First Benchmarks Core i5-9600K Leak, Overclocks to 5.2 GHz On Air
Click here to post a comment for First Benchmarks Core i5-9600K Leak, Overclocks to 5.2 GHz On Air on our message forum
warlord
So, the difference this time between 8 and 9 series cpu wise are only higher clocks and twice the ram support.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
You're forgetting two more cores for the two tier1 SKUs.
Petr V
If they availability will be the same as nvidia rtx cards so you will wait long to get one.
Dat’s funny how nvidia and intel doing business they releasing overpriced pruducts plus they are not available after release.
warlord
Yeah my mistake. I had only 9900K in mind and 8900k never existed, that was a bad comparison even 8700k and 9700k aren't exactly the same.
B-linq
5,2GHz on air with 1,507V, temps over 90° and 240W power drain.
Kaarme
Don't forget Intel recommends that industrial cooling device for every respectable PC owner.
MK80
They did not bother to find the minimum voltage to run steady. For me it's the same as the i5-8600K .... But with the price it cost my i7-8700K ....
SmootyPoody
"That's Core i5-8600K territory.".... Well shouldn´t it be able to do the same as the 8600K, but better?.. I dont understand this statement.
So a 8600K does 1187 @ 5GHz.. Then a newer (but similar) 9600K comes along and does only 1207 @ 5.2GHz?? What?..
MK80
Do you know that the times of memories make a lot of difference? I can achieve the same results with a 4.9 Ghz vs 5.0Ghz applying better times. With 5.0 Ghz plus 4000 / XMP cl19 in the memories I have 1650 and reducing 4.9 Ghz and 3200 Cl14 and more improvements I have 1630. If I keep XMP in the OC 4.9Ghz I have a 1580 more at least.
TLD LARS
Hope it has good singlecore gaming performance, because the multicore cinebench score is slower then a stock Ryzen 1700 with 3200 memory.
fantaskarsef
I didn't post the whole day for this matter as it's pretty rediculous... I've had my 5930K for years now, and already back then (it was more expansive than 9600K I admit) you could easily get to 1300+ on CinebenchR15 with a 4.5GHz overclock. Here's a similar OC result: https://hwbot.org/submission/2631928_mshagg_cinebench___r15_core_i7_5930k_1335_cb/
Seems I deleted my screenshot with a score of 1337, but honestly... why should I buy this CPU? Please help me understand, I have a hard time... where's the IPC improvement? That thing should be so much faster than my chip... maybe it's because mine is under water?
travian
No thank you, I would buy an r7 2700x with the stock cooler and I use it for much faster CG rendering and gaming.
nhlkoho
Faster rendering maybe, but not gaming
Neo Cyrus
Too many things are multi threaded these days for me to consider a 6 threaded CPU. It's a relief to see it finally happening. I'll be waiting for Zen 2 architecture chips. Or hell, maybe even DDR5 at this rate because I'm sure as hell not paying the "lulz we have fixed prices, pay us triple the 2016 price" price. Up yours Samdung, Micron, and Hynix.
I give that 2 years. It's only a matter of time before games become even more multi threaded and make proper use of AMD CPUs now that they're become very common.
Chert
Not having hyperthreading, this CPU certainly should overclock higher. But I still like my CPUs to have hyperthreading so this and the new i7s are out of my radar. The i9s are very expensive so I guess the 8700k is still relevant for me.
NaturalViolence
I'm skeptical. Games generally perform better on Intel cpus because the cache structure and pipeline that Intel uses better favors that type of application. Clock rates and core count alone aren't going to take care of that because they don't scale well past a certain point without changes being made to the underlying architecture. I wouldn't count on better multithreading alone closing the gap, after all people have been making that argument for 10 years now and Intel cpus are still leading AMD in most games despite very good multithreading in today's titles (especially compared to back then).
Kaarme
Who have been making that argument for 10 years now? Whoever they are, I wouldn't listen to them as they obviously don't know what they are talking about. We haven't had proper multithreading in games because Intel refused to give the mainstream CPUs with more than 4 cores for those 10 years, and only the very top of the mainstream had 4 cores with 8 threads, while many had a pitiful complement of 2 cores with 4 threads. Intel is the very reason why multihreading hasn't been a thing in games. No studio would make highly multithreaded games if there are no people with proper CPUs.
Irenicus
No big deal really. My 8600k OC's to 5ghz on air, stable as heck. Multithreading isn't important for gaming which is my main use for PC. So no biggy
Irenicus
I think you're out of the loop on how many cores games use nowadays, and most of that is down to how windows manages your CPU, not games themselves. I have yet to see a game that DOESN'T use all 6 of my cores. Whether it uses theme efficiently is debatable, but use them it does.
Kaarme
Sure, that did happen very recently, relatively speaking. Surprisingly (sarcastically speaking) what else happened very recently is AMD giving the mainstream 8 cores and 16 threads. Before that some games could put the 8 threads of an i7 to some use, but didn't much suffer without either.
