ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 WIFI6E router review
Backforce One Plus Gaming Chair review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Review: Intel Core i5 8600K CPU
We'll review the more mainstream six-core proc from Intel as we put the Core i5 8600K through our benchmark paces. This $257 USD proc is again a six-core processor that you will need to seat on a Z370 chipset based motherboard. While it isn't fitted enabled with hyper-threading, it might however be one sweet gaming processor with its all-core turbo to 4.1 GHz and again it being tweakable to that 5.0 GHz on all six cores. Read the full review here.
Preview: The new MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X Trio - 10/12/2017 09:49 AM
Back at Computex 2017 I was chatting with the MSI team, they have been looking for some feedback and back then I told them that while the Twinfrozr design is fantastic in cooling, looks and performanc...
Review: Middle-Earth Shadow of War: PC graphics performance analysis - 10/11/2017 06:32 PM
We'll test Middle-Earth Shadow of War for Windows PC relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. With close to 20 cards, multiple graphics cards are b...
Review: Toshiba TR200 SSD 960GB - Value at 28 cents per GB - 10/11/2017 12:01 PM
We review the latest spawn from Toshiba, in particular the new Toshiba TR200 series SSDs. This new model positions itself in the entry to mainstream SSD segment battling with the 850 EVO and BX300 ser...
Review: Cooler Master MasterCase H500P PC case - 10/10/2017 02:00 PM
We have a new HAF in da house. Join us as we review the Cooler Master MasterCase H500P. The PC case has been redesigned for the year 2017 and that includes usage of a tempered glass side-panel as well...
Review: ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Poseidon - 10/09/2017 09:28 AM
It is time to take and test the best that ASUS puts on the table, the mighty ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Poseidon Platinum. This graphics cards comes 100% customized with factory tweaks, a dual fan a...
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 15139
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 15139
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5481397 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:23 PM
Hi all! Nice review HH!
Well... times are different nowadays. AMD really did very well with Ryzen.
This i5 8600K was SPANKED by a US 200 RYZEN 1600?!?! 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!
Question, where do you see the 8600k being spanked by the 1600? They're pretty even(a few points ahead for the 1600 in synthetic, and a few points ahead for the 8600k in gaming, but not enough to make a difference) in synthetic and gaming tests.
What I will say about the 8600k versus the 1600, for minimum performance difference you pay $80. That's a lot to pay for considering very marginal difference.
Hi all! Nice review HH!
Well... times are different nowadays. AMD really did very well with Ryzen.
This i5 8600K was SPANKED by a US 200 RYZEN 1600?!?! 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!
Question, where do you see the 8600k being spanked by the 1600? They're pretty even(a few points ahead for the 1600 in synthetic, and a few points ahead for the 8600k in gaming, but not enough to make a difference) in synthetic and gaming tests.
What I will say about the 8600k versus the 1600, for minimum performance difference you pay $80. That's a lot to pay for considering very marginal difference.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 3868
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 3868
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5481402 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:31 PM
Very nice CPU but i can´t use it on my MB so Intel can keep it.
Great review as always!!!
Very nice CPU but i can´t use it on my MB so Intel can keep it.
Great review as always!!!
NiColaoS
Senior Member
Posts: 666
Joined: 2011-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 666
Joined: 2011-01-17
#5481404 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:39 PM
I really want to jump, but I don't see any reason to get the 8600K over 8400 ( 80€; difference! ). The problem is, the 8400 comes only locked. I don't mind at all being locked, but, right now, no options for a completely suitable motherboard... The Asrock Extreme 4 is all I want ( Intel l219V lan, 1220 Realtek audio, M2 slots and USB 3.1 future-proof af ), but it comes only with Z chipset. I don't see H370 Extreme 4 being available. I don't want to give more money for something I won't ever use ( motherboard being unlocked whilst CPU locked ).
So, let's say I get the 8400 over 8600K and if there was H370 over Z370 chipset... I could spend ~110€ less for both of them.
I really want to jump, but I don't see any reason to get the 8600K over 8400 ( 80€; difference! ). The problem is, the 8400 comes only locked. I don't mind at all being locked, but, right now, no options for a completely suitable motherboard... The Asrock Extreme 4 is all I want ( Intel l219V lan, 1220 Realtek audio, M2 slots and USB 3.1 future-proof af ), but it comes only with Z chipset. I don't see H370 Extreme 4 being available. I don't want to give more money for something I won't ever use ( motherboard being unlocked whilst CPU locked ).
So, let's say I get the 8400 over 8600K and if there was H370 over Z370 chipset... I could spend ~110€ less for both of them.
ubercake
Senior Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 2014-06-11
Senior Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 2014-06-11
#5481405 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:41 PM
This is why I like guru3d so much. We can see the big picture differences or lack thereof when you're looking for, primarily, CPU only performance differences or gaming performance differences. A lot of sites won't even post the 1440p gaming performance because it reveals little difference in gaming performance between the 2012 and the 2017 processor or the $200 and the $500+ processor. I'm sure this is not necessarily something Intel wants you to know.
It's kind of funny when other sites formerly used the argument for Sandy Bridge that 1080p was where they would focus their reviews because that's what most users had in their setup and now the argument for Coffee Lake and not showing higher-than-1080p resolutions while sticking to 1080p to reveal the performance when the gaming performance is bottlenecked by the processor. If that's your argument, why bother showing gaming performance at all if you just want to exhibit CPU performance?
What's funny is we can see on guru3d, given the same GPU and higher resolutions (1440p+), there's little difference in the gaming performance between the older processors (circa 2012) and the newer processors.
In practical terms, I want to see reviews showing setups close to mine. Take the thinking out of it for me and if I want to dig, I'll look at the specifics. A big thanks to guru3d for continuing to do this.
This is why I like guru3d so much. We can see the big picture differences or lack thereof when you're looking for, primarily, CPU only performance differences or gaming performance differences. A lot of sites won't even post the 1440p gaming performance because it reveals little difference in gaming performance between the 2012 and the 2017 processor or the $200 and the $500+ processor. I'm sure this is not necessarily something Intel wants you to know.
It's kind of funny when other sites formerly used the argument for Sandy Bridge that 1080p was where they would focus their reviews because that's what most users had in their setup and now the argument for Coffee Lake and not showing higher-than-1080p resolutions while sticking to 1080p to reveal the performance when the gaming performance is bottlenecked by the processor. If that's your argument, why bother showing gaming performance at all if you just want to exhibit CPU performance?
What's funny is we can see on guru3d, given the same GPU and higher resolutions (1440p+), there's little difference in the gaming performance between the older processors (circa 2012) and the newer processors.
In practical terms, I want to see reviews showing setups close to mine. Take the thinking out of it for me and if I want to dig, I'll look at the specifics. A big thanks to guru3d for continuing to do this.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 148
Joined: 2016-10-13
Looks pretty good for enthousiast gamers, beats the 1600x performance-wise.
Any chance we'll be seeing a 1900x review soon Hilbert?