Intel I5 8600k vs AMD R5 2600X

[kapone32]

As both of these CPUs are 6 core beasts I was wondering if there are any reviews pitting the 8600K vs the 2600X. I know that the 8600K should be faster but I am looking at pricing and blown away the difference in price. Is one that much faster than the other? You could almost buy 2 2600X for one 8600K.

Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 Ghz 6-Core Lga 1151 Processor 3.6 BX80684I58600K : Amazon.ca: Electronics

Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 Ghz 6-Core Lga 1151 Processor 3.6 BX80684I58600K : Amazon.ca: Electronics

www.amazon.ca

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler - YD260XBCAFBOX : Amazon.ca: Electronics

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler - YD260XBCAFBOX : Amazon.ca: Electronics

www.amazon.ca

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Depends what you want to do. I 8600k still kills it in gaming because of single threaded speed. 2600x is better where productivity is concerned where apps use a lot of threads/cores

 

[GhostRyder]

As both of these CPUs are 6 core beasts I was wondering if there are any reviews pitting the 8600K vs the 2600X. I know that the 8600K should be faster but I am looking at pricing and blown away the difference in price. Is one that much faster than the other? You could almost buy 2 2600X for one 8600K.

Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 Ghz 6-Core Lga 1151 Processor 3.6 BX80684I58600K : Amazon.ca: Electronics

Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 Ghz 6-Core Lga 1151 Processor 3.6 BX80684I58600K : Amazon.ca: Electronics

www.amazon.ca

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler - YD260XBCAFBOX : Amazon.ca: Electronics

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler - YD260XBCAFBOX : Amazon.ca: Electronics

www.amazon.ca

Well it would be pretty close with the i5 edging out in single threaded performance at the end. Part of the advantage on AMD's side will be the multi threaded performance as its a 6 core 12 threaded processor vs the i5's only 6 cores. If your concerned with price then I would definitely go for the Ryzen 5 as you will probably only see a ~10% in some games that are CPU dependent but not enough to make a huge difference.

Its really up to what you want it for at the end of the day.

 

[kapone32]

Depends what you want to do. I 8600k still kills it in gaming because of single threaded speed. 2600x is better where productivity is concerned where apps use a lot of threads/cores

So the 2600X would be better for games that use more than 1 core then?

Well it would be pretty close with the i5 edging out in single threaded performance at the end. Part of the advantage on AMD's side will be the multi threaded performance as its a 6 core 12 threaded processor vs the i5's only 6 cores. If your concerned with price then I would definitely go for the Ryzen 5 as you will probably only see a ~10% in some games that are CPU dependent but not enough to make a huge difference.

Its really up to what you want it for at the end of the day.

Excellent I just wanted to get an objective discussion started after noticing the huge gap in pricing.

 

[Zach_01]

Give or take +5~15% FPS, for +65% CAD $

The next is even more interesting...
8600k = 350CAD
3600 = 265CAD
+0% FPS for +32% CAD in Games
-10~40% in everything else for +32% CAD

EDIT:typo, add video

 

[kapone32]

Give or take +5~15% FPS, for +65% CAD $

EDIT:typo

Exactly that was my thought process

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Exactly that was my thought process

That test is done with all at stock speeds though. If you check TPUs reviews...

if a 8600k@4.3 can beat a 2600x at gaming I can only assume that it will have a much higher lead at 4.8Ghz what 8600k's normally OC to. 99% of 8600k's can hit 4.8 where as 2600X's struggle to get even near to 4.4ghz.

Regardless if youre OC'n or not 8600k still has it beat for gaming. Really, read some reviews.

Gaming machine = 8600k
All-Rounder = 2600X
Productivity = 2600X

 

[Zach_01]

So... add another +10% for the OC and make it +15~25%, no... lets make it +30% FPS for +65% CAD
Great!

 

[mastershake575]

Is one that much faster than the other?

Faster in what aspect ? (computer have many uses, too vague of a question)

It says in your specs that you have a 4k monitor. If where talking about gaming at 4k then the difference is insanely small

That test is done with all at stock speeds though. If you check TPUs reviews..


if a 8600k@4.3 can beat a 2600x at gaming I can only assume that it will have a much higher lead at 4.8Ghz what 8600k's normally OC to. 99% of 8600k's can hit 4.8 where as 2600X's struggle to get even near to 4.4ghz.

Regardless if youre OC'n or not 8600k still has it beat for gaming. Really, read some reviews.

Gaming machine = 8600k

Depends on the resolution. According to his specs he is running 4k so at that resolution the difference is barely over 1% faster

 

[AlienIsGOD]

I was going for a 2600x until Canada computers took too long to get one in and 2700 was on sale still for a 2 dollar increase. Make sure whatever cpu you buy is in stock if using Canada computers, my last 3 orders of not in stock stuff took a minimum of 10 days, my g560 speakers taking 18 days to arrive in Kingston

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The 8600k/9600k struggles in 1% lows in some game engines even when you overclocked it. Alternatively you can typically get a 2700X for much cheaper. You also need to pair it with at least a 2080 ti at 1080p or run at medium/low settings to actually get any benefit on your average fps.

