Is the 9900k enough of an upgrade over the 9600k?

[YoungBlade]

With all the deals going on right now, there are 9900k CPUs to be had for just above $300. If I'm going to upgrade, now might be the time, but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. I'm in a good financial position, but I don't want to drop the money for nothing.

 

Here's my current rig:

 

CPU: i5 9600k (usually running at stock, sometimes OC'd to 4.8GHz all core)

Cooler: Vetroo V5

Motherboard: ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4S/ac

Graphics Card: RTX 2060 Super

RAM: 48GB TeamGroup Vulcan Z DDR4-3000 CL 16

Main monitor: Gigabyte M27Q 1440p 170Hz

 

I mostly play single-player games like Control, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc at 1440p. Sometimes I'll have Discord and a browser open when gaming, but that's not common. On rare occasions I'll stream/record gameplay, and do light video editing.

 

Do you think I'd benefit from the upgrade, or would I hardly notice the difference?

[Mishroh]

1 minute ago, YoungBlade said:

With all the deals going on right now, there are 9900k CPUs to be had for just above $300. If I'm going to upgrade, now might be the time, but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. I'm in a good financial position, but I don't want to drop the money for nothing.

 

Here's my current rig:

 

CPU: i5 9600k (usually running at stock, sometimes OC'd to 4.8GHz all core)

Cooler: Vetroo V5

Motherboard: ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4S/ac

Graphics Card: RTX 2060 Super

RAM: 48GB TeamGroup Vulcan Z DDR4-3000 CL 16

Main monitor: Gigabyte M27Q 1440p 170Hz

 

I mostly play single-player games like Control, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc at 1440p. Sometimes I'll have Discord and a browser open when gaming, but that's not common. On rare occasions I'll stream/record gameplay, and do light video editing.

 

Do you think I'd benefit from the upgrade, or would I hardly notice the difference?

If all you play are single player games with light streaming and editing, an i5 is all you need. Only get a 9900k if streaming, video editing, etc... are what you will do on a consistent basis with heavy workload. But since you have a 2060, the i9 might cause a bottleneck in some senarios.

[RONOTHAN##]

9 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

With all the deals going on right now, there are 9900k CPUs to be had for just above $300. If I'm going to upgrade, now might be the time, but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. I'm in a good financial position, but I don't want to drop the money for nothing.

 

Here's my current rig:

 

CPU: i5 9600k (usually running at stock, sometimes OC'd to 4.8GHz all core)

Cooler: Vetroo V5

Motherboard: ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4S/ac

Graphics Card: RTX 2060 Super

RAM: 48GB TeamGroup Vulcan Z DDR4-3000 CL 16

Main monitor: Gigabyte M27Q 1440p 170Hz

 

I mostly play single-player games like Control, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc at 1440p. Sometimes I'll have Discord and a browser open when gaming, but that's not common. On rare occasions I'll stream/record gameplay, and do light video editing.

 

Do you think I'd benefit from the upgrade, or would I hardly notice the difference?

I wouldn't bother. Unless you plan on doing something that requires the extra two cores (VMs, frequent video editing, etc.). For streaming, you can just use NVENC from the 2060 instead of using those extra cores for OBS. For games, the performance increase from the i9 will be lost pretty quickly if you just overclock the i5 a decent amount. 

[Chris Pratt]

It might actually be a decent upgrade. It's only two extra cores, but it's 10 extra threads, since you current have 6c/6t. I'm not sure how much of a difference that will make overall for what you're doing, but it could actually be significant, especially with any multitasking.

[dizmo]

I'd just save the money and buy into the new platform when you're ready. I don't imagine you'll see much of a difference.

[YoungBlade]

52 minutes ago, Mishroh said:

If all you play are single player games with light streaming and editing, an i5 is all you need.

 

42 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

For games, the performance increase from the i9 will be lost pretty quickly if you just overclock the i5 a decent amount. 

 

24 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

It might actually be a decent upgrade. It's only two extra cores, but it's 10 extra threads, since you current have 6c/6t.

These basically summarize the exact thought process I've been having for the last few hours...

[Chris Pratt]

2 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

These basically summerize the exact thought process I've been having for the last few hours...

The problem is that there's not much else you could do with just $300, but at $400, you can get an 11700K which would be a hands down, no question upgrade. Of course, that would also require a new board, so probably not as applicable.

 

The point is that $300 is a lot for an "upgrade" that doesn't even move you into a new gen, but at the same time, I don't think you could do any better anyways for just $300.

[YoungBlade]

Just now, Chris Pratt said:

The problem is that there's not much else you could do with just $300, but at $400, you can get an 11700K which would be a hands down, no question upgrade. Of course, that would also require a new board, so probably not as applicable.

 

The point is that $300 is a lot for an "upgrade" that doesn't even move you into a new gen, but at the same time, I don't think you could do any better anyways for just $300.

If I was going to switch to a new motherboard, I'd go with AMD so that I could get a more substantial upgrade with a 12 or 16-core CPU. There's actually a deal for a 3900X for about $400 going on, so if I went down the route of spending ~$600 for an upgrade, that would be the direction I'd go in: 3900X and X570 motherboard with 2+ M.2 slots so I can add more fast storage. (My current board only has 1 M.2 slot)

 

Heck, if I went that route, I could find a PSU and case for about $100 more, then split up the RAM between the two systems (32GB for the 3900X, 16GB for the 9600k) and I'd have two whole computers. Yes, the 9600k would be stuck with the Intel UHD graphics for now, but eventually I could throw in a 1660S or something when pricing returns to normal.

 

15 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I'd just save the money and buy into the new platform when you're ready. I don't imagine you'll see much of a difference.

But how do I know when I should upgrade? I waited way too long with my last computer - it had an i5 4440 and GT 635, plus Windows was on a HDD - I used it for over 6 years, and I only upgraded when I realized the hardware no longer met my needs at all, even after an upgrade to 16GB of RAM.

[CryingWimp]

AVOID all the Zyren 3000 recommendations. 10th/11th gen intel are faster and cheaper, so why? 

AVOID 6 cores in 2021. Its already not enough in many recently released AAA games. Plus you already have 6 cores, going from 6 cores to 6/12 isnt that big of an upgrade. Get 8 if you want your upgrade to be really worth it. 6 cores are entry level in 2021.

 

Your definitely right,

A 9900k would be a big upgrade in many games.

 

A 9600k only has 6 threads which is a problem in many games, absolutely going to 8core 16 threads would make a difference. Especially with other stuff open.

 

A 9900k is basically a 10700k. The only way going new makes sense is if you get a 10850k or 5900x, which would be a lot more expensive.

 

Otherwise a 9900k really is your best option under the none discounted price of a 10850k/5900x.

 

Just checked your motherboard, don't think I'd put a 9900k on it, it will VRM throttle. This is why budget boards are rarely actually cheaper. Plus lack USB ports etc.

 

Get a decent MB next time, you don't need to waste money but something decent.  The extreme low end and extreme high end should be avoided. The very high end is 2-3x the price for basically bragging rights only, but at the extreme low end they have to make massive compromises to get the cost down so the extra 20-75$ saved is a terrible value compared to the lost features and quality.

 

 

(*Something to consider, a 9900k had an MSRP of $488 the 9600k was $262, that's a difference of $226, so you saved $226 (x) years ago. How much would the upgrade to a 10700 cost, so did you really save $226? Now let me blow your mind, the 9900k is selling for at least $115 more than a 9600k on eBay, so the actual price difference after resale today is $111. Would you rather have saved that $111 or not need an upgrade? If the upgrade cost over $111 it would have actually been cheaper to own the 9900k this whole time, plus you'd have had a faster PC.

This will be true for any 2 CPUs that have a giant performance difference compared to the price. Example: no one should buy a 5800x, the 5900x is $100 more and has 50% more cores/thread, a 5900x will always resell for more than a 5800x, so the price difference will always be less than $100. If the 5900x prevents an upgrade by even a month per year you own it, the 5900x is cheaper. Right now a 3900x is actually reselling for more than the original $100 difference over a 3800x, so people upgrading today paid less to own the faster 3900x  Sometimes saving money is expensive.)

 

 

If you live near microcenter a 10850k is $319. Otherwise a 10700/11700, which ever version and model is cheaper IMO

 

8 cores is the minimum that would give you a "holy crap what an upgrade" level of excitement IMO

 

Waiting is a great option if your still happy. An upgrade would definitely be noticeable, whether its worth it or not is up to you.

[Mister Woof]

10700kf was 239 on Amazon today

 

10700K $246

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B086ML4XSB/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_HVR9CQGRT193YQDA7A0F

[Somerandomtechyboi]

Just swap to a newer platform like ryzen 5000 or maybe wait till alder lake.

 

In the meantime just oc your i5 more if you feel like its lackluster, maybe 5-5.2ghz all core as long as you dont go over 1.6v or over 95c.

 

But if theres a way to set single core freq then you could prob set that at 5.3-5.5ghz

[jones177]

I don't think you need the speed of the i9 9900k unless you are planning to get a 3070 or better. 

 

At stock my i9 9900k using a 2080 ti does the Shadow of the Tomb Raider bench on the highest preset at 1440p averaging 133fps. My stock 5800x does 129fps with the same 2080 ti. The 5800x ties at 1080p with a score of 160fps.

 

For 1440p gaming my 5800x or i9 10900k are not upgrades for the i9 9900k. Some games do better on the i9 10900k and others on the 5800x but not enough for an upgrade.

 

My i9 9900k spent most of its life with a 5ghz all core overclock at 1.27v.  It is not on now since the i9 is not used for gaming. I do test with it to see how much better the my new CPUs are compared to it and I am not blow away with either the 5800x or the i9 10900k compered to the i9 9900k. 

 

[Mister Woof]

18 hours ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Just swap to a newer platform like ryzen 5000 or maybe wait till alder lake.

 

In the meantime just oc your i5 more if you feel like its lackluster, maybe 5-5.2ghz all core as long as you dont go over 1.6v or over 95c.

 

But if theres a way to set single core freq then you could prob set that at 5.3-5.5ghz

Only top 5% of 9900k's could even do 5.1ghz; 8th and 9th gen really do top out around there and binning goes down when you drop the stack from i9 down to i5. I think anything past 5ghz is pretty unlikely. 5.3 and 5.5ghz for sure would be golden sample + ridiculously high voltage + a chiller or something.

 

Realistically, 4.8-4.9ghz is reasonable for a 9600k.

[YoungBlade]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

Only top 5% of 9900k's could even do 5.1ghz; 9th and 10th gen really do top out around there and binning goes down when you drop the stack from i9 down to i5. I think anything past 5ghz is pretty unlikely. 5.3 and 5.5ghz for sure would be golden sample + ridiculously high voltage + a chiller or something.

 

Realistically, 4.8-4.9ghz is reasonable for a 9600k.

That seems about right for me. I actually just tried again for the 5GHz all core, but even with 1.355v, it isn't stable. I could push the voltage higher, but I think I'll settle for my proven 4.8GHz all core at 1.3v since it never crashes. I think that one might be stable at as low as 1.27v, so maybe I'll just try to see how low I can push the voltage for that. Frankly, I don't notice a difference between the two, apart from the lack of bragging rights of saying I've got a chip that does 5GHz...

[Mister Woof]

9 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

That seems about right for me. I actually just tried again for the 5GHz all core, but even with 1.355v, it isn't stable. I could push the voltage higher, but I think I'll settle for my proven 4.8GHz all core at 1.3v since it never crashes. I think that one might be stable at as low as 1.27v, so maybe I'll just try to see how low I can push the voltage for that. Frankly, I don't notice a difference between the two, apart from the lack of bragging rights of saying I've got a chip that does 5GHz...

From personal experience, there wasn't much going from 4.8ghz to 5ghz on my 8700k.

That said, more cores over a 9600k could come in handy.

 

You have a very short time to take advantage of this deal if you live in the USA b/c of Prime Day:

 

$239 10700KF

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-10700KF-Processor-Unlocked-Graphics/dp/B086MMS6FV/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=10700kf&qid=1624398745&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&sr=8-1

 

or

$246 10700K

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-10700K-Processor-Unlocked-BX8070110700K/dp/B086ML4XSB/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=10700kf&qid=1624398768&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&sr=8-2

 

+

$151 Gigabyte Z590 UD

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B083HZ17LX/ref=crt_ewc_title_dp_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

or

$167 Gigabyte Z590 UD w/AC wifi

https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-Triple-Wireless-AC-2-5GbE-Motherboard/dp/B083HZ6D35/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=z590+ud+ac&qid=1624398879&s=electronics&sr=1-1

 

This performs very thermally well for what it is (See HUB's video, VRM didn't break 75c with an OC 11900k in an hour blender test). You will lose the top M.2 slot b/c its only for 11th gen, but for <$400, it's a great deal.

 

Then sell off your other stuff or use it elsewhere.

 

10th gen is superior to 9th gen in thermal design. I would take the 10700K over a 9900k any day of the week

[YoungBlade]

@Mister Woof That's actually a really good recommendation. Honestly, that seems like a better idea than a 9900k, because I'd get a superior motherboard and I'd still have another upgrade option down the road with a 10900k if I really wanted it.

 

But I think I'll just stick with what I have for now. The 9600k is a bit of an awkward chip - a product of a moment where Intel was trying to beat Ryzen without offering core/thread parity - but it honestly meets my needs.

 

I can just hang on to the $300-400 and look forward to what the future might offer. Perhaps Alder Lake will be a huge turning point for Intel, and it'll offer a massive performance boost while running cool thanks to big-little. Perhaps Zen 4 will raise core counts yet again, and I could double my cores with a Ryzen 7 12-core for that $400 I saved.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

33 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

@Mister Woof That's actually a really good recommendation. Honestly, that seems like a better idea than a 9900k, because I'd get a superior motherboard and I'd still have another upgrade option down the road with a 10900k if I really wanted it.

 

But I think I'll just stick with what I have for now. The 9600k is a bit of an awkward chip - a product of a moment where Intel was trying to beat Ryzen without offering core/thread parity - but it honestly meets my needs.

 

I can just hang on to the $300-400 and look forward to what the future might offer. Perhaps Alder Lake will be a huge turning point for Intel, and it'll offer a massive performance boost while running cool thanks to big-little. Perhaps Zen 4 will raise core counts yet again, and I could double my cores with a Ryzen 7 12-core for that $400 I saved.

For right now go ryzen 3000 or 5000, if you wanna wait, intels alder lake even if it may also be trash at multithread will alteast be able to oc the big cores higher which equals more gaming performance

[Mister Woof]

18 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

For right now go ryzen 3000 or 5000, if you wanna wait, intels alder lake even if it may also be trash at multithread will alteast be able to oc the big cores higher which equals more gaming performance

5000 is worth it, 3000 is inferior to Intel 8th gen+

[dizmo]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:38 PM, YoungBlade said:

But how do I know when I should upgrade? I waited way too long with my last computer - it had an i5 4440 and GT 635, plus Windows was on a HDD - I used it for over 6 years, and I only upgraded when I realized the hardware no longer met my needs at all, even after an upgrade to 16GB of RAM.

Then you didn't wait too long. You upgrade when it doesn't do what you need it to, or when you want something new. Neither way is wrong.