# Intel Core i5-9600K



## W1zzard (Dec 28, 2018)

The Core i5-9600K may not have the core-count increases of its higher-priced siblings, but it received a healthy frequency bump over its predecessor, coupled with hardware patches to some vulnerabilities. We already proved that the i7-9700K is the best gaming CPU by Intel. Can the humble Core i5 challenge it in this arena?

*Show full review*


----------



## EatingDirt (Dec 28, 2018)

The value of this processor leaves a lot to be desired at $280, and frankly 25% more money than a 2600x for 7% more performance at 1080p is extremely poor value. That's not taking into account the $20+ you have to spend over the 2600x for a CPU cooler.

Fortunately for the 9600k, as of the time of this post, I'm seeing it at newegg & amazon for $244, which is a better price. Unfortunately for it, the 2600x is $208 on amazon at the moment.


----------



## HD64G (Dec 28, 2018)

EatingDirt said:


> The value of this processor leaves a lot to be desired at $280, and frankly 25% more money than a 2600x for 7% more performance at 1080p is extremely poor value. That's not taking into account the $20+ you have to spend over the 2600x for a CPU cooler.
> 
> Fortunately for the 9600k, as of the time of this post, I'm seeing it at newegg & amazon for $244, which is a better price. Unfortunately for it, the 2600x is $208 on amazon at the moment.


And being only 8% faster on average in gaming at 1080P than 2600 non-x is even worse for it. For close to $100 less money. With a platform already dead vs a platform made to last at least 2 years more with much faster CPUs incoming in 1H/2019.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 28, 2018)

@W1zzard There is a spelling error. Search for 'origianlly ' on the conclusion page - its down where you mention the 8600k


----------



## kastriot (Dec 28, 2018)

Not worth more than 150$ and btw nice review.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Dec 28, 2018)

I can't find the temp result ..


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 28, 2018)

kastriot said:


> Not worth more than 150$ and btw nice review.



Why? Because $150 is like i3 dual core or AMD Ryzen 3 2200G territory 

If you said not worth $280 -- i would agree as its just a binned 8600k with higher clocks. You might as well say its not worth $10 or you hate it because its not free. $150 wont get you the same performance as an 8600k


----------



## Ed_1 (Dec 28, 2018)

Any chance in future you do some frametimes, it has been reported by other reviewers that avg fps are good but the HT less i5, i7 has more spikes than something like 8700.


----------



## hellerman (Dec 29, 2018)

EatingDirt said:


> Fortunately for the 9600k, as of the time of this post, I'm seeing it at newegg & amazon for $244, which is a better price.



I see many ebay listings completed in $210-230 range.


----------



## moob (Dec 29, 2018)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Why? Because $150 is like i3 dual core or AMD Ryzen 3 2200G territory
> 
> If you said not worth $280 -- i would agree as its just a binned 8600k with higher clocks. You might as well say its not worth $10 or you hate it because its not free. $150 wont get you the same performance as an 8600k


Actually $150 is 2600 territory and has been for a while: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-Cooler/dp/B07B41WS48/

I'm not sure where Wizz is pulling his prices from (or when?), but they're fairly out of date. TPU still lists the 2700 for $270 but that's been $250 or less for a while. And as EatingDirt said, the 9600K is $245 on amazon. The list price is $263 (the article even states the MSRP is $259.99)...where exactly does the $280 in the table come from?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 29, 2018)

moob said:


> Actually $150 is 2600 territory and has been for a while: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-Cooler/dp/B07B41WS48/
> 
> I'm not sure where Wizz is pulling his prices from (or when?), but they're fairly out of date. TPU still lists the 2700 for $270 but that's been $250 or less for a while. And as EatingDirt said, the 9600K is $245 on amazon. The list price is $263 (the article even states the MSRP is $259.99)...where exactly does the $280 in the table come from?



Thats on promo. Where im from its $190


----------



## moob (Dec 29, 2018)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Thats on promo. Where im from its $190


I see you're across the pond. Here in the US it's been around $150 since...October?

I didn't want to mention sale prices. Over here we have a store called Micro Center that arguably has the best prices on CPUs if you have a store near you. The 9600K is $230 right now. The 2700X is $280 regular price and $250 on sale. The 8700K is $330 regular price and $300 on sale.


----------



## Atreides (Dec 29, 2018)

If we want to really go there it's akin too a 8350K really. In fact yes fact it's single core performance is under par (a.k.a. 7350K). Excuse the seemingly fan boy post but this is Intel trying to play catch up in the multi core arena with propaganda akin to the original Hyper Threading.

