Monday, September 10th 2018

Intel Core i5-9600K Surfaces on GeekBench Database

With the swanky Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K eight-core chips getting all the attention, the less glamorous Core i5-9600K is taking shape, which could bring a little more performance to the $250 price-point. This 6-core/6-thread chip succeeds the current-gen i5-8600K, and has the same 9 MB of L3 cache. With not much in the way of micro-architectural IPC improvements, barring silicon-level hardening against certain vulnerabilities, which could improve speculative execution performance (versus processors with software patches that inflict performance penalties); Intel has dialed up clock speeds. The chip is clocked at 3.70 GHz, with a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 4.60 GHz, compared to the 3.60 GHz nominal and 4.30 GHz Turbo Boost frequencies of its predecessor.

The higher clocks seem to bring the i5-9600K a touch higher than the i5-8600K in terms of GeekBench scores, although still nowhere close to the i7-8700 (non-K). The i5-8600K, if you'll recall, beat some of its pricier previous-generation siblings such as the i7-7700, in multi-threaded tests. Someone with access to an i5-9600K put it through GeekBench 4. The chip scores 6,015 points in the single-core test or about 3.7 percent faster than its predecessor (the i5-8600K typically scores 5,800 points), coming from the 300 MHz higher single-core boost. The multi-core score is 23,393 points, which is a meager 2 percent faster (the i5-8600K typically scores around 23,000 points). The generational jump in performance for the mid-range hence seems to have stagnated. At best the i5-9600K will repair the uncertain price/performance equation the i5-8600K has against the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X.
Source: GeekBench Database
Add your own comment

26 Comments on Intel Core i5-9600K Surfaces on GeekBench Database

#1
kastriot
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
Posted on Reply
#2
Upgrayedd
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
$125? really? You expect the 9600K should cost less than a R5 2400G? Then you said the other day that 2x16GB of RAM should be $100... Who has their head up their ass?
Posted on Reply
#3
aldo5
so this is a i5-8600K performance with +300mhz base clock (as i5-8600K is K - you can add +300 or substract any moment you want) - nice "job" intel.
Posted on Reply
#4
Hood
"Upgrayedd said:
$125? really? You expect the 9600K should cost less than a R5 2400G? Then you said the other day that 2x16GB of RAM should be $100... Who has their head up their ass?
I guess I do too, because I'm really getting tired of the PC/internet/phone price gouging. Also considering that you can't turn off the updates on anything (even though it can brick your hardware), it's insulting that you pay so much to be part of this whole PC/internet/cell phone world that didn't even exist until recently. I seem to recall that life was fine before all this crap - a pay phone and a library card was a hell of a lot cheaper than the way it is now, and we couldn't miss what we never had.
Posted on Reply
#5
notb
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
What?
If true, this slight gain in single thread is a welcome result. Remember how people expected the security fixes to consume 10-20% of performance? :-)

I'm slightly worried about mobile CPUs front. Since Intel is currently just eating out the frequency headroom and 8th gen were already clocked too aggressively, 9th gen became just a minor update. They haven't even changed the leading digit (still 8xxx). This also means we can't expect anything better until 10nm arrives. :/
Posted on Reply
#6
DeathtoGnomes
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
considering the 8600 still is around $250, i have to ask what you're smoking here to think Intel drop the price to $150 just to compete with AMD APUs like the 2400.
Posted on Reply
#7
hat
Enthusiast
"notb said:
What?
If true, this slight gain in single thread is a welcome result. Remember how people expected the security fixes to consume 10-20% of performance? :)

I'm slightly worried about mobile CPUs front. Since Intel is currently just eating out the frequency headroom and 8th gen were already clocked too aggressively, 9th gen became just a minor update. They haven't even changed the leading digit (still 8xxx). This also means we can't expect anything better until 10nm arrives. :/
Not really. Though this chip does have some fixes in hardware, there's plenty of holes that still need plugged by software... so there will still be a hit in some applications. That said, the small bump in single thread performance most likely comes from being clocked 300MHz faster... nothing an 8600k user can't do. This chip is very unremarkable to anyone who already owns a 6 core chip.

Agree with you on the 10nm comment, though. Hopefully at least by then most of the security faults will be fixed in hardware and we can get a bit of a bump in performance...
Posted on Reply
#8
kastriot
"DeathtoGnomes said:
considering the 8600 still is around $250, i have to ask what you're smoking here to think Intel drop the price to $150 just to compete with AMD APUs like the 2400.
Go ask intel what is smoking when he pulls it..

"Upgrayedd said:
$125? really? You expect the 9600K should cost less than a R5 2400G? Then you said the other day that 2x16GB of RAM should be $100... Who has their head up their ass?
"Everyone wants cheap memory, if 2x16GB DDR4 was 99$ it would sold like hot cookies but nope. "


I said "if" not "should" next time do your homework better.
Posted on Reply
#9
Chloe Price
"Upgrayedd said:
$125? really? You expect the 9600K should cost less than a R5 2400G? Then you said the other day that 2x16GB of RAM should be $100... Who has their head up their ass?
2x16GB for 100eur would be cool, maxing out my board's memory slots would cost only 400eur.

