Intel X6 i5-9600KF based system (5.00Ghz project)

[GDRRiley]

On 2/25/2020 at 8:29 PM, Storm-Chaser said:

Oh so you should be able to name at least a few games that 9600KF cannot run due to having only 6 cores?

 

How about programs that need more than 6 cores to run? There must be plenty you can name, seeing as how AMD's had 8 core processors on the market for quite a number of years.

 

Remember, just because you have more cores does not mean you have a "faster" CPU than it's low core count brother. That's not how it works. They both operate identically up until 6 cores. So if you have nothing to load up those extra cores, you are going to process data at the same rate as the six core CPU. 

 

See what I mean? 9600KF has a great cost / performance ratio as the matter of fact.

there are quite a few game that stutter or 1% and .1% frame rates hard with only 6 cores.

 

On 2/26/2020 at 2:29 AM, Storm-Chaser said:

I just find it funny when people talk to me about my processor and say how I really should have gone with an 8 core and that the 9th Gen I5s are going to be obsolete in a year or two. And they talk with urgency in their voice, like the entire computer industry is going multicore and I'm going to be left in the dust unless I have at the very least an 8 core CPU to stay current with the times. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I literally used a Phenom II 960T processor, unlocked, into a six core Phenom II, Thuban, that runs 3.5GHz stock for the past 11 years. This CPU was a beast and still is a beast. Especially with the northbridge overclocked to 3000Mhz, it was a force to be reckoned with. I use my computer a lot - I'm on it most of the time, as the matter of fact. And I say this because I am someone who requires power and speed and substantial processing power.

 

Ryzen has had horrific memory problems and performance issues relating to the IMC. For example, it's not really worth it to run anything more than 3 733MHz memory on Ryzen because if you go any higher than that you drop down from a 1:1 ratio on the infinity fabric, thereby killing your memory throughput. In a perfect world AMD should be able to design an architecture that doesn't lose performance when you increase memory frequency. In fact, it should be the other way around.

 

It just highlights some of the disconnect people have between hype and reality. Heck, you can game hard on an Intel Core i3-9100F quad core and it can perform nearly on par with the 9900K in terms of playability. I could blindfold you, sit you down at a computer, play a game and I seriously doubt you would ever be able to tell the difference in game play between a quad core 9100F and an 8 core 9900K. That's the Gods honest truth, and I will tell you right now, most people don't want to hear that. 

you made a bad buy and are defending it way to hard.

9th gen made 0 sense with ryzen 3rd gen out. hell even with 2ng gen it didn't make much sense.

8 chips are driving the PS5 and xbox X hell it powered last gen too. games are getting better and better and i'd expect in 2 years for any intel 8th or 9th gen part without hyperthreading to have a low resale value.

 

ryzen has almost 0 memory issues. you don't need faster than 3800 for anything other than the most memory intensive workloads. (you should move to threadripper)

 

My 6600k struggled to play games a few years after it came out, sure you got an extra 1ghz on me but that won't make up the difference.

 

2 videos to show how much it gets beat in may modern games.

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

44 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

there are quite a few game that stutter or 1% and .1% frame rates hard with only 6 cores.

Which games are you referring to? 

 

45 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

you made a bad buy and are defending it way to hard.

9th gen made 0 sense with ryzen 3rd gen out. hell even with 2ng gen it didn't make much sense.

8 chips are driving the PS5 and xbox X hell it powered last gen too. games are getting better and better and i'd expect in 2 years for any intel 8th or 9th gen part without hyperthreading to have a low resale value.

I intentionally chose the 9600KF for this rig over it's big brother. Knowing full well that I was only getting 6 cores. But I had specific requirements for the this build and in point of fact I am very happy with the hardware as a package deal, it's performing exceptionally well. Say what you will about userbenchmark.com but here are my results:

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Which games are you referring to? 

 

I intentionally chose the 9600KF for this rig over it's big brother. Knowing full well that I was only getting 6 cores. But I had specific requirements for the this build and in point of fact I am very happy with the hardware as a package deal, it's performing exceptionally well. Say what you will about userbenchmark.com but here are my results:

it is horrible I don't understand why anyone would use it.

go use cinebench, asus realbench, dam blender renders like BWM or classroom, 3d mark physics tests.

 

bf4,bf1, bfV, are all ones I play but the list has almost any game released in the last few years but Far cry and a few exceptions. both videos I linked outlines some of them.

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

8 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

it is horrible I don't understand why anyone would use it.

go use cinebench, asus realbench, dam blender renders like BWM or classroom, 3d mark physics tests.

 

bf4,bf1, bfV, are all ones I play but the list has almost any game released in the last few years but Far cry and a few exceptions. both videos I linked outlines some of them.

 

BF4 has no problem playing on my system. Matter of fact I'm getting superb quality with all settings on ultra and 85-90 FPS.

 

Find me a system requirement's list that states the game needs to have at least 8 cores to be played.

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Find me a system requirement's list that states the game needs to have at least 8 cores to be played.

its not requirements but instead found from trying CPUs in games.

its not 8 cores. its more than 6 threads.

 

[NubCak]

I actually read through all 3 pages so far in this thread.

Why are you so obsessed with this processor? Its vastly outdated by the recent offerings. 

6cores/6threads is not cutting the mustard anymore.

Newer titles are all using atleast 6 cores. 

Sure, you may say you have 6 cores, but what about all the background tasks? Steam, origin, not to mention Windows?

If you only have 6 logical cores, your performance is going to take a hit.

I also understand that not everyone can go out and buy a 9900k or 3950x or whatever.

But you're doing yourself a bad one by buying a processor that is already aged and on its way out.

The typical recommended budget setup is now a Ryzen 5 3600x, which is superior to any of intel's products in terms of IPC. The only thing intel has is those very few last FPS, seeing as you are running a 580x, you're not gonna be hitting those upper tiers of FPS anyways. 

The 9600KF was not a good choice, its okay to make mistakes, don't try to defend it. 
 

[Fast_N_Curious]

10 hours ago, NubCak said:

I actually read through all 3 pages so far in this thread.

Why are you so obsessed with this processor? Its vastly outdated by the recent offerings. 

6cores/6threads is not cutting the mustard anymore.

Newer titles are all using atleast 6 cores. 

Sure, you may say you have 6 cores, but what about all the background tasks? Steam, origin, not to mention Windows?

If you only have 6 logical cores, your performance is going to take a hit.

I also understand that not everyone can go out and buy a 9900k or 3950x or whatever.

But you're doing yourself a bad one by buying a processor that is already aged and on its way out.

The typical recommended budget setup is now a Ryzen 5 3600x, which is superior to any of intel's products in terms of IPC. The only thing intel has is those very few last FPS, seeing as you are running a 580x, you're not gonna be hitting those upper tiers of FPS anyways. 

The 9600KF was not a good choice, its okay to make mistakes, don't try to defend it. 
 

LOL Vastly outdated? It's actually one of Intel's latest releases. I guess you are calling that obsolete? How do you expect me to take you seriously with a comment like that? Core count is far from the only thing to consider in terms of processor performance. I'm afraid you've bought into the core count hype that has permeated the tech community over the past few years. 

 

6 cores at 5.0GHz is most definitely "cutting the mustard" - At least for my purposes. The CPU demolishes everything I throw at it. It's not like I'm going out and desperately buying games every week in hopes that I can "play them furiously" on my new system. It was a calculated buy, not geared towards maximum number crunching performance, but with a focus on single threaded workloads instead.

 

Not all titles are using at least six cores, matter of fact the majority of games out there wont use more than 4 cores. The 9600KF can play virtually any game on the market, and play it well. 

 

Are you under the impression that when you load a game that can take advantage of six cores the system somehow grinds to a halt? That's not how it works. 

 

By the way, the 9600KF has almost identical performance to a 9900K up to six cores. So you are getting the gaming performance without compromise.

 

Already aged and on hits way out? It's literally like Intel's most recent processor release to market. I guess it's going to be hard to argue if you've made up your mind that a 9th gen Intel core CPU is obsolete.  

 

I decided to go Intel for this build for a number of reasons. Primarily the overclockability. There are currently no AMD CPUs on the market that will run a 5.0GHz overclock right out of the gate unless you start getting into exotic cooling methods. And yes, I already have an FX system that runs at 5.0GHz. Ryzen also has pitiful memory latency and far less support for highly clocked DDR4 RAM (Im running 4000MHz right now with another 4266MHz kit on the way). For me, this wasn't an "economical" build, this is something I've had planned for quite some time, and I will have you know, I chose the 9600KF over the 9900K because that's the CPU I wanted. I didn't want or need 8 cores. Nor the expensive $520 price tag that goes with it. I chose all the parts of this build for specific reasons, I'm not just trying to cover for this so called "bad purchase" by defending it. Matter of fact, I think it's most likely the people that bought a 9900K are the ones that made a mistake, because the cost / performance ratio of the 9600KF cannot be beat by another other high end Intel chip on the market. 

 

Perhaps this will reset your expectations:

Quote

The hex-core i5-9600K is third in Intel’s line-up of 9th generation Coffee Lake CPUs. It has a TDP of 95W and requires an aftermarket cooler (such as the $20 GAMMAXX 400). The 9600K was designed to be overclocked. Once this is enabled in the BIOS (requires a Z-series motherboard), the 9600K runs 10% faster. In terms of performance, the i5-9600K is almost unbeatable for desktop users and it has sufficient multi-core performance to handle all but the most demanding workstation tasks. For multimedia producers the Ryzen 3000 series offers great 64-core performance at a very competitive price. For example the overclocked Ryzen 3600 is approximately 13% worse for gaming, desktop and normal consumer workloads but it is 27% faster for 64-core processing. At stock clocks the i5-9600K is around 8% slower than Intel’s flagship i9-9900K but when both are overclocked, the 9600K closes the gaming gap to within two or three percent. Considering that the 9900K is the fastest gaming processor available, and almost twice the price of the 9600K, this is no small feat. The i5-9600K is aimed squarely at gamers who are not willing to compromise on performance but don't want to pay more than they need to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

23 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

its not requirements but instead found from trying CPUs in games.

its not 8 cores. its more than 6 threads.

 

Well clearly you were wrong about BF4, so that makes me wonder where you are getting your information from. 

[GDRRiley]

21 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Well clearly you were wrong about BF4, so that makes me wonder where you are getting your information from. 

It isn’t wrong. I owned a 6600k. I know how many issues it had at 1080p high frame rate. I was just at 1440p pulling load off of the CPU. 
bf4 isn’t as bad as many new games. 
 

Hardware unboxed, gamers nexus are usually my detailed review places 

 

 

to add when zen 2 came out intels 9th gen was dead. Zen 3 was built to fight 10nm 6-8 cores. It’s not getting better any time for Intel. 

 

we get it you went for top single core. We are just saying it was pointless. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by GDRRiley

[nox_]

@Storm-Chaser Do you work at userbencmark.com? You rely on it so much when making your arguments and that makes your arguments much weaker. There are so much more reliable sources.

Edited March 6, 2020 by noxdeouroboros

[Fast_N_Curious]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

It isn’t wrong. I owned a 6600k. I know how many issues it had at 1080p high frame rate. I was just at 1440p pulling load off of the CPU. 
bf4 isn’t as bad as many new games. 
 

Hardware unboxed, gamers nexus are usually my detailed review places 

 

 

to add when zen 2 came out intels 9th gen was dead. Zen 3 was built to fight 10nm 6-8 cores. It’s not getting better any time for Intel. 

 

we get it you went for top single core. We are just saying it was pointless. 

First of all, the 6600K is a quad core. And why did you even bring that CPU into the conversation? Secondly, I've literally beat the game running on my 3.5GHz Phenom II X6 system. Without a single glitch or stutter, I might add. And this is with the settings cranked all the way up to ULTRA. And I did it at 1080p. 

 

To put this to bed - I can show you video evidence that a 9600KF can run battlefield 4 flawlessly. So clearly, you were mistaken and you were speaking in error. That is a hit to your credibility. 

 

9th gen Intel is dead? ROFLCOPTER

[Fast_N_Curious]

1 hour ago, noxdeouroboros said:

@Storm-Chaser Do you work at userbencmark.com? You rely on it so much when making your arguments and that makes your arguments much weaker. There are so much more reliable sources.

At the end of the day I look at the site as more of a hardware reference guide than anything else. 

 

Userbenchmark has some excellent cross reference features and a massive hardware database. It's user driven, and it makes it very easy to compare one processor to another. Just because you saw a video on youtube or you heard it through the grapevine that userbenchmark is unreliable, doesn't make it true. 

 

And I'm sure you wont deny, The i5 9600K is third in Intel's line up of 9th generation Coffee Lake CPUs. So that's at least one thing that userbenchmark got right, now isn't it? 

[nox_]

23 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

At the end of the day I look at the site as more of a hardware reference guide than anything else. 

 

Userbenchmark has some excellent cross reference features and a massive hardware database. It's user driven, and it makes it very easy to compare one processor to another. Just because you saw a video on youtube or you heard it through the grapevine that userbenchmark is unreliable, doesn't make it true. 

 

And I'm sure you wont deny, The i5 9600K is third in Intel's line up of 9th generation Coffee Lake CPUs. So that's at least one thing that userbenchmark got right, now isn't it? 

If you think userbenchmark is reliable it doesn't make it true. You were comparing performance using userbenchmark, not exactly using it as a reference guide. Userbenchmark were the main source of your arguments in this thread, everything else was based on your opinion rather then sources.

You are happy with your rig? I'm happy for you, if it's good enough for you, that's great. Why argue that it's better than other options? People have different needs and requirements.

42 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

9th gen Intel is dead? ROFLCOPTER

Even Intel knows that they are fucked, at least for now they definitely are.

 

23 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

And I'm sure you wont deny, The i5 9600K is third in Intel's line up of 9th generation Coffee Lake CPUs. So that's at least one thing that userbenchmark got right, now isn't it? 

You can look that up on wikipedia, not that big of an achievement. Here's an example of Userbenchmark being very accurate and reliable : https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/3935vs3932 Do you agree with them on this?

[Fast_N_Curious]

2 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

If you think userbenchmark is reliable it doesn't make it true. You were comparing performance using userbenchmark, not exactly using it as a reference guide. Userbenchmark were the main source of your arguments in this thread, everything else was based on your opinion rather then sources.

You are happy with your rig? I'm happy for you, if it's good enough for you, that's great. Why argue that it's better than other options? People have different needs and requirements.

Even Intel knows that they are fucked, at least for now they definitely are.

Correct. And maybe I did go a little over the top. But the only problem in using userbenchmark.com as a performance test, as I did here, is the sample size. The actual benchmark results are typically within range of proven benchmark software such as AIDA64. It gives you a rough idea of relative performance. 

 

I know for one thing userbenchmark nails the memory latency as well... and it it's usually within a couple of points with other proven benchmarks such as AIDA64.

 

What do you mean Intel is fucked? I don't follow the tech news very closely. Are you saying AMD will dominate the consumer CPU market in the months and years ahead? 

 

 

[nox_]

8 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

What do you mean Intel is fucked? I don't follow the tech news very closely. Are you saying AMD will dominate the consumer CPU market in the months and years ahead? 

They will, for a year at least. Even Intel agrees with this https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-admits-it-wont-catch-up-with-amd-7nm-until-2021

Not catching up until then, and AMD will be advancing during that time, not trying to catch up, also considering Ryzen popularity they should have more than enough money to invest into that.

[Fast_N_Curious]

16 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

They will, for a year at least. Even Intel agrees with this https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-admits-it-wont-catch-up-with-amd-7nm-until-2021

Not catching up until then, and AMD will be advancing during that time, not trying to catch up, also considering Ryzen popularity they should have more than enough money to invest into that.