Heck it only took 21 years to convince.

Wait my girl @ the time tried to get me to buy a P4.... Bitches be trippin'


----------



## Vario (Dec 29, 2018)

From what I have seen on various forums, strangely the 8600K seem to clock higher.


----------



## Atreides (Dec 29, 2018)

Vario said:


> From what I have seen on various forums, strangely the 8600K seem to clock higher.


 Your just biased b/c your CPU-Z valid.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 29, 2018)

I'd add as a con that it's not AMD!

#teamAMD


----------



## Atreides (Dec 29, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> I'd add as a con that it's not AMD!
> 
> #teamAMD


 I thought that was a given..


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 29, 2018)

Still the best single thread performance over six single threaded cores compared to Ryzen 5 2600X.


----------



## hat (Dec 29, 2018)

It's a shame it tops out at less than what the 8 core hyperthreaded 9900k can do.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Dec 29, 2018)

machine learning & tensor workflow on this chip is still better than AMD's raw core count strategy IMO... and yes, single thread performance has been & always been Intel's strongest points. On top of needing only a 240mm AIO & minor voltage bump to achieve 5GHz on all cores stable is impressive in my book. Overall this processor is all depends on your mileage & use case.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 29, 2018)

biffzinker said:


> Still the best single thread performance over six single threaded cores compared to Ryzen 5 2600X.


look at cpu test overall performance,including encoding,rendering and compression. 2700x is barely 5% faster than 9600k at 4.8GHz.it does so well at multthreading despite being 6c only.Trades blows with 1700 or even 1800x,they're friggin 8c/16t powerhouses designed with such workloads in mind.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 29, 2018)

biffzinker said:


> Still the best single thread performance over six single threaded cores compared to Ryzen 5 2600X.


R5 is still fast enough for cat videos.


----------



## Vario (Dec 29, 2018)

Atreides said:


> Your just biased b/c your CPU-Z valid.


Nah most 8600K can do 5.1 or 5.2.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 29, 2018)

Vario said:


> Nah most 8600K can do 5.1 or 5.2.


true, mostg 8700k's do 5ghz easily, 8600k's do 100-200mhz more.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 29, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> machine learning & tensor workflow on this chip is still better than AMD's raw core count strategy IMO... and yes, single thread performance has been & always been Intel's strongest points. On top of needing only a 240mm AIO & minor voltage bump to achieve 5GHz on all cores stable is impressive in my book. Overall this processor is all depends on your mileage & use case.


what? what kind of machine learning did you use? i really wanna know :-D


----------



## geon2k2 (Dec 30, 2018)

Man seriously stop testing with the SuperPi. 
That's a 1995 software with no applicability in the real world, not even for PI calculations as there are better and multi-threaded software for this.
Also the build available on the internet is heavily biased towards Intel cpus, maybe some compile flags, or instruction sequence, I don't know, but it doesn't help provide an objective and impartial view especially when comparing between vendors.

btw, i'm typing from an intel machine, and even I'm blown away by the graph which shows energy consumption based on this 23 years old software and which shows how intel is 2 times more efficient .... it is just misleading, there is no other modern software which shows such a difference. Use cinebech also for single thread since anyway you use it for multi thread.


----------



## stimpy88 (Dec 30, 2018)

And what about the "hardware fixes"?  What % of lost performance did it gain back compared to the so called previous gen CPUs without the "fixes"?



geon2k2 said:


> Man seriously stop testing with the SuperPi.
> That's a 1995 software with no applicability in the real world, not even for PI calculations as there are better and multi-threaded software for this.
> Also the build available on the internet is heavily biased towards Intel cpus, maybe some compile flags, or instruction sequence, I don't know, but it doesn't help provide an objective and impartial view especially when comparing between vendors.
> 
> btw, i'm typing from an intel machine, and even I'm blown away by the graph which shows energy consumption based on this 23 years old software and which shows how intel is 2 times more efficient .... it is just misleading, there is no other modern software which shows such a difference. Use cinebech also for single thread since anyway you use it for multi thread.



There is so much to talk about in this review...

First, SuperPi is an Intel friendly benchmark only used to show non-Intel products in a bad light, and commonly used to give skewed power efficiency numbers, which heavily favour Intel.  When I see it used in a review, and its results used to unfairly critique, then I normally will next look for Intel ads, or ads featuring Intel products running on the page, then read no further.  WinZIP (amazingly not included here) is another example of this, and is heavily optimized by Intel, for Intel.  LAME has not been in active development for god knows how many years, and it's core is ancient, and only optimized for Intel, WinRAR is questionable due to no optimization or much of any kind for that matter for AMD or Intel, Adobe is paid by Intel, and is optimized for them, as is Microsoft (wIntel).

And who plays games on a near $300 CPU at 720p?  These results, and their inclusion here are questionable when taken in context, and are only there due to a minor weakness in the Ryzen design, and would never be a thing in the real world, but they sure do make Intel look great, so you can see why they are included..  It must be a fantastic, amazing experience to game at 20% higher FPS at 720p!  I only miss the 640x480 results, that would have been a real smash for Intel, and would really scare many potential AMD customers away, and would certainly make my buying choice that much more easier...  "...the 720p performance that concerns us. Sure, you'll probably never game at 720p, but numbers obtained at that resolution highlight the minimum FPS the machine is capable of in a scenario where the GPU is not a bottleneck."  Why are you concerned, and more importantly, why should I, or anyone else be?  I game at 1440p, and simply don't care about a 2.5% FPS difference, as it's imperceivable, I am currently looking at going to 4K for my next monitor, not back to 720p... I don't know of anyone queuing up at the local second hand store, trying to buy a 15 year old HD Ready TVs to game on...  I hope this is a mistake in the reviewers thought process, rather than this site spreading Intel sponsored FUD...

Anyway, you can see that most modern software (excluding games, which are often still sponsored and therefore optimized by, or for Intel) is not like this, and is shown in the results in this test.  When you see a slow, low core count i3 Intel CPUs beating a 2700x, then you have to look at what the software is, who it is coded by, and whether Intel has ever used it in any of their marketing before.  And you really have to question why old software, written many years before the hardware was even a dream, is used to tell people to buy a product, or not.......  Ethics anyone?

Most of this goes back to the days where Intel was paying huge sums of money to make AMD look as bad as possible, and some of it is still going on today.

If AMD do manage to include the new x2 speed improvements for arithmetic functions in their upcoming CPUs for the desktop, then it will be interesting to see how that will affect Intel optimized software in favour of brute force speed improvements from AMD in many of these benchmarks.  Ryzen 3xxx will be interesting, to say the least.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 30, 2018)

stimpy88 said:


> And what about the "hardware fixes"?  What % of lost performance did it gain back compared to the so called previous gen CPUs without the "fixes"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


guess it'd still be better with w1zzards imperfect methodology than it'd be through your red glasses
If all single-thread heavy applications are paid by intel,then why don't you mention all those amd shills writing multi threaded ones.
ridiculous person.


----------



## stimpy88 (Dec 30, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> guess it'd still be better with w1zzards imperfect methodology than it'd be through your red glasses
> If all single-thread heavy applications are paid by intel,then why don't you mention all those amd shills writing multi threaded ones.
> ridiculous person.


Triggered much?  I couldn't care less about how, why and what _you_ spend _your_ money on.  I feel sorry for you that you are so willing to use "imperfect methodology" to steer your financial decisions, but hey, we are all different, thank god.

Red glasses?  Nope, no glasses here.  I'm impartial, unlike this review.  Infact where did I state anything which is not on record, and not in the public domain?  Go Google, learn, if at all possible...

Oh, and I would love to see what this "AMD shills writing multi threaded" applications/benchmarks is/are all about?  I take it they are not used in this review, as I'm pretty sure an Intel CPU one every single test, apart from two games, at a particular resolution, so are those games what you are talking about?

And, for the record, I'm an Intel guy, using an Intel system.  However, I will say that I'm waiting for Zen2 to come out before building my new system later this year.  So reviews, especially impartial ones, are very important to me at the moment, while I make my mind up.  This is my motivation, backed by years of experience and knowledge in and of the industry.  I simply pick the best hardware available at the time, I have no loyalty to one company, or the other.  But if this makes me a "ridiculous person", then I'm quite happy with that.


----------



## holyprof (Dec 30, 2018)

After analyzing the review, with all its cons and pros, noted by other posters (from both pro-Intel and pro-AMD camps), I'd say that after the excellent i5-2500K and i7-2600K and so many years, Intel finally released a pair of CPUs that are really good (except for bragging rights, 9900K is for that, if you want to encode videos or render 3D, both Intel and AMD have you covered with capable HEDT platforms).
The 9700K + 9600K duo is for all of us gamers/enthusiasts that don't have money to burn, a nice reply to the new AMD Ryzen competition.

