Intel Core i5 8600K processor review

Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:02 PM

---

Probably the best all-around CPU Intel has released since the 2700K. The real stupid thing is how they could've released this product over 2 years ago (with Skylake, or maybe even Haswell). If I had a 144Hz+ monitor, this would definitely be the CPU I'd get. But since I have no interest in that and probably never will, I don't regret having a Ryzen 5.


Intel is in a bit of a sticky situation with this model. The 8600K needs to outperform the 1600(X), but it shouldn't ever do better than the 8700K, and it wouldn't look good on Intel if it did better than the 7700K. They can't adjust the price too much because that would make the 7700K look like more of total rip-off than it already is and annoy KL owners more than they already have. Despite this being a great product, Intel's sandbagging with KL has finally caught up with them.

Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:09 PM

---

Great in deep review Hilbert with all the informations needed to make a sensible purchase.

I'm building a new computer soon for my work (with some casual gaming) at home and i'll probably buy the Ryzen 5 1600x and hope games will be more optimized for multi cores in the future.

Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:17 PM

---

Non-game benchmarks were a bit lackluster to be brutally honest, but all in all it looks like a pretty nice CPU, especially for gaming. I might have been tempted to upgrade to this if Intel had made Coffee Lake compatible with the previous generation mobos with the same socket. But no way I'd buy a whole new mobo for this. It was Intel's choice for their own reasons, so they won't see my money.

Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:22 PM

---

I really dont understand that people come with this story "its a gaming processors"... what is for gaming is GPU.. at this point of level any good processor will play very well.
Intel is falling every day... this processor is 30% more expensive and WORST the R5 1600. Only who not like his money to buy INTEL today!
As someone who values gaming performance over anything else, when I buy a CPU I want something that will handle well not just games that take advantage of multiple cores but also games that want fast cores.
I also want something that is more likely to handle future more demanding games better, especially since once I get a coffee lake based system, I don't intend to upgrade CPU again for at least 5+ years, while I intend to upgrade GPU in just 2 or 3 years.

Though, for myself, I'm not interested in the i5 8600K. I'm finding the i5 8400 and i7 8700 alot more interesting, both price and specs wise (I'm very likely to get both, i5 for my sister's PC, i7 for myself, though I'll be using the i5 while I save up money for the i7).

Posted on: 10/13/2017 04:03 PM

---

I think the inclusion of the new low res 720p CPU bound testing was a good step Hilbert, thanks for including those. People with 144Hz 1080p monitors like myself sometimes turn down game details to achieve 144 fps while still gaming at 1080p, which is effectively the same for the CPU as the tests you're doing at 720p, so it's a useful inclusion to see how different CPUs will perform in the 144Hz zone. It looks like Intel is dominating in that zone, even some of the older generations of Intel too.

8600K looks like a good gaming CPU right now, although if I were building a system now I'd go the extra for the 8700K to get more threads, which is useful now but also increasingly in the future - 8700K would be a more solid platform for upcoming future GPU generation upgrades.