Intel X6 i5-9600KF based system (5.00Ghz project)

[storm-chaser]

Long overdue for a new system, and the time has finally come!

After losing a good lead on a cheap 8086K, I've spent the afternoon comparing alternative CPUs to replace it. I've decided to go with the fastest 9th gen core I5 CPU instead... I know, I know, it's not top tier, but I am still planning on getting 5000Ghz out of it. I'd say I have a 50/50 chance of making that happen. This CPU is second only to the 8086K in terms of overclockability averages (if going by the userbenchmark.com stats)... As you can see, the bell curve doesn't just drop off like a cliff, indicating this CPU has very good overclocking potential with the right hardware and doesn't face a "hard limit" as some other CPUs do. Here is the OC freq curve for the i5-9600KF, from userbenchmark.com

After this revelation, and realizing the $600+ and up price tag for the high-high end Intel chips, I've come to some additional conclusions regarding the purpose of this build and how it will be used. Meaning we will not be going flat out on the best hardware with this. This will be my daily driver, not an extreme overclocker, and I want to focus on single-thread performance vs brute force. This leads me to the Intel Core i5-9600KF, a 9th gen unlocked 6 core CPU that boosts to 4.6Ghz. The price/performance ratio cannot be beat, as they go for about $200 shipped. Seeing as how single-thread performance is nearly on par with the 9900k or the 8086k, I realized I likely won't notice any difference in day to day usage (short of benchmarking). And my target goal of 5.0Ghz all core is still intact. I like the KF chips without the GPU, so that's my new CPU choice.

I also realized I don't need all new components as I have a good Coolermaster case here, and Antec 650W PSU, as well as an MSI RX580 GPU to throw at it.

I think I found a pretty sweet motherboard on newegg to go with it as well. Seeing as how the video card and motherboard are all MSI I decided to top it off with the MSI Core Frozr XL 120mm air cooler.. so this should be a handsome build when it's all said and done, especially when resting in the Coolermaster padded case. In terms of the RAM I backed off just a little from my 4500Mhz goal and downgraded to 4000Mhz Gskill Trident z b-die at 18-19-19-39

Here is a list of the parts I just purchased on Newegg:

Memory = G.SKILL TridentZ Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Intel Z270 / Z370 Memory (Desktop Memory) Model F4-4000C18D-16GTZ
$200


CPU = Intel Core i5-9600KF Coffee Lake 6-Core 3.7 GHz (4.6 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 95W BX80684I59600KF Desktop Processor Without Graphics
$200


CPU Cooler = MSI Core Frozr XL 120MM
$120


Motherboard = MSI MAG Z390 TOMAHAWK
$160


SSD = SAMSUNG 970 PRO M.2 2280 512GB PCIe Gen3. X4, NVMe 1.3 64L V-NAND 2-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-V7P512BW
$170


I figured I would go for broke with the m.2 NVMe SSD, so this one ranks pretty high up in the speed department and seems to get rave reviews with one user even claiming a 5 second boot time (seems dubious but at the very least I am future proofing)



the case I will be using:

I just ordered all the parts tonight. So expect an update by Friday!

 

[Vario]

5 GHz should be easy. It was with the 8600K.

 

[timta2]

I figured I would go for broke with the m.2 NVMe SSD, so this one ranks pretty high up in the speed department and seems to get rave reviews with one user even claiming a 5 second boot time (seems dubious but at the very least I am future proofing)

Unless you're going to be doing heavy writing (video editing, etc), you're probably wasting your money, there.

 

[storm-chaser]

Unless you're going to be doing heavy writing (video editing, etc), you're probably wasting your money, there.

My reasoning was go fast or go home. But yeah, not ever going to be able to saturate the bandwidth capabilities of this SSD

at least not for the next couple years, thats for sure.

 

[SirKeldon]

Good luck trying to achieve those 5GHz, that cooler seems fancy enough to achieve it!

I'd love to see some pictures soon! Keep it on!

