No. At 1080p the GeForce GTX 1660 Super is the slower part by about 57.5%, so the Core i5-9400F has spare capacity. That is the normal way round for a gaming PC.
GPU limited. The CPU has spare power
The graphics card is the limit by about 57.5%. That is normal and fine for gaming; a faster CPU would add nothing.
| Resolution | Result | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | GPU limited. The CPU has spare power | 57.5% gpu |
| 1440p | GPU limited. The CPU has spare power | 68.5% gpu |
| 4K | GPU limited. The CPU has spare power | 80.7% gpu |
The processor launched at $182 and the card at $229, so the card cost 1.3 times as much. At 1080p this pairing is limited by the graphics card by about 57.5%. At 1440p it is limited by the graphics card by about 68.5%, and at 4K limited by the graphics card by about 80.7%. The graphics card scores 13 on our index and the processor 36.
The processor has 57.5% spare capacity at 1080p, so a faster one would change nothing. More frames have to come from the graphics card, and the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (index 14) is the next step in our list.
For comparison, with the more powerful GeForce GTX 1660 Ti the 1080p result would be limited by the graphics card by about 54.2%, and with the less powerful GeForce GTX 1660 the 1080p result would be limited by the graphics card by about 60.8%.
No. At 1080p the GeForce GTX 1660 Super is the slower part by about 57.5%, so the Core i5-9400F has spare capacity. That is the normal way round for a gaming PC.
No. At 1440p the GeForce GTX 1660 Super is the slower part by about 68.5%, so the Core i5-9400F has spare capacity. That is the normal way round for a gaming PC.
No. At 4K the GeForce GTX 1660 Super is the slower part by about 80.7%, so the Core i5-9400F has spare capacity. That is the normal way round for a gaming PC. Higher resolutions put more load on the graphics card, so the processor matters less.
Updated October 3, 2026