Performance between intel k and kf

[pokeychip]

Is their any practical benefit to getting a CPU that doesn't have integrated graphics? Like potential for better performance? Or is it you are going to spend more money because you have an unhealthy hatred of integrated graphics?

Mainly asking because of the Intel I5 9600K and I5-9600KF. The CPU without integrated graphic is $20 to $50 more expansive than the letter.

[TheBean]

without iGPU is more expensive? i dont think that is right. it should be lower. there is no benefit to not having it. its always useful for troubleshooting or just basic 2d graphics. 

[Haro]

1 hour ago, pokeychip said:

Is their any practical benefit to getting a CPU that doesn't have integrated graphics? Like potential for better performance? Or is it you are going to spend more money because you have an unhealthy hatred of integrated graphics?

Mainly asking because of the Intel I5 9600K and I5-9600KF. The CPU without integrated graphic is $20 to $50 more expansive than the letter.

Wait the kf is the more expensive ?!?!

Usually they are supposed to be less 

[LauRoman]

Ket the one with integrated graphics, if it is that cheaper, for the inevitable intermediary period where tou might upgrade or rma a gpu.

Otherwise check the OC benchmarks from other people that feature tgose to chips if thar is important to you, and try and find out if they are using retail cpus instead of review units. But only if the difference is heavily in favor of the kf and only if it has significant thermal headroom. Otherwise, no, get the k variant. If not interested in OCing, get a non k version and allocate that money towards a better psu and/or gpu if you are building a new-ish machine.