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Kinda an odd build....... I get you want to do 5ghz and that's cool but a 6 core 6 thread chip is a bad buy for longevity when with that cooler you purchased you could have gotten a 3700X instead.... Your only sensible upgrade path in the future without buying a new motherboard is a 9900k but the motherboard you picked isn't adequate according to reviews I've read on it.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mag-z390-tomahawk-core-i9-9900k-msi-atx-motherboard,5914.html


I see you have a RX 580 so even then a much cheaper 2600/1600AF would have given you the same gaming performance with much better multitasking performance and a substantially better upgrade path.
Even if all you plan on doing is 60hz gaming which the 9600K should handle for 2-3 years a 3600 would still have been a better buy.


Also the 10 series i5 is going to have 12 threads and probably similar or better clocks making a 9600KF even at 200 bucks look like a pretty bad buy when it releases.


oh and never use userbenchmarks for anything its a joke.

Otherwise I hope I am completely wrong on the longevity of a 6 core chip without hyperthreading but look at the 7600k that was thought to be good enough and tons of people on this Forum said the same thing and now it chokes hard in GPU intensive games losing to a relatively slow 1600 just 3 years later in a lot modern games.

At the end of the day only you can decide what hardware is best for you with the $$$ you have and if you did your research and came to the conclusion that said hardware is best for you then nothing I've said really matters at the same time if I purchase something regardless of what it is I have zero issues with someone pointing out what I could have done better.

 

[storm-chaser]

Kinda an odd build....... I get you want to do 5ghz and that's cool but a 6 core 6 thread chip is a bad buy for longevity when with that cooler you purchased you could have gotten a 3700X instead.... Your only sensible upgrade path in the future without buying a new motherboard is a 9900k but the motherboard you picked isn't adequate according to reviews I've read on it.

I don't mind the criticism - Matter of fact I've sold me on the idea of a better motherboard. I usually do better than this. In my eagerness to go MSI with everything I think it was an emotional buy... I didn't even read a review for it which is the first time that's ever happened. lol

So as I said, I am still sticking with MSI, but upgrading to the Gaming plus Z390, a board that appears to have much better overclocking potential. Matter of fact it appears to be the best value / performance ratio out of any Z390 motherboard on the market right now. Not that it matters, but this gaming board matches up with the color scheme of my RX 580, which is also the gaming model / spec. I will pull the trigger on this unless you can recommend something in the $250 range that will better suit my system and OC potential.

I should have set some expectations first. I'm simply refreshing my old Phenom II system with new life. That means new mobo, CPU, memory and SSD. Don't get me wrong, I do have the budget to plunk down $1000 on a CPU and water cooling system but this is my daily driver where my primary goal is per-thread performance NOT massive number-crunching low-end torque (I'm aiming more for top end horsepower with this). In single-threaded performance, according to userbenchmark.com, the 9600KF just edges out the 3700x, and pulls ahead slightly further when overclocked. Besides, the 3700x has a hard limit of around 4.5Ghz no matter what your hardware, and as you can tell from the title, my goal is 5.0Ghz. So the AMD counterpart is out for a number of reasons. Plus, I've never been picky about names before, but I just don't like the term Ryzen. Just something about it feels wrong, at least to me. I've never been OCD either, so I shouldn't be that picky, yet I am. I've also been into AMD for many, many years. It was time for a change!

Bad buy for longevity? How so? You do realize the majority of people that that buy 8 core CPUs will never reach their performance potential in average everyday tasking, right? My CPU will arguably be faster (and is rated faster on userbenchmark.com) than the 3700x for workloads at six cores or less. Also, note the 3700x is over $100 more than the 9600KF so the price to performance ratio is hard to beat (best price/performance ratio of any Intel chip on the market, that's for sure).

I see you have a RX 580 so even then a much cheaper 2600/1600AF would have given you the same gaming performance with much better multitasking performance and a substantially better upgrade path.
Even if all you plan on doing is 60hz gaming which the 9600K should handle for 2-3 years a 3600 would still have been a better buy.

I said this was a 5Ghz project? Please explain to me how I am going to get 5Ghz out of a 2700x or 1600AF?
Those two CPUs are actually much slower than the 9600KF as well.

As I said, this is my upgrade path and I chose Intel, not AMD. The Ford vs Chevy debate will rage on just the same. lol
The RX 580 will be sufficient for most games for the next few years, I'm not concerned. If the time comes when I need to upgrade the GPU or CPU I will.

