Intel Core i5-9600K Review: A Mid-Range Gamer's CPU

First page, Ryzen 5 2600X should be 95W

This is not for rendering, but gaming. At 4k, there are practically few to no performance losses compared to the top tier processors. ( maybe a couple of multithreaded games). If AMD really wants to grab the gaming niche, they should consider better overclocking chips ( nothing less than 5ghz nowadays) or at least same intel level, and a differencial, which could be from more pcie lanes (maybe 24, 16 for graphics, 4 for boot drive and 4 for the chipset) to a larger die area, for a more efficient cooling.

One thing I am wondering. Why these 6 core parts does not boost as high as 8 core 16 threads versions... It would seems to be easier to boost higher with less cores.

seems more like a "refresh" than a new chip. something like the 4690k was a few years back. thrown on some better thermal compound and bump the mhz up a little bit. does look like they have squeezed all they can out of the current fab. overclocking shows that the thermal compound makes little difference once oc'ed. they gonna fall behind if they can't get the bugs worked out of their new die shrink. amd has a chance to make a move with a well placed update if they can swing some extra ipc from the ryzen chips.

Anonymous said:

One thing I am wondering. Why these 6 core parts does not boost as high as 8 core 16 threads versions... It would seems to be easier to boost higher with less cores.

You're right -- they could easily push the clocks higher. Product segmentation is the name of the game, though.

if they could push it higher, shouldn't that show in overclocking? but it does not look like there is any extra headroom based on various oc testing. or am i remembering wrong?

Notice that the "stock" numbers for this CPU really represent a "best case":
* Slight (0.8%) base clock overclock.
* Motherboard that leaves the CPU on full boost frequency until the job is done instead of dropping the frequency to stay within official TDP limit.
The majority of motherboards should provide lower scores.

Some new games also favor eight threads over six, so a six thread CPU might not be the best option for gaming a few years ahead.

Anonymous said:

... If AMD really wants to grab the gaming niche, they should consider better...

That'll be the Zen2 line-up...
If the leaks/rumors are true the next Ryzen 5 will outperform current Ryzen 7.

Anonymous said:

One thing I am wondering. Why these 6 core parts does not boost as high as 8 core 16 threads versions...

Binning! (See below.)

Anonymous said:

seems more like a "refresh" than a new chip. ...

It's just a way to dump off some of the flawed eight-core dies.
One or two flawed cores and/or reduced clocking capacity makes a die suitable for the i5 rather than i7 or i9.

Anonymous said:

seems more like a "refresh" than a new chip. something like the 4690k was a few years back. thrown on some better thermal compound and bump the mhz up a little bit. does look like they have squeezed all they can out of the current fab. overclocking shows that the thermal compound makes little difference once oc'ed. they gonna fall behind if they can't get the bugs worked out of their new die shrink. amd has a chance to make a move with a well placed update if they can swing some extra ipc from the ryzen chips.

It is a refresh, read Coffee Lake

It depends a lot on the chip...

Anonymous said:

if they could push it higher, shouldn't that show in overclocking? but it does not look like there is any extra headroom based on various oc testing. or am i remembering wrong?

It'd be nice to show the benches of the i5's people will be considering replacing ... all the way from i5 2500 which is more likely an upgrade than the 8700k.

So I am looking for a basis for a new build, and noting what's new and what it costs. Thanks for this...maybe it's time to just go back to AMD again? The chart comparing the 9000 series CPUs shows the i5-9600K at $262-263, but the link to Amazon and their price is now $377.98 (correct as of 5 Dec on their site). What is with Amazon anyway? Looking at NE, it's listed at $277.95. That's a hundred bucks difference! Still don't see what I get with the 9th Gen. My old Haswell is still working well.

Anonymous said:

So I am looking for a basis for a new build, and noting what's new and what it costs. Thanks for this...maybe it's time to just go back to AMD again? The chart comparing the 9000 series CPUs shows the i5-9600K at $262-263, but the link to Amazon and their price is now $377.98 (correct as of 5 Dec on their site). What is with Amazon anyway? Looking at NE, it's listed at $277.95. That's a hundred bucks difference! Still don't see what I get with the 9th Gen. My old Haswell is still working well.

its not because of amazon that the prices are higher than MSRP, the price hike is because of lack of supply from intel, they cannot meet the demand, their 14nm fab process cant handle it, also Apple has ordered a ton of modem for their new iphones which are also on the 14nm process, some of the intel chipsets which were on 14nm are pushed back to 28nm to make room and intel has contracted TSMC to manufacture some of their chips..so maybe we might see a reduction in price soon, and with AMD is launching the 7nm Ryzen 2nd gen CPUs (Zen 2 not Zen+) soon, that will also reduce the price of intel chips, hoipefully

The 9600k is only $230 at Microcenter with a MSI MPG Z390 GAMING PLUS ATX motherboard for only $120.

"Worse, both competing CPUs are bundled with coolers, while Intel makes you buy your own."

EXCUSE ME? What sort of nonsensical statement is that? I mean let's cut the BS and be real for a moment: What self-respecting PC builder would install that crap in their rig? Everyone knows that the intel stock coolers are worthless, so why is it worth complaining about when Intel decides to remove them entiely if 99% of them go into the trash anyways?

Anonymous said:

It'd be nice to show the benches of the i5's people will be considering replacing ... all the way from i5 2500 which is more likely an upgrade than the 8700k.

These are from my past computers which were pretty decently equipped for their time.

Passmark CPU mark
Q6600 3372
q9550 4603
2500k 9771
2700k 11871 @4800mhz
5820k 16019 @4200mhz
9600k 15503 @5044 mhz

Fire Strike Physic
2700k 7857
5820k 16557
9600k 15920

Time Spy CPU
5820k 6700
9600k 6707

5820k vs 9600k is pretty much push. Upgraded because my mb bios went squirrelly after I tried to load new ones to accommodate using 2 m.2 drives.
New system:
Thermalake P3 case
MSI Z390 Gaming Plus
Corsair H115i Pro
Intel I5 9600K
Corsair RM1000 FM 80+G ATX PSU
MSI GTX 1080ti GamingX
Gskill 3600 16gb
AOC 28" 4k monitor
Kingston HyperX M.2 240Gb
Samsung 970 EVO M.2 500Gb
W10