I5 8600K vs R5 1600X

[Ace1329]

What I do with my PC : Playing Games (Both old and new, especially CSGO, DOTA 2 GTA 5, Hitman etc.,),Programming, Game development, Browsing. 

I don't want to close running programs (IDE, audio chat, web browsers) while playing games. 

 

I can put some extra buck over R5 1600X to get i 5 8600K. 

But I wanna know if it is worth putting extra. 

 

Other parts I picked:

GTX 1060 6GB OC Dual fan (MSI mostly, Its cheaper here) .

Corsair Vengeance 2*8 3200Mhz.

Monitor 144hz 1ms response time 24inch(I need suggestions on this on too). 

Please help me out picking processor for my PC Build. 

For selected  CPU please suggest good MoBo and CPU cooler. (I want to overclock after some time) 

I need suggestions on Monitor, Case and any changes to my build.

 

Last one:

Will 6C/6T of i5  8600K act more future proof compared to 6C/12T R5 1600X?

 

If possible please provide benchmark (Mainly Gaming fps on old and new games)  stats for both.

Thank you. 

[Damascus]

I would get an 8700 non k with an asus board with mce (multi core enhancement) running it at 4.6ghz on all cores all the time.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Damascus
8700k runs 4.7ghz boost, 8700 runs 4.6

[Jurrunio]

How much does 8700 and 8400 prices compared to 1600/1600x (whichever is cheaper, both overclockable anyway)

[AresKrieger]

11 minutes ago, Damascus said:

I would get an 8700 non k with an asus board with mce (multi core enhancement) running it at 4.7ghz on all cores all the time.

Does multi-core enhancement work on a non k sku, if it does that is good to know for the future

 

And would be my choice as well

[Damascus]

17 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Does multi-core enhancement work on a non k sku, if it does that is good to know for the future

 

And would be my choice as well

Yep, that's why the 8700 consistently performs super close to the 8700k on asus boards

[Simon771]

I have i5 8600k and I'm glad with it.

Performance wise, it is better than R5 1600 in any aspect. Single threaded workload or multi-threaded one.

 

So i5 8600k is clear winner against r5 1600 ... performance wise. Downside is that you need to pay a bit more for 8600k.

But when it comes to games, you will want Intel for that. I had R7 1700 before and I went to 8600k just because I was lacking single core performance in games.

[just_dave]

15 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

But when it comes to games, you will want Intel for that. I had R7 1700 before and I went to 8600k just because I was lacking single core performance in games

you should specify that you had problems with a dinky-ass title with basically no optimization.

I am playing with stock R5 1600 and purely singlecore game like War Thunder runs at 120+ Fps 90% of the time with a midrange GPU.

I dont think that's an issue with Ryzen anywhere except 240hz 1080p gaming.

[Princess Luna]

I would go with Ryzen because the 1060 isn't that powerful any ways and the Ryzen processor will max it the very same way the i5 will but for pretty cheaper.

[Simon771]

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

you should specify that you had problems with a dinky-ass title with basically no optimization.

I am playing with stock R5 1600 and purely singlecore game like War Thunder runs at 120+ Fps 90% of the time with a midrange GPU.

I dont think that's an issue with Ryzen anywhere except 240hz 1080p gaming.

You are right ... I should have stated that I'm playing MMORPGs.

So WoW, GW2, BDO.

In all of those games you are much better off with Intel than Ryzen.

 

In Overwatch I don't see any difference, but this game is optimised AF.

[Maxxtraxx]

1 hour ago, dave_k said:

you should specify that you had problems with a dinky-ass title with basically no optimization.

I am playing with stock R5 1600 and purely singlecore game like War Thunder runs at 120+ Fps 90% of the time with a midrange GPU.

I dont think that's an issue with Ryzen anywhere except 240hz 1080p gaming.

You mean games like...

Witcher 3? 156 FPS vs 116 FPS

Rise of the Tomb Raider? 130 FPS vs 100 FPS

Far Cry Primal? 136 FPS vs 100 FPS

Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

 

26% average performance boost over the 1600X @ 4ghz is... meaningful given the choice between the two.

 

8600 Benches here

1600x @ 4ghz Benches here

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

You mean games like...

Witcher 3? 156 FPS vs 116 FPS

Rise of the Tomb Raider? 130 FPS vs 100 FPS

Far Cry Primal? 136 FPS vs 100 FPS

Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

 

26% average performance boost over the 1600X @ 4ghz is... meaningful given the choice between the two.

 

8600 Benches here

1600x @ 4ghz Benches here

Yeah but these are with a nVidia TITAN Xp

OP is buying a GTX 1060 lol... so much for taking OP's into regard when advising.

[Maxxtraxx]

18 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Yeah but these are with a nVidia TITAN Xp

OP is buying a GTX 1060 lol... so much for taking OP's into regard when advising.

Soooo... what your're saying is that you should completely disregard a better performing product because with your current setup you won't see an immediate difference? I mean... it's not like anyone around here upgrades to better GPU's down the road or anything... I mean... why should i take that into consideration and recommend a product with a noticeable performance boost?

 

It is worth it to purchase the best performing product that you can currently afford to allow for the best possible future upgrade path.

 

So when someone asks, should I get part A(not even overclocked) that performs 25% better than part B(fully overclocked) for my current build... however my current GPU can't fully extract every ounce of performance from yet... My answer is yes, 25% better performance is worth it. When he upgrades to a GTX1160/2060 or a used GTX1080/1080Ti in the future, those products receive a 25% performance boost because of the better part being put in now.

[Princess Luna]

17 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

?

Yeah the ryzen 5 1600 is a perfectly fine processor, there is no difference for a 1060 it'll play out fine while do every thing else OP is interested and again it is very much cheaper.

 

When OP decides to upgrade his graphics card he should do so considering a higher resolution new display or at least I would hope so and then at higher resolutions the performance is rather negligible:

 

Not saying one shouldn't get the i5 8600k if has money means, hells I actually adivse the i7 8700 instead since it outperforms the i5 8600k at 5ghz and you can even up the spending with a cheaper motherboard and cooling solution.

 

But realistic speaking to the games OP is considering, the level of GPU chosen... OP is clearly looking for savings rather than spend 100 extra dollars for a few likely unnoticeable fps gain in a future GPU he doesn't even own.

[Maxxtraxx]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Not saying one shouldn't get the i5 8600k if has money means, hells I actually adivse the i7 8700 instead since it outperforms the i5 8600k at 5ghz and you can even up the spending with a cheaper motherboard and cooling solution.

 

But realistic speaking to the games OP is considering, the level of GPU chosen... OP is clearly looking for savings rather than spend 100 extra dollars for a few likely unnoticeable fps gain in a future GPU he doesn't even own.

 

He asked:

 

3 hours ago, Ace1329 said:

I can put some extra buck over R5 1600X to get i 5 8600K. 

But I wanna know if it is worth putting extra. 

The answer is yes, you even said so yourself, I saw no point that he was looking to save money, he said that he HAS the money and is asking if it is worth it. Yes, a 25% bonus towards his future is worth it.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Maxxtraxx said:

The answer is yes, you even said so yourself, I saw no point that he was looking to save money, he said that he HAS the money and is asking if it is worth it. Yes, a 25% towards his future is worth it.

I disagree, I can not see it being worth it to what he is doing much less to the level of GPU and Display he is acquiring.

[Maxxtraxx]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

I disagree, I can not see it being worth it to what he is doing much less to the level of GPU and Display he is acquiring.

Ok, you disagree a better product is not worth it even though he has the money and is willing to spend it... just because his current setup can't fully take advantage of it. You are entitled to your opinions.

 

ACE1329: It's your money and your future upgrade path you have in mind. Equal or slightly lesser performance right now or spend the $100 and get something that will perform a little better now and much better in the future. You make the $100 choice based upon your aspirations and desires. I'm always going to recommend the better product within the budget you have decided upon.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Maxxtraxx said:

.

I would only consider Coffee Lake if OP wanted to play more demanding games at high settings and was willing to go as far as a GTX 1070 Ti... I won't go on further here, the better product depends on points of view which we are diverging, I think we said enough and can let the thread move on for OP to decide.

 

Cheers!

[Maxxtraxx]

4 hours ago, Ace1329 said:

What I do with my PC : Playing Games (Both old and new, especially CSGO, DOTA 2 GTA 5, Hitman etc.,),Programming, Game development, Browsing. 

I don't want to close running programs (IDE, audio chat, web browsers) while playing games. 

 

I can put some extra buck over R5 1600X to get i 5 8600K. 

But I wanna know if it is worth putting extra. 

 

Other parts I picked:

GTX 1060 6GB OC Dual fan (MSI mostly, Its cheaper here) .

Corsair Vengeance 2*8 3200Mhz.

Monitor 144hz 1ms response time 24inch(I need suggestions on this on too). 

Please help me out picking processor for my PC Build. 

For selected  CPU please suggest good MoBo and CPU cooler. (I want to overclock after some time) 

I need suggestions on Monitor, Case and any changes to my build.

 

Last one:

Will 6C/6T of i5  8600K act more future proof compared to 6C/12T R5 1600X?

 

If possible please provide benchmark (Mainly Gaming fps on old and new games)  stats for both.

Thank you. 

PC part picker: HERE

I do not claim that this is the best possible build for you, that it could not be done cheaper or that you will like it. But I did attempt to follow your design requirements and use high quality parts with reasonable prices.

 

I went through and did a rough build using the memory and GPU that you selected and then added:

 

8600k with a z370 Motherboard that should overclock well without being crazy expensive and a Beefy CPU cooler to help with your temperatures when overclocking(a lesser air cooler can lower your price 50$ while sacrificing maybe 100-200 Mhz and 10-20 deg C when overclocking)

 

1TB SSD(2.5 inch) a big, fast and reliable SSD, go smaller if you need to save some money, IMO 250Gb is the smallest i would recommend.

 

1080p 144hz monitor that had a few good reviews and a reasonable price. You are going to be looking at this screen everyday so get what you want, I just found something that may work.