Otherwise I hope I am completely wrong on the longevity of a 6 core chip without hyperthreading but look at the 7600k that was thought to be good enough and tons of people on this Forum said the same thing and now it chokes hard in GPU intensive game losing to a relatively slow 1600 just 3 years later in a lot modern games.

You are completely wrong on the longevity of a 6 core chip. I still game and work from my Phenom II hexacore rig and it still holds it's own just fine. Matter of fact I can pull tighter memory latency than a lot of DDR4 systems due to a CL of 7 (and I have the NB overclocked to 3000Mhz, so that helps with processor performance as well). Indeed, it still has plenty of muscle and is really only limited by instruction set. The Phenom II was a great processor, it sucks AMD had to ruin it with the FX line of slugs. I always thought they should have done a die shrink on the Thuban and bumped the memory and cache performance. Would have made for a stout chip!

Also the 10 series i5 is going to have 12 threads and probably similar or better clocks making a 9600KF even at 200 bucks look like a pretty bad buy when it releases.

Hyperthreading aside, I won't need it. And now you are bench racing.

In point of fact the 9600K has the best cost / performance ratio of any intel chip on the market right now.

Moreover, I think the system overall has a very good cost / performance ratio. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an intel system that can compete with this setup in terms of performance per dollar.

 

[cucker tarlson]

In point of fact the 9600K has the best cost / performance ratio of any intel chip on the market right now.

Moreover, I think the system overall has a very good cost / performance ratio. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an intel system that can compete with this setup in terms of performance per dollar.

very true.
it should be faster or equal to 3800x that's like +60% more expensive

Test AMD Ryzen 7 3800X. Najszybsze osiem rdzeni na rynku

Testujemy procesor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, bazujący na nowej architekturze Zen 2. Sprawdź wyniki testu i zobacz, jak radzi sobie w praktyce.

ithardware.pl

what is questionable is the z390 platform,cause people are right,you are gonna need to upgrade that 9600k at some point due to lack of threads.\

and btw an 8700k should do 5ghz fine too.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

For a possible future 9900K upgrade I would look at something with an 8 phase or more. My Maximus Z390 Code gets very hot in the VRM department at 5ghz under extended load even though it is better than the majority of the budget boards. The other thing you should be looking into is memory support cheaper boards are going to have substantially worse memory traces not a big deal for say 3200/3600 but definitely for 4000+ regardless of what the motherboard manufacture spec page says.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

very true.
it should be faster or equal to 3800x that's like +60% more expensive

View attachment 144585

Test AMD Ryzen 7 3800X. Najszybsze osiem rdzeni na rynku

Testujemy procesor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, bazujący na nowej architekturze Zen 2. Sprawdź wyniki testu i zobacz, jak radzi sobie w praktyce.

ithardware.pl

what is questionable is the z390 platform,cause people are right,you are gonna need to upgrade that 9600k at some point due to lack of threads.\

and btw an 8700k should do 5ghz fine too.

Graphs without 1% lows are pointless

Even at 5ghz its a whopping 40% slower than a 9900k when it comes to 1% lows in SOTTR and this is only going to become more common as games get more demanding.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Graphs without 1% lows are pointless



View attachment 144586View attachment 144587View attachment 144588

no,but they serve different purpose.
if that 9600k can match 3800x in odyssey and shadow of the tomb raider,it means it's fine for heavily multithreaded games for now.
I don't think the 7600k story will literally happen again.we went from single threaded games to ones that use 12-16 threads pretty quickly.If a 6/6 cpu can match a 8/16 one in a multithreaded game,I'd say it's fine.Especially when it costs much less.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

no,but they serve different purpose.
if that 9600k can match 3800x in odyssey and shadow of the tomb raider,it means it's fine for heavily multithreaded games for now.
I don't think the 7600k story will literally happen again.we went from single threaded games to ones that use 12-16 threads pretty quickly.If a 6/6 cpu can match a 8/16 one in a multithreaded game,I'd say it's fine.Especially when it costs much less.

Yeah I agree, but 6 core 6 thread chips are already struggling with 1% lows in some games so to be on the safe side anyone should be purchasing a 12 thread chip even if the averages are slightly lower because chances are you're going to get much more longevity out of it.