Even considering the 9600K an excellent proposition, i'd go for Zen2 (Ryzen 3XXX) for my next build. Ever since the 386/486/Pentium/K6/Athlon days I was an AMD(CPU) + Nvidia(GPU) guy, and now i can finally have that combo again, pairing my current 1080 with Ryzen 3XXX when it comes out.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 30, 2018)

stimpy88 said:


> Triggered much?  I couldn't care less about how, why and what _you_ spend _your_ money on.  I feel sorry for you that you are so willing to use "imperfect methodology" to steer your financial decisions, but hey, we are all different, thank god.
> 
> Red glasses?  Nope, no glasses here.  I'm impartial, unlike this review.  Infact where did I state anything which is not on record, and not in the public domain?  Go Google, learn, if at all possible...
> 
> ...


lol,am I the one to write a tirade on how this site is shilling for intel ?
I too am waiting for zen 2 too, and I too do not ever make my choice based on tpu reviews. the difference is that it doesn't spur me to write such nonsense.


----------



## EatingDirt (Dec 30, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> guess it'd still be better with w1zzards imperfect methodology than it'd be through your red glasses
> If all single-thread heavy applications are paid by intel,then why don't you mention all those amd shills writing multi threaded ones.
> ridiculous person.



My issue is really only with SuperPi. It's _extremely _old & outdated code, and doesn't even really test single threaded performance. You can see this by the much lower clocked G4560 being faster than a 2700x. That's a 3.5ghz Intel CPU that's faster than a 4.3ghz AMD CPU.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 30, 2018)

EatingDirt said:


> My issue is really only with SuperPi. It's _extremely _old & outdated code, and doesn't even really test single threaded performance. You can see this by the much lower clocked G4560 being faster than a 2700x. That's a 3.5ghz Intel CPU that's faster than a 4.3ghz AMD CPU.


irrelevant test indeed,though my point was taking this superpi result and claiming the whole review is anti-AMD is ridiculous,adoredTV-grade thinking.
a non-HT hexacore at 4.5-4.8GHz with slightly better IPC should be overall faster than a 4GHz hexacore with SMT,and this is what the review proves. Nothing conspiratory in here to report,though not for everyone apparently.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 31, 2018)

I'm holding off for the coffee lake - X i5-9640X, it gets a 100mhz bump and the privilege of purchasing a motherboard twice the cost of the Z390


----------



## Hnykill22 (Dec 31, 2018)

just bought this CPU. have a Gigabyte Z390 Gaming SLI and 16GB DDR4 3600Mhz. i only play FPS games so i'm hoping this will do for a while. hoping too get 5Ghz overclock with Noctua NH-U14S, 140mm. 

Later i will upgrade too 8 core / 16 threads CPU and 280mm AIO cooler. very good futureproof motherboard so i'm fine for some time


----------



## Vario (Dec 31, 2018)

Hnykill22 said:


> just bought this CPU. have a Gigabyte Z390 Gaming SLI and 16GB DDR4 3600Mhz. i only play FPS games so i'm hoping this will do for a while. hoping too get 5Ghz overclock with Noctua NH-U14S, 140mm.
> 
> Later i will upgrade too 8 core / 16 threads CPU and 280mm AIO cooler. very good futureproof motherboard so i'm fine for some time


Any current processor will be fine for FPS games for several years easily.  You will be fine.


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

got 5 Ghz @ 1.4v easy. ..Noctua NH-U14S 140mm, and 2x Noctua 140mm front intake.. idle @ 35c°  full load under stress all cores 60-62c°  

Soldered TIM doing it's job


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> got 5 Ghz @ 1.4v easy. ..Noctua NH-U14S 140mm, and 2x Noctua 140mm front intake.. idle @ 35c°  full load under stress all cores 60-62c°
> 
> Soldered TIM doing it's job
> 
> View attachment 114128



Nice temps! Did you test with an AVX load as well? Can recommend, so you see what the temps top out at. I can assure you its not going to be 62 C  And, yes, AVX loads happen even in gaming.

IntelBurnTest or OCCT are good ones to use for maximum stress.


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Nice temps! Did you test with an AVX load as well? Can recommend, so you see what the temps top out at. I can assure you its not going to be 62 C  And, yes, AVX loads happen even in gaming.
> 
> IntelBurnTest or OCCT are good ones to use for maximum stress.