I've said this before, if you can afford a $700+ GPU to actually get a meaningful difference at non potato settings you're probably not going to buy either of these chips anyway.

Also just buy a 3600 and be done with it in this general price category. Next year if Intel adds hyper threading and the i5 becomes basically an 8700k then maybe it's worth considering.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

So the 2600X would be better for games that use more than 1 core then?

8600k OCed to around 5GHz will beat a 2600x in most games, single threaded or multi threaded... It's not a question of thread count or single core performance, rather one of memory latency, cache size/performance, and decoder/scheduler performance.

In general I would recommend the 3600, it performs very close to the 8600k in the worst cases and has a significant advantage in the best cases.

Not sure why @FreedomEclipse is quoting 1440p performance numbers when they are primarily GPU bound.

 

[moproblems99]

Not sure why @FreedomEclipse is quoting 1440p performance numbers when they are primarily GPU bound.

The results/graphs would speak differently. GPU bound tests don't normally differ by +10%...

 

[Mussels]

And as an obvious thing if you look at those benchmarks above - if the ryzen can hit 120FPS in games, you need a GPU and monitor that can give you/display 120+ FPS for the intel CPU to be worth it

People get very obsessed over the max FPS being X% higher, and forget 'oh yeah i'm 60Hz, it wont matter at all'
(In my case, my monitors not the best and doesn't really benefit above 120FPS due to its VA panel - so a CPU upgrade for me is useless)

 

[king of swag187]

3600 > 8600K > 2600/X
Gaming wise.

 

[Artas1984]

It's obvious to me. First of all R5 2600X is a waste of money. R5 2600 costs 130 EU, you can overclock it to R5 2600X speeds on a budget motherboard B350. Core i5 8600K costs 220 EU and you need a Z370 motherboard to make any overclocking at all. Stock R5 2600 will beat Core i5 8600K in multi-threaded programs, stock Core i5 8600K will beat R5 2600 in single threaded programs and games. So, the final question should rely on pricing.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

I have both 2700X and 8700K. The 2700X does have it in multi-threaded performance.

However stock vs stock in Gaming, depending on the game, frame rates are close. We can say close enough.

Over clock vs Overclock, my 8700K is capable of reaching 5.2ghz stable daily or 5.3ghz benching. this is where the 8700K really starts to shine well.
Intel for 3D Benchamrking for sure.

Now I know these processors aren't what the OP had in mind, but just laying this out for comparison only.

Personally, I'd go with the 8600K or 8700K if budget allows, while the 2600/x would surely suffice. The draw back for AMD is the speed cap. Once the Intel gets up into the 5ghz range, the AMD cpu can't touch it. So it's going to depend if you plan to overclock, which games you play (the chart above is fairly accurate) and budget.

 

[Mussels]

I have both 2700X and 8700K. The 2700X does have it in multi-threaded performance.

However stock vs stock in Gaming, depending on the game, frame rates are close. We can say close enough.

Over clock vs Overclock, my 8700K is capable of reaching 5.2ghz stable daily or 5.3ghz benching. this is where the 8700K really starts to shine well.
Intel for 3D Benchamrking for sure.

Now I know these processors aren't what the OP had in mind, but just laying this out for comparison only.

Personally, I'd go with the 8600K or 8700K if budget allows, while the 2600/x would surely suffice. The draw back for AMD is the speed cap. Once the Intel gets up into the 5ghz range, the AMD cpu can't touch it. So it's going to depend if you plan to overclock, which games you play (the chart above is fairly accurate) and budget.

For the intel to reach 5Ghz, you need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, and more expensive cooling (possibly a more expensive case, too) Whereas the ryzen will run on a cheapo board with stock cooling

 

[Deleted member 185158]

For the intel to reach 5Ghz, you need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, and more expensive cooling (possibly a more expensive case, too) Whereas the ryzen will run on a cheapo board with stock cooling

Oh for sure budget makes a very big difference. I hope to have mentioned that.....
And so does monitor, video card and such as you suggested.

But I was only stating for comparison and facts based on my experience, I wouldn't head anyone in the wrong direction on purpose.

You know the saying, get what you paid for.
Get a cheapo board (tried this with AMD) and get cheapo results. I had this issue with 2 different B450 boards. B450M-A was no good for memory OC (like a lot of B450 boards are) but the ROG B450-I was a much better all around board even though small mATX design, it came packed full of bells and whistles in comparison.

But in average, the 8600K would be a better processor. You aren't getting a 2600x to run no 4.8ghz even with an expensive water cooling loop. Maybe 4.2ghz at best all core.

