We can see why Intel decided to not launch the Core i5-8600 at the same time as the overclocker-friendly i5-8600K. It has practically the same performance out of the box as its $30 pricier sibling. This is because it has the same Turbo Boost configuration, which is unlike most other processors where the non-K SKU has both lower base and Turbo clocks. The nominal clock speed is significantly lower at 3.10 GHz against the 3.60 GHz of the i5-8600K, but that made no difference as boost is always active at well over 4 GHz even when all six cores are fully loaded.

Across the CPU tests, single-threaded or multi-threaded, the i5-8600 has near-identical performance to the i5-8600K with negligible differences. The trend repeats with gaming tests, in which 720p, 1080p, and 4K UHD show near-identical performance, while 1440p springs up by an inexplicable 1 percent gap, which still doesn't make any real difference. So when comparing strictly with the i5-8600K, it boils down to what you want from your purchase. You trade the unlocked multiplier of the i5-8600K for $30 in straight savings, and incidental savings on not having to buy an aftermarket cooler if you choose to stick with what's in the box (the i5-8600K lacks a stock cooler). Unless you plan on using multi-GPU, you can choose cheaper motherboards based on Intel's H370 or B360 chipsets, which lack CPU overclocking features, and save some money even there. These savings can be redirected towards buying a faster graphics card or a bigger/faster SSD.

Across the competitive landscape, we find AMD selling the Ryzen 5 2600X at the same $229 price-point as the Core i5-8600. The "Zen+" chip is still lagging behind in single-threaded performance compared to the i5-8600, but the gaps have certainly narrowed thanks to small IPC uplifts and clock-speed increases AMD implemented in their latest processors. The 2600X is ahead in multi-threaded performance because of SMT. AMD has made big gains in gaming performance, and we see the 2600X within 7% of the i5-8600 at 1080p, within 5% at 1440p, and within 2% at 4K UHD (these resolutions are increasingly GPU limited). The gap is still wide at 720p (around 10 percent). Considering real-life gaming scenarios, you'll be hard pressed to notice any differences in the gaming experience with either processor. Overall, the price-matched 2600X has 5 percent higher performance per dollar. It's also relevant to mention here that the 2600X gives you an unlocked multiplier at the same price without charging an overclocker's tax, which means you can crank out more performance. However, as our AMD Zen+ reviews show, there is not much to be gained from manual overclocking because AMD's Boost works very well and maximizes (the limited) OC headroom nearly perfectly out of the box. The Core i5-8600 does support some degree of overclocking through BCLK, which let us squeeze out a 127 MHz overclock (43 x 102.975 MHz), which is certainly welcome.

The choice between the i5-8600 and 2600X boils down to the target audience of these chips. Processors around these prices are usually picked up by gamers looking for a no-nonsense chip that won't bottleneck any high-end graphics card, and who don't tinker with BIOS settings or overclocking all that much. When looking purely at gaming, the i5-8600 is still slightly ahead, but the ~5 percent gap won't make the difference between "playable" and "slide-show". If other applications you use are low-threaded, too, then you should go for i5-8600. If, however, you don't mind the added freedom of CPU overclocking and do some multi-threaded productivity work on the side, then the 2600X remains a formidable option at $229. Unlike with Intel, AMD also gives you CPU overclocking with its mid-range B350 chipset, so the overall platform pricing game plays out in AMD's favor, too.