How do i do AVX load test ?  just never heard of it.. is it a bios setting ?

And no.. it's. 5 Ghz. constant unparked cores, all @ 5 Ghz. promise... tell me about this AVX load ?..


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> How do i do AVX load test ?  just never heard of it.. is it a bios setting ?
> 
> And no.. it's. 5 Ghz. unparked cores, all @ 5 Ghz. promise... tell me about this AVX load ?..



Get this
http://www.ocbase.com/

And run this - check all the settings I've underlined as well; 64 bit, large data set, and thread count equal to your CPU core/thread count.

AVX is an instruction set and it creates super heavy load, but also accelerates code in a big way. We're seeing more and more AVX code in all sorts of applications so its quite neat to know you can run it as stable as anything else.

Apart from that OCCT is a fantastic stress test/monitoring app anyway 

As far as BIOS settings are concerned, AVX is so heavy that your BIOS has an option to reduce the CPU multiplier when it detects AVX loads as well. Only use that if you really need to; so if OCCT gives crashes, you may want to use an AVX offset of -1 or -2.

If your OC can survive 15 minutes of OCCT, you can consider it pretty stable in my experience.


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Get this
> http://www.ocbase.com/
> 
> And run this - check all the settings I've underlined as well; 64 bit, large data set, and thread count equal to your CPU core/thread count.
> ...



Jesus what is that ?  it went too 100C° instantly and crashed ! :/  .. all games and prime 95 works for me.. what is this stuff.. like made my computer melt.. no stability there.. but this is like torture for the computer.. no real application ?  im not trying too like i5 9600K isn't stable under 5 Ghz. but not on this stuff.. :/

is there a bios setting for this ?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> Jesus what is that ?  it went too 100C° instantly and crashed ! :/  .. all games and prime 95 works for me.. what is this stuff.. like made my computer melt.. no stability there.. but this is like torture for the computer.. no real application ?  im not trying too like i5 9600K isn't stable under 5 Ghz. but not on this stuff.. :/
> 
> is there a bios setting for this ?



That is what 1.4V does in real CPU loads, and not some weak bench like the one you ran  Its nothing special, really.

Here's my 8700K under 1.31V

Back to the drawing board, for you  You should try to reduce voltages.

And yes there is a BIOS setting, AVX Offset. You can use a -1 or -2 offset and that will make the CPU run 4.9 or 4.8 Ghz when it detects AVX. This in turn will allow you to lower the voltage as well, while keeping 5 Ghz for other loads.





Another few ways to lower the temps:

- use an offset instead of fixed voltage for Vcore
- lower VCCIO and VCCSA voltages (you can safely drop to 1.1V, often lower, unless you have very exotic, high clocked RAM or populate 4/4 DIMMs)


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

K.. im not going too do it.. this program is some kind of demon stuff.. never going too be used in real life application..  =)   .. but i'll try it soon.. but my motto is.. "don't fix what isn't broken"  ..this torture progam is just insane !

got my CPU week ago, i'll figure this out. but i want want 5 Ghz stable.. thats it !    ..also, how doe's AVX  get better FPS in games.. dont and wont never use it i guess.. . its just some torture too make your computer freeze !


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> K.. im not going too do it.. this program is some kind of demon stuff.. never going too be used in real life application..  =)   .. but i'll try it soon.. but my motto is.. "don't fix what isn't broken"  ..this torture progam is just insane !



No its not insane, this is what overclocking means. If you're not running your CPU at full stress, you're not overclocking, you're just doing some random stuff with BIOS settings and hope it works. AVX loads DO happen, what do you want? Instability or a slightly lower clock... Games will also never fully stress a 9600K, so them running stable tells you nothing at all. But a few years down the line?

If you're hitting 100 C right now with a soldered CPU - and not over time, but instantly like you did - its a clear sign that you are using too much voltage right now. That will bite you in the ass. Come summer, and you can enjoy your BSODs.


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

K.. i'll look at the bios now .. give me a minute =)

i thoght 1.4v was i little bit high too.. try 1.3 and AVX ?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> K.. i'll look at the bios now .. give me a minute =)



You can PM if you need further help, let's not derail this topic 

Note: I had to back down as well, 5 Ghz wasn't happening, settled for 4.8 with much lower voltages... I had my 100 C moment last summer.



Hnykill22 said:


> i thoght 1.4v was i little bit high too.. try 1.3 and AVX ?