 

[AsRock]

Why not consider getting a AMD CPU of the same price of the Intel CPU ?.

 

[Mussels]

But in average, the 8600K would be a better processor. You aren't getting a 2600x to run no 4.8ghz even with an expensive water cooling loop. Maybe 4.2ghz at best all core.

Why even mention 4.8Ghz? Clock speed is irrelevant between different architectures, and almost no one manual OC's ryzen for gaming - XFR(2) does better

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Why even mention 4.8Ghz? Clock speed is irrelevant between different architectures, and almost no one manual OC's ryzen for gaming - XFR(2) does better

I mention it because it's obtainable with Intel hardware. Simple as that.

XFR OC's more efficiently, not really better per say when the max clock won't change.
The difference between a staic AMD OC vs "boosting" is that you can hold all cores at say 4ghz all the time where XFR is going to boost when and where needed, but both overclocks would be about the same frequency.
I only know this because of all the testing and different cooling apparatus I've used during testing before and after the de-lid on the 2700X. Idle temps as low as -30c all the way up to auto oc throttle temps at 90c. Actually the Ryzen chips on auto will throttle before 90c, so the static OC actually holds a longer duration overclock.

Really I love AMD. I've had very few Intel rigs through time. I was there through all the bashings running Phenom (agena) and FX chips. I had a couple 2500K, 4690K, this 8700K and a couple older stuff on s478 for example.

But the processor generations we are comparing for the Original poster, are good for comparison because of the timeline of which they ran/run.
Wouldn't go out of my to compare an Intel 9700 to a AMD Ryzen Athlon because of the vast difference in core count and frequency.

Now why does CPU frequency matter.... for both Intel and AMD?
Well... Faster is better on either make and model.

So Memory performance increase compared between the two. Well both receive tremendous gains. It's really important to research AMD motherboards for good RAM frequency (memory kits too) while the Intel 8600K will likely and easily run 3400Mhz, while the 2600X would be a little more difficult to obtain this frequency. Especially if your running the 2600X on a cheap board.

 

[Mussels]

You can't just say that Ryzen cant overclock to 4.8Ghz as if its relevant, just like i cant say you cant overclock an intel to 16 cores.

It's apples and oranges, clock speed is only relevant comparing one product line to itself, performance is the only relevant metric to... well, to performance.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

OK I see the direction you want to take this. Even though it doesn't pertain to me, but to the original poster..... whom actually inquired the difference between the two makes and models.

Only putting facts on the table my friend. They can be arranged in any order you'd like them in.

Personally, If having to choose between a 2600X or 8600K and my budget was on the smaller side, I'd go with the AMD 2600X. It's a fine processor. It will game just fine for sure.
See sig for gaming rig. I use the intel for competitive benchmarking only.

 

[dirtyferret]

The 8600k/9600k struggles in 1% lows in some game engines even when you overclocked it. Alternatively you can typically get a 2700X for much cheaper.

Actually that is false as the 8600k/9600k offers equal to better 1% lows then the Ryzen 2600/x in most games including Far Cry 5 and an overall smoother game play at 97% (see last chart below)

The issue with the 8600k/9600k offering low performance was at at .1% on Far Cry 5 during Gamers Nexus review. .1% is obviously a much smaller sample of frames then 1%. The other issues with that one sample from gamers nexus is as follows;

1 - Far Cry 5 uses a tweaked Dunia Engine that's been around since Far Cry 2 in 2008
2 - GN really couldn't explain why the spike happened.
3 - After seeing the spike in the i5-9600k review, GN didn't even run .1% tests for Far Cry 5 tests in their next CPU review (9700k see first chart below)
4 - GN dropped Far Cry 5 altogether in their test suites for 2019
5 - Looking at a far more CPU intensive game like AC:O, the stock 8600/9600k perform better then the 2600/x (even the 2700x) at .1%, 1%, and avg FPS (see second chart)

So if your belief is the 8600k/9600k struggles at .1% then you have to believe all the other facts above with the 8600/9600k being better in virtually ever other game and every other test otherwise you are just cherry picking.

You also need to pair it with at least a 2080 ti at 1080p or run at medium/low settings to actually get any benefit on your average fps.

You can say this about most modern CPUs...


As for the whole the Intel 9600k vs Ryzen 3600x debate I believe Eurogamer says it best

"...we're impressed - the 3600X delivers a ton of gaming performance that make it a serviceable choice at 1440p and 4K, although gamers targeting 1080p at high refresh rates at the $200 to $300 range are still better served by Intel's Core i5 9600K, which also has a good 500-600MHz of overclocking headroom to tap into. If you've got a high resolution screen and you're doing any kind of content creation that would benefit from a greater core count - like streaming, video production or 3D modelling - then the 3600X is an excellent choice. "

Ryzen 5 3600X: the Digital Foundry verdict

A strong mid-range CPU for content creation and higher resolutions.

www.eurogamer.net