Again if all the OP is ever going to do is 60hz game is irrelevant the 9600k should be more than adequate for a while... I would still buy the best motherboard I could just in case I needed a 9900k down the line though.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yeah I agree, but 6 core 6 thread chips are already struggling with 1% lows in some games so to be on the safe side anyone should be purchasing a 12 thread chip even if the averages are slightly lower because chances are you're going to get much more longevity out of it.

overclocked to 5ghz,running on 4000 c18 ram,I'd say he'll be fine with 1% too.

though imo he should have got vbiper 4400 c19 memory.better and cheaper.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

overclocked to 5ghz,running on 4000 c18 ram,I'd say he'll be fine with 1% too.

though imo he should have got vbiper 4400 c19 memory.better and cheaper.

I'm pretty sure I linked him that kit in his last post.

@storm-chaser I know this is $22 more than your budget but It really is one of the best Z390 boards and definitely the best MSI one minus the crazy eatx ones.... The 9900k is no joke and if there is even a slight chance you grab one down the line the extra $$ will be well spent.... The gigabyte boards are a much better value when it comes to VRM vs Cost but they're not nearly as good at high memory frequency as the TOP MSI/Asus Boards afaik.

The Pro Carbon also has mediocre memory overclocking so I would guess most boards under it will as well.

Amazon.com: MSI MEG Z390 ACE LGA1151 (Intel 8th and 9th Gen) M.2 USB 3.1 Gen 2 DDR4 Wi-Fi SLI CFX ATX Z390 Gaming Motherboard: Electronics

Buy MSI MEG Z390 ACE LGA1151 (Intel 8th and 9th Gen) M.2 USB 3.1 Gen 2 DDR4 Wi-Fi SLI CFX ATX Z390 Gaming Motherboard: Motherboards - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com

 

[storm-chaser]

oh and never use userbenchmarks for anything its a joke.

I personally do not agree. All CPU's tested are run through the same benchmarks, it's not like they are skewing the averages in favor of Intel. Not to mention the fact it gives the best breakdown on the web (short of a benchmark suite) of CPU performance and overclocking potential. Of course, it's ballpark only. But it will get you pointed in the right direction. And it also gives a great chart with the CPU clock speeds mapped out... very good information!

And believe it or not the overwhelming majority of computer users (other than hardcore gamers or overclockers) never use more than a couple cores at a time. My X4 Q9650 rig boots up in 20-30 seconds. The point being, any difference between CPUs at this stage in the game is purely theoretical. Real-world performance is going to be nearly identical across the board. It's only in benchmarks where you will see a difference.

The people that really need CPU crunching power - you know who you are - but they are few and far between, to be honest with you.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I personally do not agree. All CPU's tested are run through the same benchmarks, it's not like they are skewing the averages in favor of Intel. Not to mention the fact it gives the best breakdown on the web (short of a benchmark suite) of CPU performance and overclocking potential. Of course, it's ballpark only. But it will get you pointed in the right direction. And it also gives a great chart with the CPU clock speeds mapped out... very good information!

And believe it or not the overwhelming majority of computer users (other than hardcore gamers or overclockers) never use more than a couple cores at a time. My X4 Q9650 rig boots up in 20-30 seconds. The point being, any difference between CPUs at this stage in the game is purely theoretical. Real-world performance is going to be nearly identical across the board. It's only in benchmarks where you will see a difference.

The people that really need CPU crunching power - you know who you are - but they are few and far between, to be honest with you.

if it helps you pick your cpu good for you if I paid attention to it it would want me to pair my 2080 ti with a quad core.....

Userbenchmark adjusting CPU 'rankings', pandering to Intel?

Userbenchmark changes their CPU rating algorithm to push huge focus on 1T performance while nerfing nT performance because 'Ryzen is too fast'

www.tweaktown.com

UserBenchmark offers explanation for changes to CPU score weights

This past week a portion of the enthusiast community was lit aflame with controversy over UserBenchmark's decision to adjust its CPU scoring system. While not a popular...

www.techspot.com

Updated: Userbenchmark Responds to Criticism Over Score Weighing Revisions

Userbenchmark's new scoring mechanism has stoked controversy in the enthusiast community.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[ppn]

You should be able to get 10600KF and Z470 soon and 11600K next year with +40% better IPC. The move to 9600KF makes no sense. It is like pentium4 compared to core2duo.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You should be able to get 10600KF and Z470 soon and 11600K next year with +40% better IPC. The move to 9600KF makes no sense. It is like pentium4 compared to core2duo.