 

Power Supply: Tier 1(best possible quality: See LTT topic on that Here) 750watt for future GPU upgradability and system stability: a Tier 1 PSU for $65, that quality to price ratio is really good and its only $30 more than some TERRIBLE set your system/house on fire PSUs.

 

Case: Fractal Design Meshify C (I own it, I really like it, it has glass and a smaller footprint while giving great filtered airflow, BUT it does NOT have 5.25" bays and only 2 3.5in Drive bays) (you can get a MUCH cheaper case, but... for Glass and this quality level... IMO $50 more is worth it unless it doesn't fit the budget)

 

You did not provide a total system build cost so in my build I cut cost in areas where I felt it made little difference while providing quality(MOBO/PSU)

 

It is My opinion that the 8600K will provide you with the better choice for future-proofing your system, it has 6 cores (which is now to showing itself to be more and more useful in games), it has some of the highest possible Overclocks of any chip available, it has the highest single thread performance of any chip available, and it has an upgrade path to an 8700k with more thread handling if and when you need it.

 

The CPU benchmarks that show the best case scenario for performance difference can be found here:

Tomshardware: 8600k vs 1600 LINK HERE

 

GTA5: 101 fps vs 81 fps (25% better)

Hitman: 135 fps vs 104 fps (30% better)

DOTA2 and CSGO: sorry I could not find any relevant benchmarks... but I think i can safely say that Intel's much higher Clock speed and better single threaded performance should put it on top here in a perfect scenario.

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

You mean games like...

Witcher 3? 156 FPS vs 116 FPS

Rise of the Tomb Raider? 130 FPS vs 100 FPS

Far Cry Primal? 136 FPS vs 100 FPS

Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

 

26% average performance boost over the 1600X @ 4ghz is... meaningful given the choice between the two.

 

8600 Benches here

1600x @ 4ghz Benches here

Best of luck to you and I hope this helps in some way!

[just_dave]

6 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

If you see this as significant performance difference, you should seek medical help

[Maxxtraxx]

4 hours ago, dave_k said:

If you see this as significant performance difference, you should seek medical help

I understand your point on that, but...

If this was a gtx1060 vs rx580 question half the forum would be having a full on nuclear war over 10fps because that must mean one card is crap and one is good.

My only goal was to show the overall trend that it follows, unity follows that trend that I was pointing out but to a lesser degree.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Maxxtraxx
Sentence structure

[just_dave]

12 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

I understand your point on that, but...

If this was a gtx1060 vs rx580 question half the forum would be having a full on nuclear war over 10fps because that must mean one card is crap and one is good.

My only goal was to show the overall trend that it follows, unity follows that trend that I was pointing out but to a lesser degree.

I mean, all of the benchmarks shoukd be taken with a grain of salt because most people wont use top of the line GPU and that is still the major performance factor in games.

Ofcourse intel has better gaming performance, but the difference is mostly visible with nonsense combinations (1080Ti at 1080p or something) 

[Maxxtraxx]

50 minutes ago, dave_k said:

I mean, all of the benchmarks shoukd be taken with a grain of salt because most people wont use top of the line GPU and that is still the major performance factor in games.

Ofcourse intel has better gaming performance, but the difference is mostly visible with nonsense combinations (1080Ti at 1080p or something) 

As digital Foundry says they perform their CPU test with the highest performance GPU possible to eliminate bottlenecks. Because it's only when you eliminate gpu bottlenecks that you see the true difference come out when the CPU is not being held back by the GPU.

You're correct in saying that a 1080ti makes the performance difference apparent but that's because of the high frame rates it provides, so it's not just a more powerful GPU but High frame rates that bring out the performance difference.

It's not just "nonsense" combinations that bring this out it's just more apparent with those. So as time goes on and graphics cards come down in price and new ones come out, that performance difference will become more and more obvious.

Hence, always buy the best performing product within your available price range to give yourself the most future-proof possible build.

I would also point out that the number of people that use 1070 and higher gpus is rather significant and anything 1070 up can definitely benefit along with lower resolution High frame rate setups.

[epsilon84]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

 

it is true, with a GTX 1060, the differences between a 1600X and 8600K would be miminal in most games as the GPU is not powerful enough to show differentiation between the CPUs.

 

It is also true, that a 8600K will provide higher framerates if paired with a suitably fast GPU. The faster the GPU, the greater the difference will be between the 8600K and 1600X. With a 1080 Ti, the difference is around 25%. With a 1080/1070 Ti that might shrink to 10 - 15% (just an estimate here). 

 

The key consideration is longevity and how 'future proof' the CPU is. Generally speaking, people upgrade the GPU a lot more often than a CPU. When and if the OP decides to upgrade the GTX 1060 in order to play newer games at closer to 144fps, he will notice the difference between a 8600K and 1600X. Is that worth the $100 price difference? Only the OP can decide that.

 

When it comes to high fps gaming, Intel simply has the IPC and raw clockspeed to outperform AMD, but you do need a powerful GPU to show the difference, as can be seen here, for example: