you have played as many years of MP as I have, they all suck. New graphics you won't notice, and micro transactions or server fees, yipee. It got old along time ago, and MP has nothing new to offer.

So for games, unless you are an "e-athelete", or not on any budget, there is no justification of the cost.
Get off my lawn
 
Not just me. Do you read the hardocp articles? They recently showed DX11 5ghz 7700k vs 9900k with a 2080ti and there are no note worthy differences. Maybe a 4790 is different.

single player is different than multiplayer, for instance, when I play bf5 single player with my 9900k there is only 20% cpu usage, when I play multiplayer its 50%-70% cpu usage most of the time.

so the hardopc article you saw was benchmarked for single player mode, a very good benchmark indication for GPU's and not for CPU's. Once the game loads to a server and you connected with other 63 players the cpu gets very stressed out, this is why when I went from 4790k to 9900k the difference was mind boggling, my gpu usage inside a full bf5 server went from 60% usage to 99% usage at all times, resulting in constant and smooth overall avg fps which is extremely enjoyable.

7700k and 4790 are both 4 core cpu's, both are great to play single player game modes, but for multiplayer its just not enough, more cpu cores are needed to get smooth gameplay without fps drops, stutters, etc...
 
Last edited:
single player is different than multiplayer, for instance, when I play bf5 single player with my 9900k there is only 20% cpu usage, when I play multiplayer its 50%-70% cpu usage most of the time.

so the hardopc article you saw was benchmarked for single player mode, a very good benchmark indication for GPU's and not for CPU's.

no - the testing was on multiplayer with 64 player server.


"We are testing the Multiplayer aspect of the game in Rotterdam, a 64-player map. Rotterdam is very popular, and was used for demonstration of NVIDIA Ray Tracing in demos prior to the game launch."
 
7700k and 4790 are both 4 core cpu's, both are great to play single player game modes, but for multiplayer its just not enough, more cpu cores are needed to get smooth gameplay without fps drops, stutters, etc...

The Bottom Line




Even though EA suggests 6-core CPUs for playing Battlefield V, it is obvious to us that a highly overclocked 4-core CPU can still get the job done. The 7700K at 5GHz is heavily loaded in terms of CPU usage while playing multiplayer BFV, and it is likely that if you had other processes running in the background, you would certainly be hampering performance. Our game test systems, are not "true" desktop systems in the sense that we are not running any background applications that are not 100% necessary. It is certainly conceivable that an end user 4-core system would have enough processes and applications running in the background to hinder 4-core performance in Battlefield V.



We are 100% confident in our previous NVIDIA Ray Tracing testing using Battlefield V and those not being CPU limited in any way.
 
both articles clearly state on 64 player server testing. Take a look at the minimum fps on the first article 7700k vs 9900k - same thing I said I was seeing on 1080 ti highly overclocked.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/13/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_i99900k_cpu_testing/2
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/02/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_cpu_testing/

i'm glad you dig your 9900k bro and believe me, I've been tempted to get one. but stop telling people they need one to enjoy BFV at high FPS. That's pure garbage.
 
you ran a bf5 fraps benchmark and you bragging about how you got minimum 100fps, lol.
comparing a benchmark run to a real mp game inside a full server, lol, that is just insane.

just noticed you thought I ran a benchmark in an empty server..... it too was full 64 player.
 
Back
Top