I will be building a Ryzen rig in the not so distant future, and I have always been an AMD man, but in this case my primary goal was a 5.0GHz overclock and that is not possible on any AMD chips at this time. There is no doubt AMD chips are the clear winner in performance per dollar, however.

 

While Intel is certainly facing some serious losses in the consumer marketplace, I don't think this headwind is strong enough to knock them off their feet as the #1 chip maker in the world. 

[Fast_N_Curious]

I will be building a Ryzen rig in the not so distant future, and I have always been an AMD man, but in this case my primary goal was a 5.0GHz overclock and that is not possible on any AMD chips at this time. There is no doubt AMD chips are the clear winner in performance per dollar, however.

 

While Intel is certainly facing some serious losses in the consumer marketplace, I don't think this headwind is strong enough to knock them off their feet as the #1 chip maker in the world. 

[Fast_N_Curious]

5 hours ago, noxdeouroboros said:

 

You can look that up on wikipedia, not that big of an achievement. Here's an example of Userbenchmark being very accurate and reliable : https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/3935vs3932 Do you agree with them on this?

Okay, I scanned through the comparison. What did you want me to specifically comment on? 

[nox_]

Just now, Storm-Chaser said:

Okay, I scanned through the comparison. What did you want me to specifically comment on? 

You agree that i3, 4 cores 4 threads has better performance?

[Zando_]

Lol, people need to chill with hating on your rig . Looks hella nice, and you're 100% correct about the cores thing. I notice no difference moving from my 5820K (6c/12t) to my 5960X (8c/16t) unless I'm running it at higher clocks. I don't do anything to load all those cores to the point where "only" 6 would be a bottleneck. Had an 8600K for a bit too, absolutely s l a p p e d for gaming, and I didn't notice janky enough 1% lows that my experience was affected in any way. Was much nicer to see my games pinned at 144 fps  (I was using a 144Hz monitor at the time). 

As for the 1% lows, did you remember to muck about with cache (uncore) clocks? That can fix a lot of the 1% low stuff:

They were seeing 1% low gains up to 15% when cache OCing on a 9900K, the 9600K will behave similarly (again, like you've pointed out, they're the same CPU until you load more than 4-6 cores). 

[Fast_N_Curious]

21 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

You agree that i3, 4 cores 4 threads has better performance?

Better single core performance, yes. And since windows and average PC tasks will never use more than 2-3 threads at a time, the I3 comes out on top for basic stuff, including benchmarks, and gaming. There is also a huge usage case difference between the two it's almost like apples and oranges, and then putting apples on orange trees and oranges on the apple tree.

 

You gotta remember, it was AMD who lead the charge of ever increasing core counts because they could never escape from outside the shadow of having lower IPC than their Intel counterparts. If they couldn't beat Intel at per core performance, by God they were going to crush them with core count. And that's exactly what they've done. 

 

Amazingly, people have bought into the hype. And it's nothing more than an AMD sales pitch. Remember, Intel was much slower to come around with processors that contained over 4 cores. There is a valid reason for that. And it's not because they were lazy!

[nox_]

15 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

There is also a huge usage case difference between the two it's almost like apples and oranges, and then putting apples on orange trees and oranges on the apple tree.

That's exactly my point, that score they give is useless, these 2 cpu's are extremely different and has very different buyers. That scoring is just plain wrong, i3 is better for gaming, but is left behind in others things. So stating that i3 is 8% better is not right imho, don't you agree? userbenchmark is just plain wrong most of the time. I get your reasoning behind buying this cpu, for your use case it just might be exactly what you need, sadly the price of it is not that great.

[Fast_N_Curious]

12 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Lol, people need to chill with hating on your rig . Looks hella nice, and you're 100% correct about the cores thing. I notice no difference moving from my 5820K (6c/12t) to my 5960X (8c/16t) unless I'm running it at higher clocks. I don't do anything to load all those cores to the point where "only" 6 would be a bottleneck. Had an 8600K for a bit too, absolutely s l a p p e d for gaming, and I didn't notice janky enough 1% lows that my experience was affected in any way. Was much nicer to see my games pinned at 144 fps  (I was using a 144Hz monitor at the time). 

