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

2»

Comments

  • SephrusSephrus Member UncommonPosts: 76
    This test was about as relevant as testing horse poop vs donkey poop. 9th gen i5 vs r7 1700 vs 8th gen i7? Nothing about these chips are the same. Not price, not peripheral price, not application use, not motherboards used not anything.

    Ppl who casually game, do yourself a favor, buy a decent b360 motherboard, an Intel i5 9400F and some dirt cheap ddr4 2666. This is plenty enough power to game and it's a super ez no brain set up. Plus you can pick it all up for less than the cost of the i5 9600K and a cooler.
  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 721
    lotrlore said:
    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.

    Actually since you weren't able to use a comparable setup it massively skews the result.

    Watercooling keeps the temperature lower and thus the cpu is able to maintain its boost clock a lot better. Where as the EVO 212 is an entry level after market cooler. It does the job ok enough but far less than watercooling and so the boost clock might not be as high or stable. The same cooler should have been used on both.

    Same for Powersupplies. The only similar thing is that both are 750 watt. Power delivery does have an impact on the end result.

    The MSI x370 board and this goes for almost all first gen AM4 boards from MSI have very poor VRM implementation. Meaning power delivery to the CPU will also not be great, which affects performance.

    And for the love of god proofread your article. "I’ve friend many a CPU earlier " "Cooler: Corsair CX750M" 

    And keep the component order listing the same for both setups, of course if you keep all components the same except for Motherboard and CPU you already run in less issues when having to list them.

    Tell me though did you use the same ram sticks or just similar sticks.

    The review in this state simply should not have been published. Too many glaring issues in methodology.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,654
    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.
    He probably just compared it to the hardware that he had, not the hardware that it would have been nice to compare it to.
    Torval
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,654
    AwakenHD said:
    Why are you posting this right before the Ryzen 3000 release with better perf/cost ???
    Probably because that's when someone sent a review sample.

    But it is a weird time for a review, as the CPU isn't quite obsolete yet in the sense of not making sense to buy new, but it is very close to it.  The Ryzen 5 3600X launches on July 7 with 6 cores/12 threads, 32 MB of L3 cache, turbo up to 4.4 GHz, and for $250.  It's probably going to be competitive with a Core i5-9600K in single-threaded performance, completely crush it in well-threaded performance, and while costing less money and using less power.  So this really isn't a good time to buy a new CPU in about the $200-$1000 range unless you absolutely have to have something right now.
    XingbairongTorval
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,638

    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...
    That's what I was saying. I just word things oddly sometimes. The order of things get mixed up and it sounds weird.

    AMD is very interesting right now. They have lots more interesting stuff coming soon. Intel on the other hand isn't very interesting right now in general and with this CPU in particular. 
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,638
    DMKano said:
    With Ryzen 3000 so close to launch - any other recommendation other than waiting for 3rd party benchmarks would be ill advised.


    And price and availability too.
    [Deleted User]
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    lotrlore said:

    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!

    If people are choosing between Intel and AMD based on which gives an absolute bottom end cooler in the box... well... I don't think that's the kind of 'feature' they should be focusing on to make their decision and they should be advised against choosing a CPU that way. What does the Intel stock cooler cost? $8 on Amazon? That's not a deciding factor. Anyone can add $8 to their budget if they need to. There's way more important things to consider instead of something so trivial.
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,654
    lotrlore said:

    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!

    If people are choosing between Intel and AMD based on which gives an absolute bottom end cooler in the box... well... I don't think that's the kind of 'feature' they should be focusing on to make their decision and they should be advised against choosing a CPU that way. What does the Intel stock cooler cost? $8 on Amazon? That's not a deciding factor. Anyone can add $8 to their budget if they need to. There's way more important things to consider instead of something so trivial.
    The problem is that Intel's stock cooler is awful.  AMD's stock cooler is decent--and actually pretty good for a stock cooler.  If you want about the performance you'd expect from a $30 aftermarket cooler, then AMD includes that for "free" with their CPU.  For Intel, you'd have to pay $30 to go get a cooler.  That means that in order to have a clean comparison, you should add $30 to the price of the Intel CPU to cover the cost of a cooler.

    That's only an issue if you're looking for about the cooling performance of a $30 cooler.  If you're going to buy a $70 cooler, then that's a separate expense, regardless of whether you're buying AMD or Intel.

    That also assumes that you're meaningfully limited by your budget.  If not, then why are you looking at a Core i5 at all?  Why not get a Core i9-7980XE, or at least a Core i7-9900K?
    Xingbairong[Deleted User]
  • Dr_BinksDr_Binks Member UncommonPosts: 265
    I would not build ANYTHING right now until Ryzen 3 is out. From everything I have been reading and the fact that Asus is working on something like 30 new motherboards just for the Ryzen 3 lineup I would say that Intel is going to have their hand full for some time!!
  • AkulasAkulas Member RarePosts: 2,700
    You can get them for AU$175 give or take from any major computer outlet. Maybe $200, $300 depends where you look. It's ok except you can't multi-task as efficiently is really the only difference. Alt+Tab when you have 5 modern games running at once. But it's not really designed to do that so a rather small inconvenience.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • MensurMensur Member RarePosts: 963
    Go for this one?- or add 75 bucks and you get premium topshelf. Why should I by this then? Am I missing something?

    Proud MMORPG.com member since 2009! 




  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,321
    Buying Intel at the moment seems like the dumbest thing
    ... i5 9400f provides better performance as well as better performance/$.
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    Gdemami said:
    Buying Intel at the moment seems like the dumbest thing
    ... i5 9400f provides better performance as well as better performance/$.
    Yeah I wouldn't sacrifice 6 more threads just, so that I can have a single digit better fps... Anyone who would say otherwise either doesn't understand from computers or isn't just bright enough.
    The 9400F is fine for people who can barely turn on their PC, but for anyone else that can follow simple instructions on how to OC(which nowadays can be done by 10 year olds) the 2600 is the better option.

    Also as I mentioned for me that's one of their best price/performance CPU's at the moment, but I still wouldn't recommend it. Why would you get the inferior CPU when for the same price you can get better is beyond me and I'm not including in the talk the new Ryzen CPU's which basically make Intel CPU's for gaming obsolete.
    Unless AMD have some serious compatibility issues with old mobo's AMD will be king for a while... at least until Intel decides to actually release something new and not just refresh old crap.

    Did you watch the presentation from AMD and Intel? AMD gave benchmarks, Intel had ice skaters, youtubers, twitch streamers and not a single benchmark or anything that would actually show how their CPU perform because they don't have anything... The 9900KS is a joke and it's obvious that they are focusing on laptops and servers(though from what I saw they might have problems with being the top dog in the server niche as well).
    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,321
    edited May 2019
    Yeah I wouldn't sacrifice 6 more threads just, so that I can have a single digit better fps... 
    ...that speaks volumes for your expertise.No more needs to be added.
  • SplitStream13SplitStream13 Member UncommonPosts: 167
    edited May 2019
    Posting about Intel in 2019 after the announce of Ryzen 3, omegalul. Showing benchmarks against 1st gen Ryzen omegalul x2. This i5 costs around the price of 2700X, which comes with a cooler btw. And performs better and has more core and has SMT and doesn't have flawed CPU.

    1/10 article.
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    Gdemami said:
    Yeah I wouldn't sacrifice 6 more threads just, so that I can have a single digit better fps... 
    ...that speaks volumes for your expertise.No more needs to be added.
    So you suggest that for example having 121 fps instead of 115 is better even if cost you to have 6 less threads... that speaks volumes of your logic. Please refrain from ever recommending stuff to people, because from what I gather you would only screw them over with your illogical recommendation.
    Gdemami
Sign In or Register to comment.