This is just so boring CPU and shouldn't even exist.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vayra86
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
Right. Seems like you've got a pretty weird view on the marketplace.
Posted on Reply
#11
Upgrayedd
"kastriot said:
Go ask intel what is smoking when he pulls it..




"Everyone wants cheap memory, if 2x16GB DDR4 was 99$ it would sold like hot cookies but nope. "


I said "if" not "should" next time do your homework better.
You were the only one that ever said anything about 2x16GB being that cheap, yea sure we want it cheaper but nobody ever said that price. Only you, you were the only one thinking about memory being THAT cheap. We just want normal prices. School is for losers anyways. Talking about Intel as if it is a single male lol.
Posted on Reply
#12
notb
"Chloe Price said:

This is just so boring CPU and shouldn't even exist.
It's not meant to be "exciting". It's meant to refresh the product lineup and make money. And it will.
"hat said:
Not really. Though this chip does have some fixes in hardware, there's plenty of holes that still need plugged by software...
There's always plenty of holes we know and don't know. But the Meltdown fix was expected to ruin Intel performance and they managed to mitigate it pretty well. Good job, seriously.
That said, the small bump in single thread performance most likely comes from being clocked 300MHz faster... nothing an 8600k user can't do.
As usual, I assume no OC being done. And the clock improvement is significant - again, people praised AMD for months because Zen+ had similar gains. Yet, when Intel does it, you're like "pff, whatever".
This chip is very unremarkable to anyone who already owns a 6 core chip.
Why would it be "remarkable"? It's just another CPU. You're way too emotional about such silly things. :-D
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
9600K will be positioned to compete with 2600X ($225), while being more universal thanks to IGP. I have no idea which dollars you're talking about...
Posted on Reply
#13
RejZoR
32GB for 100 bucks ahahahaha, no. I paid around 250€ iirc for 32GB. 32GB RAM for that money would be giving it away for free and you just won't see it happening, at least not in next 5 years for sure. 16GB is slowly becoming mainstream, but most systems still come with 8GB so there's that. 32GB is pure luxury for desktops that mostly run games...
Posted on Reply
#14
Chloe Price
"notb said:
It's not meant to be "exciting". It's meant to refresh the product lineup and make money. And it will.
I know, but the lineup is just stupid. i7 having HT disabled and 9600K just a 8600K with a little improvements. Well, let's just hope that the same happens what happened with Skylake -> Kaby Lake, the performance remained identical, but the OC potential had a nice improvement.

"RejZoR said:
32GB for 100 bucks ahahahaha, no. I paid around 250€ iirc for 32GB. 32GB RAM for that money would be giving it away for free and you just won't see it happening, at least not in next 5 years for sure. 16GB is slowly becoming mainstream, but most systems still come with 8GB so there's that. 32GB is pure luxury for desktops that mostly run games...
Exactly. And I still have 2 RAM slots free (2x8GB + 4x4GB kits in quad channel) :D
Posted on Reply
#15
dj-electric
"kastriot said:
It seems that intel has still his head in *ss and has no intention to pull it from there, 250$ is super expensive 150$ maybe would do and 125$ it's ideal..
You have this thing when you always pull out prices for products straight out of some kind of a fever dream or a wish.
Why 125$? screw it, Intel should sell those for 50$.
Posted on Reply
#16
notb
"Chloe Price said:
I know, but the lineup is just stupid. i7 having HT disabled and 9600K just a 8600K with a little improvements. Well, let's just hope that the same happens what happened with Skylake -> Kaby Lake, the performance remained identical, but the OC potential had a nice improvement.
I disagree. Intel lineup has always been carefully organized and 8th- and 9th-gen are no exception (maybe even cleaner than ever before).

Why would all i7 have HT? It's not like there's a physical law that regulates this. :)
i3/5/7 are otherwise meaningless product segments. They tell you just one thing: that i7 is faster than i5, which is faster than i3. Nothing else.
It's there to make life easier for majority of CPU owners, who don't care about the number that follows. They have "an i7" or "an i5", not "an i7-7700".