As for the 1% lows, did you remember to muck about with cache (uncore) clocks? That can fix a lot of the 1% low stuff:

They were seeing 1% low gains up to 15% when cache OCing on a 9900K, the 9600K will behave similarly (again, like you've pointed out, they're the same CPU until you load more than 4-6 cores). 

Absolutely. I've been overclocking IMCs for as long as I can remember. And the 9600KF is no exception. Managed 4900MHZ, and I was bummed because I was going for the trifecta, 5GHz CPU, 5GHz RAM and 5GHz NB. I may have to start binning 9600Ks to see if I can get something better. BTW - This 9600KF does 5.3GHz and even then I was only limited by my air cooling. There is a TON of headroom with this CPU. Unlike Ryzen, where you go 1Mhz over 4.411Mhz and you hit a brick wall. Like stone cold, knocked out. Like jumping of a 500 cliff and getting hit with an asteroid mid air that propels you into the ground at supersonic speeds. 

 

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Absolutely. I've been overclocking IMCs for as long as I can remember. And the 9600KF is no exception. Managed 4900MHZ, and I was bummed because I was going for the trifecta, 5GHz CPU, 5GHz RAM and 5GHz NB. I may have to start binning 9600Ks to see if I can get something better. BTW - This 9600KF does 5.3GHz and even then I was only limited by my air cooling. There is a TON of headroom with this CPU. Unlike Ryzen, where you go 1Mhz over 4.411Mhz and you hit a brick wall. Like stone cold, knocked out. Like jumping of a 500 cliff and getting hit with an asteroid mid air that propels you into the ground at supersonic speeds. 

Indeed, my 2700X hardwalled at around 4.2 (R5 1600 hardwalled at 4.0 exactly, 4.1 was a no go), if I ran borderline unsafe voltages it'd do a shaky 4.25. Zen 2 chips seem to cap out at 4.2-4.3 as well, though they do have a vastly improved IPC now so they can actually compete performance wise (still miles more latency than with ringbus though). Speaking of that 2700X, I had to move the SLI 1080s I had at the time to my 8600K, unlike the 2700X it didn't choke. In my testing the 8600K at 5Ghz ( I was noobier so I never touched the cache, sadly) absolutely obliterated the 2700X. Eventually moved from both of those back to X58 though, purely because that was more fun to tweak . 

And noice! Seems to be quite a good bin, and nice to see a good fat uncore lol. My 5960X is stuck at the 3.6-3.7Ghz wall for that unless I either get a motherboard with the OC socket, or do the Der8auer mod. Currently run 4.7 core/3.7 uncore at 1.3v/1.1v. Sadly this chip caps out at 4.8Ghz, so impressive for overall 5960Xs, but for a j-bin it's "only" decent .

[Fast_N_Curious]

3 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

That's exactly my point, that score they give is useless, these 2 cpu's are extremely different and has very different buyers. That scoring is just plain wrong, i3 is better for gaming, but is left behind in others things. So stating that i3 is 8% better is not right imho, don't you agree? userbenchmark is just plain wrong most of the time. I get your reasoning behind buying this cpu, for your use case it just might be exactly what you need, sadly the price of it is not that great.

The scoring is not wrong... The i3 has better PER CORE performance.. and since most desktop users are not engaging more than two or three threads at a time the i3 has the effective performance edge on TR because those users will never face a work flow that has the ability to tap into those extra cores. for the mainstream computing market.... the market that userbenchmark.com is catering to, userbenchmark has it right. Plus, I highly doubt the average consumer CPU choice is going to come down to a Threadripper 1950X verses an Intel quad core i3. And if you hit the compare button, userbenchmark will run the numbers for you. And userbenchmark has the facts straight according to thousands and thousands of submissions. Core monsters: You know who you are.