I think 40% is pushing it but 15-20% wouldn't surprise me if they can nail the clocks.

 

[storm-chaser]

You should be able to get 10600KF and Z470 soon and 11600K next year with +40% better IPC. The move to 9600KF makes no sense. It is like pentium4 compared to core2duo.

Where are you getting this 40 percent IPC improvement? Don't you think that would be a little on the high side?

Listen, I want to be clear. I have plenty of money and could have easily put together a powerhouse rig but that's just not in my field of vision at the moment because I needed upgrades across the board in terms of technology, this was not just one machine on my mind. Let me explain, I just spent close to $1800 today on much needed technology upgrades for the whole house....

23" gaming monitor
5.1 Logitech surround sound system
8" Asus Tablet
15.6" Lenovo T510 laptop (plus an 8gb ram kit for it)
MSI MEG Z390 ACE LGA1151 motherboard

And this is in addition to the parts I have listed above... so cut me some slack here lol

And actually, in single thread performance the 9600KF is almost as quick as the flagship 9900k. There would be nearly zero difference in observable performance unless you were doing some serious gaming or video editing.

When the time comes I will upgrade to the 10th gen. That will be in about 10 years. lol

No, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not waiting for that. I need to get my system upgraded now.

I just pulled the trigger on this better MSI board so I can upgrade to the 9900k when the prices come down in a few years.

So come back when you can find a system that even comes close to the cost / performance ratio of the system I just built! lol

if it helps you pick your cpu good for you if I paid attention to it it would want me to pair my 2080 ti with a quad core.....

It's not that I use it to pick my CPU like a guide or something, It's just that I find it a good resource to get some perspective on potential overclockability.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Glad you grabbed the Meg Ace. I have a feeling you're going to love it.

 

[R0H1T]

Where are you getting this 40 percent IPC improvement?

Let's just say more on the impossible side, I know he's said this multiple times but unless he's also counting some massive IPC loss (after smeltdown) there's no possible way Intel will achieve that 40% or above (across a range of applications) coming from Skylake or it's derivatives.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Let's just say more on the impossible side, I know he's said this multiple times but unless he's also counting some massive IPC loss (after smeltdown) there's no possible way Intel will achieve that 40% or above (across a range of applications) coming from Skylake or it's derivatives.

I liked his post because it made me chuckle pretty hard but it'll probably be 3-4 architecture's before we get that sort of gain.

 

[storm-chaser]

You should be able to get 10600KF and Z470 soon and 11600K next year with +40% better IPC. The move to 9600KF makes no sense. It is like pentium4 compared to core2duo.

And for the love of God man, it's like you think the i5 9600kf is like a celeron processor or something! Take with a grain of salt, but Userbenchmark has it ranked the 9th fastest CPU out of 1209. Obviously this result leans more toward single threaded workloads (which, by the way are still in the overwhelming majority) this does not take into consideration the CPUs with massive core count, but again, most people will never use more than 5-6 cores at a time anyway. So to put this into perspective the 9600kf goes TOE TO TOE with a 9900k all the way up to four cores. They are basically the same CPU, with the 9900K having slightly more cache. But again, the overclockability of the 9600kf is better than that of the 9900k, when averaged out its 5.45ghz to 5.25ghz. The numbers cannot be trusted but they were all submitted by end users, thousands of them... so it's got to count for something.

Lastly, it's known to be Intel's BEST MID LEVEL CPU. Aside from boost clocks, and slightly less cache there is very little difference between it and a 9900k.

 

[Flanker]

Nice rig! Looking forward to seeing how far you can push it.

 

[dgianstefani]

Ice lake on mobile has a 10% performance improvement with a boost speed of 1.5-2ghz lower compared to the 14nm++ alternatives.

Assuming they can get Ice Lake on desktop, or Tiger Lake whatever to run at 4ghz+, we should be seeing 20% minimum improvements, and if they hit 5ghz, 30%+ over current offerings, assuming core counts are the same.