1.3 for 5Ghz @ 8 cores is optimistic. Its best to slowly work your way up or down, and seeing as you hit 100 C, you might want to start with 1.3V instead but then just all-core 4.8 Ghz. If that works, try 4.9. This also gives you a good idea about how voltages influence temperatures.

Its a good idea to write down what settings you tried. Excel is great for that.


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

been in bios.. dl OCCT  now.. will test.

Nope wont go. tortures my system too much... to much voltage ?.. i have good cooling.. what's keeping me off ?

ok.. lowering voltage to. 1.3V

K i'm done.. not messing with AVX =/  ...games and everything works fine.. this is just some monster test of a thing..... just put it too 0 .. should it be lower or higher ?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> been in bios.. dl OCCT  now.. will test.
> 
> Nope wont go. tortures my system too much... to much voltage ?.. i have good cooling.. what's keeping me off ?
> 
> ...



You don't mess with AVX - it messes with you  Its not like you've got a choice here, if an application uses AVX your CPU will use it. When it does, it WILL push 1.4V through and your temps will skyrocket. Facts.

If you want to keep your coveted 5 Ghz, use an AVX Offset of -2 or -3, and perhaps try 1.32-1.33V. Should be pretty close. You can also check Loadline calibration. If your voltage peaks when you start the run and you immediately hit 100 C, you may have to lower (loosen) your LLC setting.

OCCT produces a series of graphs at the end of every run. That will also give you a good impression of your LLC setting's behaviour and vcore under load:

This bump is probably much more pronounced with your setup and that is what's killing you





Some more background on AVX:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-applications-are-using-avx-and-avx2.2498660/







*

*


----------



## Hnykill22 (Jan 7, 2019)

Not working for me.. sorry.. 5 Ghz @ 1.4v will be it for me.. if a game chrashes or something alse will fall i figure it out.. but this AVX is just torture thing on the CPU. guess i hope i never see it in real application


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

Hnykill22 said:


> Not working for me.. sorry.. 5 Ghz @ 1.4v will be it for me.. if a game chrashes or something alse will fall i figure it out.. but this AVX is just torture thing on the CPU. guess i hope i never see it in real application



You should be wondering why 5 Ghz is so important at all, instead. But, to each his own. Now you know your OC has an 'expiry date: Unknown'

What will you do when your first game crashes? Chalk it up to the OC? Maybe its a game being weird... think about this for awhile 

Besides, its not even about AVX in your case, its about the fact your cooling cannot handle 1.4V. Voltage is voltage, regardless of the instruction set the CPU uses. Its clear you can't keep 1.4V under control - and its January... not August.


----------



## Vario (Jan 7, 2019)

Soldered lid but its no cooler than my factory TIM 8600K at 5 GHz and requires more volts to do 5GHz.  Maybe .... Intel knew what it was doing when it chose to run with thermal paste for so long.  Only now, there is no option of delid for buyers of 9th gen.  Imagine if 9900K could easily be delidded, that 5 GHz all 8 core would be manageable on air.

Also that CPU-Z bench/stress test is a joke and will not guarantee stability at all except to do a validation.  You would be better off just playing a demanding game that you would typically play anyway and see if it crashes.


----------



## holyprof (Jan 14, 2019)

Clearly Vayra86 knows more about overclocking than both of us (me and *Hnykill22*). So if I were you, I'd take his advice to lower that voltage to 1.3, maybe 1.32V. Running a CPU at much higher than spec voltages might work for some time, but it will die a premature death due to electromigration.

Just because 5GHz looks like nice round number for us humans using the decimal system, you should not take it as a goal for your overclocking. You will not feel the difference between 4.9 and 5.0 GHz in a blind test. Many years ago i overclocked the venerable Core2Quad 6600 from 2.4 to 3.0GHz - guess what, games that were smooth stayed smooth, and games that were choppy stayed choppy even when on lowest image quality settings. Only difference i felt was reduced video encoding times. Then I tried 3.2GHz - OCCT crashed in 6 seconds.


----------



## John Naylor (Jan 16, 2019)

I always find the price / performance argument as misleading.  The CPU does not exist on its own and the prce argument that the Intel CPU needs a cooler seems to acknowledge this ... OK but if I have a CPU and Cooler on my desk, what can i do with it ?  With a $165 AMD 2600 and a 9600k $95 more... say $140 w/ best air cooler on market, it takes a $1600 box to a $1740 box.  That's not 47% more, it's 8.75% more.


----------

