Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

i5-9600K Review - A Solid Mid-Range Option - MMORPG.com

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126

imagei5-9600K Review - A Solid Mid-Range Option - MMORPG.com

What if you could have a mid-range chip option that competes not only with its competition, but what is considered to be the go-to option for gamers for the past year? Enter the i5-9600K, a fantastic midrange option for those looking to stay in the Intel family, but don’t want to spend the extra money on the i7-8700K or even step up to the 9700/9900K options. This is our i5-9600K review.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Post edited by SBFord on
«1

Comments

  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    Apparently the Ryzen 5 3600 beats the i7 8700 and it's $200 CPU, so I would recommend people wait for more benchmarks and then pick what they prefer(which should be AMD if they care for price/performance) :)
    Btw Intel user here, but will be switching to AMD once I see some benchmarks to make my decision.
    GdemamiPsYcHoGBRDemoAK
  • PARTIESPLAYINPARTIESPLAYIN Member UncommonPosts: 49
    Typo on the ad title. Should be i5 not 15
  • OhsyOhsy Member UncommonPosts: 37
    edited May 2019
    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.
  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 721
    edited May 2019
    So why is intel on watercooling and amd on aircooling? Also 2 different PSU: Gold for Intel and Bronze for AMD. AMD also on an older mainboard instead of latest. Seems like the results are being pushed even more in favor of Intel. Lastly no one seems to have proofread the article.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Nice to see this 9600K chip drops into the same motherboard as the 8600K.
  • black9iceblack9ice Member UncommonPosts: 154

    gervaise1 said:

    Nice to see this 9600K chip drops into the same motherboard as the 8600K.



    Not all, make sure to check MB specs before purchase. And most need a prior flash to an updated bios with an 8 series chip before the 9 series is put in.
    gervaise1Gdemami
  • black9iceblack9ice Member UncommonPosts: 154

    Ohsy said:

    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.



    Exactly what I was thinking and going to point out myself. i5-9600k - Ryzen 5 2600x is the proper comparison.
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927

    Ohsy said:

    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.



    All Ryzen CPU's are unlocked.
    Also if we care only about gaming performance the Ryzen 5 2600 which is even cheaper can some times perform even better than the R7 1700 since it can reach higher OC's.
    Honestly when it comes to games and if you have a "budget" to follow AMD is the way to go.. if you want 5 fps more for an extra premium of $200-$500 or even more then go with Intel, of course that statement was true up until now... now with the new Ryzen AMD will have both higher fps and vastly better price, so Intel doesn't even get those extra "5 fps" to give you a reason to spend those extra $200-$500...

    And I'm not sure that we should even talk about PCIE 4.0... I'm sure most people saw how ridiculous the performance difference was... i9 9900k + GTX 2080ti vs Ryzen 7 3800x + RX 5700(same performance as GTX 2070)+ X570 motherboard for the Gen 4 PCIE and it outperformed the system that cost probably twice as much with about 60-70% ++. That's ridiculous... Of course whether the difference will be that staggering in games we are yet to see since we all know that benchmarks often times aren't the best option if you want to get an idea on actual performance.

    Buying Intel at the moment seems like the dumbest thing a person can do UNLESS they get a great deal, although even then seeing all the issues Intel have lately(vulnerabilities) I probably wouldn't do it.
    Gdemami
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    black9ice said:

    gervaise1 said:

    Nice to see this 9600K chip drops into the same motherboard as the 8600K.



    Not all, make sure to check MB specs before purchase. And most need a prior flash to an updated bios with an 8 series chip before the 9 series is put in.
    Always true and worth bringing up when considering any cpu drop in upgrade.

    Still good to see given that this hasn't been the case in recent iterations - although it had been for a long while. Somewhat ironic that the review has to use 2 AMD motherboards since AMD has been pretty good, recently, at being able to have drop in upgrades. (Always worth checking as noted).
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Ohsy said:
    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.
    I am sure that @SBFord will correct me if I am wrong but if this article was sponsored it would say so.

    Are you a paid troll - this being your first post?
  • OhsyOhsy Member UncommonPosts: 37

    gervaise1 said:


    Ohsy said:

    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.


    I am sure that @SBFord will correct me if I am wrong but if this article was sponsored it would say so.

    Are you a paid troll - this being your first post?



    I read through most reviews on a consistent basis but have never been compelled to create an account to respond until this silly review.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited May 2019
    Ohsy said:

    gervaise1 said:


    Ohsy said:

    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.


    I am sure that @SBFord will correct me if I am wrong but if this article was sponsored it would say so.

    Are you a paid troll - this being your first post?



    I read through most reviews on a consistent basis but have never been compelled to create an account to respond until this silly review.
    Whether it is a silly review or not isn't my point.

    You have "accused" the mmorpg.com staff of posting a "sponsored or something else" review without labelling it as such.
  • OhsyOhsy Member UncommonPosts: 37

    gervaise1 said:


    Ohsy said:



    gervaise1 said:




    Ohsy said:


    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.




    I am sure that @SBFord will correct me if I am wrong but if this article was sponsored it would say so.

    Are you a paid troll - this being your first post?






    I read through most reviews on a consistent basis but have never been compelled to create an account to respond until this silly review.


    Whether it is a silly review or not isn't my point.

    You have "accused" the mmorpg.com staff of posting a "sponsored or something else" review without labelling it as such.



    I haven't directly accused them of anything only shared how the article comes across with bias from my perspective "..due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here..."
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    No stock cooler is a negative? The K series are the unlocked ones and are meant for overclocking.. if anyone overclocks with the stock cooler they might as well throw their chip in a furnace. It's a good thing the cooler doesn't come with it because it would increase the cost for no reason. The K series is not for people that use stock coolers...
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • OhsyOhsy Member UncommonPosts: 37


    No stock cooler is a negative? The K series are the unlocked ones and are meant for overclocking.. if anyone overclocks with the stock cooler they might as well throw their chip in a furnace. It's a good thing the cooler doesn't come with it because it would increase the cost for no reason. The K series is not for people that use stock coolers...



    I agree, if your intent is to OC, you better go with a high end air or liquid setup in which case the included cooler holds no value other than a backup, however the wraith AMD cooler isn't half bad and will suffice just fine stock or with a slight OC if you wanted.
  • black9iceblack9ice Member UncommonPosts: 154


    No stock cooler is a negative? The K series are the unlocked ones and are meant for overclocking.. if anyone overclocks with the stock cooler they might as well throw their chip in a furnace. It's a good thing the cooler doesn't come with it because it would increase the cost for no reason. The K series is not for people that use stock coolers...



    Then this even brings up a better point, the 9600K is an enthusiast chip from Intel's latest gen, the 1700 is a mainstream first gen Ryzen. How about comparing apples to apples?
  • AwakenHDAwakenHD Member UncommonPosts: 20
    Why are you posting this right before the Ryzen 3000 release with better perf/cost ???
    black9iceXingbairongQuizzical
  • black9iceblack9ice Member UncommonPosts: 154

    Ohsy said:



    gervaise1 said:




    Ohsy said:


    Not a bad chip, however due to sponsorship or something else, I feel there is some bias here. Using the locked first gen Ryzen 7 1700 vs the heavily overclocked i5 9600k is a silly choice for this comparison especially considering the price difference (ontop of the value for included wraith cooler). If your going to be discussing gaming and single core performance at least compare it to the Ryzen 7 1700x or better yet the Ryzen 5 2600x which are both $179, include a cooler and pre-date the i5 9600k. If you want to compare chips of similar price, the first threadripper 1900x and 7 2700x are better choices. Regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, you cant deny AMD is the better bang for your buck and Ithe upcoming 3rd gen Ryzen 5 3600x will pack an even greater punch while retaining a lower price point.




    I am sure that @SBFord will correct me if I am wrong but if this article was sponsored it would say so.

    Are you a paid troll - this being your first post?






    I read through most reviews on a consistent basis but have never been compelled to create an account to respond until this silly review.



    And my account is from before time, If I remember correctly way back when EQ stratics and EQ atlas sold out/vanished I came here. So what does is matter if the account is 1 day old or 1 billions days?
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    edited May 2019

    AwakenHD said:

    Why are you posting this right before the Ryzen 3000 release with better perf/cost ???



    Indeed that's the only baffling part. As I mentioned if before there was few fps that you were getting for the "premium" you are paying now that's also gone. It's both more expensive and performs probably worse than the soon to be released 3600 that will be $199.

    For me up until 1 month ago the best intel "gaming" cpu's when it came to price/performance were the 9400F and this CPU, but that was only if you considered gaming and nothing else(even then AMD was the better price/performance) and also before the new Ryzen releases... now unless you get a ridiculous deal Intel just ins't worth it, that said I do expect to see ridiculous deals on the used market, since a lot of people will be buying the new Ryzen cpu's, mobos and probably GPU's.
  • black9iceblack9ice Member UncommonPosts: 154




    AwakenHD said:


    Why are you posting this right before the Ryzen 3000 release with better perf/cost ???






    Indeed that's the only baffling part. As I mentioned if before there was few fps that you were getting for the "premium" you are paying now that's also gone. It's both more expensive and performs probably worse than the soon to be released 3600 that will be $199.



    For me up until 1 month ago the best intel "gaming" cpu's when it came to price/performance were the 9400F and this CPU, but that was only if you considered gaming and nothing else(even then AMD was the better price/performance) and also before the new Ryzen releases... now unless you get a ridiculous deal Intel just ins't worth it, that said I do expect to see ridiculous deals on the used market, since a lot of people will be buying the new Ryzen cpu's, mobos and probably GPU's.



    Actually for price vs performance in most all games (except something like GTA5) a quad core is fine, so that points to the 8350K, but this is 2019 so everyone will shy away from an 'i3'.
  • Morfo2Morfo2 Member UncommonPosts: 60
    Why would you compare an Intel 9th gen cpu from end-2018 against an AMD Zen 1st Gen from early-2017? Don't get it... Ryzen 7 2700 MAX costs the same as an Intel Core i5 9600K in Europe. This review is bullshit.
    black9iceScellow
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    edited May 2019

    black9ice said:








    AwakenHD said:



    Why are you posting this right before the Ryzen 3000 release with better perf/cost ???









    Indeed that's the only baffling part. As I mentioned if before there was few fps that you were getting for the "premium" you are paying now that's also gone. It's both more expensive and performs probably worse than the soon to be released 3600 that will be $199.





    For me up until 1 month ago the best intel "gaming" cpu's when it came to price/performance were the 9400F and this CPU, but that was only if you considered gaming and nothing else(even then AMD was the better price/performance) and also before the new Ryzen releases... now unless you get a ridiculous deal Intel just ins't worth it, that said I do expect to see ridiculous deals on the used market, since a lot of people will be buying the new Ryzen cpu's, mobos and probably GPU's.






    Actually for price vs performance in most all games (except something like GTA5) a quad core is fine, so that points to the 8350K, but this is 2019 so everyone will shy away from an 'i3'.



    Where I live the 9400F and 8350k are the same price and on amazon the 9400F is cheaper:P

    Generally if people want cheaper builds they can use xeons like the E5 2640 or even the entry Ryzen 3 1200. Both of those will do an excellent job for almost all games, but I believe for the best $ per FPS the 9400F and 9600k were the best. Too lazy too look at chars and honestly it doesn't matter that much.
    I personally am just waiting for June 10 to see hopefully everything else AMD has to offer and then I'll probably decide on what fits my needs the best and go AMD.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,638
    Ryzen looks a lot better to me right now and 3K is right around the corner. It's a good CPU if it comes in some OEM device but I wouldn't build a system around it. 
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927

    Torval said:

    Ryzen looks a lot better to me right now and 3K is right around the corner. It's a good CPU if it comes in some OEM device but I wouldn't build a system around it. 



    Why not? They are better than Intel in both price and performance and what's more the new x570 mobo's are with gen4 PCIE though they will be a bit expensive...
  • lotrlorelotrlore Managing EditorMMORPG.COM Staff UncommonPosts: 232
    Hey all, wanted to address a few things per the comments here.

    So I'm the reviewer on this piece and first and foremost it should be noted that this is in no way sponsored nor was any expectation placed on me at any point in terms of the conclusion of the review.

    As far as the testing methodology, the main reason why this review exists is down to the fact my main Intel CPU test bench broke, so we sought out the review to be test ready going forward on both a AMD bench and an Intel bench. I mainly review games as well as other hardware, so having both ecosystems is valuable when testing gaming performance. I'm not MMORPG's main CPU reviewer, however, and since we all also work remote, we can only really test the CPUs we have on hand. I wasn't able to get access to the 2600, but I do have the 1700 on hand, which is why I tested that. The review is slightly different from our normal testing procedures as a result, but it still provides plenty of valuable info for prospective mid-range buys - especially since the 1700 and the whole 2000 series are likely to become cheaper than ever, making this comparison specifically more valuable to budget bound gamers.

    As far as the complaint about the cooler - to some it might seem weird to expect it from an overclockable CPU - obviously if you're doing a massive OC the cooler isn't going to be enough. You're going to need a beefier CPU cooler (hence my liquid cooled Intel test bench). However, for many people, OCing isn't even something they think about - and when the competition provides a cooler - for less money as well - it's a valid complaint. I know people who have bought the Ryzen simply so they wouldn't have to spend the extra money on a CPU cooler as it fit their budget better. So something to keep in mind!

    Anyways, thanks for reading and I hope this helped!


    gervaise1Gdemami
Sign In or Register to comment.