Once Intel finalizes an architecture, they design the fastest CPU they're going to offer and then the whole lineup is organized (top-down).
Obviously, only the top CPU in each segment is unlocked for OC. Other than that, there aren't any rules. It's just pure financial optimization. If they want 4 variants of i5, they make 4 variants. It's all based on demand.
Posted on Reply
#18
R0H1T
"notb said:
What?
If true, this slight gain in single thread is a welcome result. Remember how people expected the security fixes to consume 10-20% of performance? :)

I'm slightly worried about mobile CPUs front. Since Intel is currently just eating out the frequency headroom and 8th gen were already clocked too aggressively, 9th gen became just a minor update. They haven't even changed the leading digit (still 8xxx). This also means we can't expect anything better until 10nm arrives. :/
What, do you also not know that all the security patches, including the eight spectre NG, haven't been published yet :rolleyes:

Also the results are application & OS dependent, just check Phoronix for instance, but hey why let facts get in the way of um hype for Intel whatisthenext lake :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#19
Slizzo
"RejZoR said:
32GB for 100 bucks ahahahaha, no. I paid around 250€ iirc for 32GB. 32GB RAM for that money would be giving it away for free and you just won't see it happening, at least not in next 5 years for sure. 16GB is slowly becoming mainstream, but most systems still come with 8GB so there's that. 32GB is pure luxury for desktops that mostly run games...
And I paid $183 for my 4x8gb kit.

But I digress, I agree 32gig isn't likely needed for most; but it sure is nice being positive that I'll never have issues with memory in normal workloads.
Posted on Reply
#20
RejZoR
It becomes a spoiling thing when you have so much RAM. I've had 6GB when most had 2GB on a dual channel platform. Then I had 18GB on triple channel when most had 8GB (yeah, I had a lot of odd RAM capacities :D ). And now I'm on 32GB when most has 16GB. I never really need this much apart from rare cases when I employed compression with enormous dictionary sizes. But it's nice to never have to worry about it or even open a Task Manager for it.
Posted on Reply
#21
Chloe Price
"notb said:

Why would all i7 have HT? It's not like there's a physical law that regulates this. :)
Because every i7 has had HT. i5 has been the "i7 without HT" to this day, ofc usually with 25% of L3 disabled.
i3/5/7 are otherwise meaningless product segments. They tell you just one thing: that i7 is faster than i5, which is faster than i3. Nothing else.
It's there to make life easier for majority of CPU owners, who don't care about the number that follows. They have "an i7" or "an i5", not "an i7-7700".
When someone thinks things like that, they're mostly that "more is better" people, like back in the day some people thought that more VRAM is better. The Radeon 9600 Pro 256MB wasn't faster than 9800 Pro 128MB.. :rolleyes:


"RejZoR said:
It becomes a spoiling thing when you have so much RAM. I've had 6GB when most had 2GB on a dual channel platform. Then I had 18GB on triple channel when most had 8GB (yeah, I had a lot of odd RAM capacities :D ). And now I'm on 32GB when most has 16GB. I never really need this much apart from rare cases when I employed compression with enormous dictionary sizes. But it's nice to never have to worry about it or even open a Task Manager for it.
3x4GB + 3x2GB? :) I had also 4+4+2GB and 4x4GB on X58, and both were in triple channel.
Posted on Reply
#22
notb
"Chloe Price said:
Because every i7 has had HT. i5 has been the "i7 without HT" to this day, ofc usually with 25% of L3 disabled.
Well, that's just statistics.
You could also say consumer i7 always had 4 cores, but now they'll have 6 and 8 cores instead (how dare you Intel!).
When someone thinks things like that, they're mostly that "more is better" people, like back in the day some people thought that more VRAM is better. The Radeon 9600 Pro 256MB wasn't faster than 9800 Pro 128MB.. :rolleyes:
So?
Seriously, people just buy computers and use them. Not everyone likes to spend evenings reading about HT. :)
Posted on Reply
#23
Slizzo
"RejZoR said:
It becomes a spoiling thing when you have so much RAM. I've had 6GB when most had 2GB on a dual channel platform. Then I had 18GB on triple channel when most had 8GB (yeah, I had a lot of odd RAM capacities :D ). And now I'm on 32GB when most has 16GB. I never really need this much apart from rare cases when I employed compression with enormous dictionary sizes. But it's nice to never have to worry about it or even open a Task Manager for it.
My i5 2500K setup had 16gb of memory in it. :)

I don't even develop or anything on my home computer. It's strictly a gaming/content consumption device (more gaming, content invariably is consumed via an XBOX hooked to my TV). But I am a tech guy, so I like to upgrade and forget about it for a while. At least with the 2500K I could upgrade and forget about it for about 5 years, barring GPU upgrades.
Posted on Reply
#24
Chloe Price
"notb said:
Well, that's just statistics.
You could also say consumer i7 always had 4 cores, but now they'll have 6 and 8 cores instead (how dare you Intel!).
Yeah, they moved from 4c/8t to 6c/12t with i7, now it's 8c/8t. Nah, I'll pass.
Posted on Reply
#25
notb
"Chloe Price said:
Yeah, they moved from 4c/8t to 6c/12t with i7, now it's 8c/8t. Nah, I'll pass.
You'll pass because?
Intel did a performance jump in the 8th gen as a direct answer to Ryzen. Now we're back to incremental improvements like before.
8C/8T and 6C/12T perform similarly in typical multi-thread load. 9700 is the direct successor to 8700. I told you the lineup makes sense. :-)
8C/16T is faster, so they added i9 to the consumer offer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment