# Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 GHz



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2017)

Intel's Core i5-8600K is priced $120 below the i7-8700K, making it an interesting option for the more value-oriented buyer. It features the same six-core design, but lacks HyperThreading and loses 3 MB of cache. Our testing shows that it still is a great CPU, especially when overclocked to almost 5 GHz.

*Show full review*


----------



## UnversedXI (Oct 5, 2017)

Would love to know how this and the i7 performs compares to something like a i7 5820k (OC'd too) which was at one point a very similar price to the 6700/7700k. Great review as always tho, 2017 has been a great year for the consumer for sure


----------



## trog100 (Oct 5, 2017)

seems to be on a par with the 7700K for less money.. looks set to be todays top gaming chip.. shame it needs a new motherboard.. 

i was curious to see how 4 cores 8 threads compared to a straight 6 cores with no HT.. about the same it seems..

trog


----------



## oxidized (Oct 5, 2017)

Am i mistaken or there's no temperature test?


----------



## bug (Oct 5, 2017)

I don't see how lack of HT is a con. This competes directly with the 1600X which has HT, but still manages finish behind the 8600k. Even in a best case scenario (Cinebench multi-threaded), 1600X is only ~20% faster.
It's a good chip, but because you need a motherboard to go with it, you might as well go AMD. Imho, positioning is a bit iffy.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Oct 5, 2017)

I still don't see a compelling reason to upgrade from my overclocked 4690k.


----------



## Supercrit (Oct 5, 2017)

Divide Overflow said:


> I still don't see a compelling reason to upgrade from my overclocked 4690k.


Good option for first time builders or people with ancient builds.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 5, 2017)

No way I would recommend a 1600x over this beast.


----------



## Frick (Oct 5, 2017)

dicktracy said:


> No way I would recommend a 1600x over this beast.



I would. This is €50 more than the boxed 1600x. Prices might come down though.

Anyway I want to see how the i5 8400 performs. €190 at launch is seriously sweet.


----------



## mastershake575 (Oct 5, 2017)

Divide Overflow said:


> I still don't see a compelling reason to upgrade from my overclocked 4690k.


 Same here. I'm rocking a 5 year old overclocked 3770K and i'm still getting very high settings in all games and my CPU is still multiple times faster than the consoles CPU. 

Will wait till at least  Volta to consider a CPU upgrade.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Oct 5, 2017)

bug said:


> I don't see how lack of HT is a con. This competes directly with the 1600X which has HT, but still manages finish behind the 8600k. Even in a best case scenario (Cinebench multi-threaded), 1600X is only ~20% faster.
> It's a good chip, but because you need a motherboard to go with it, you might as well go AMD. Imho, positioning is a bit iffy.



You still need a motherboard to go with AMD's 1600x.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 5, 2017)

a bit meh... good i was waiting on that review to decide if i would change my 6600K (a 7600K would not need mobo change but would not be an upgrade either )

although it's not needed but the best choice is confirmed :
Ryzen 1600X confirmed for me ... even at 3.6 or if lucky ... a tad higher .... (might even spare a bit more and take a B350 since it's not that much limited from the X370)

since both CPU's in that price range would need a new mobo/socket and the performance gap is not that high ... 
also knowing AMD and Intel ... the first will likely keep the next CPU gen on the same socket/chipset and the later will change everything as usual  (or at last the chipset, or put 1 pin more/less )



dicktracy said:


> No way I would recommend a 1600x over this beast.


meh.... in no way a beast ... even as i own a 6600K for me it's a "so-so" improvement ... what 2C/2T more? well ... it's not putting enough ahead of the 1600/1600X to justify the price 

plus ... in the summary ... funny but 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz (overall performances increase noticed across all the table also) does not show not impressive change/gain, might aswell keep it at 3.6



bug said:


> I don't see how lack of HT is a con. This competes directly with the 1600X which has HT, but still manages finish behind the 8600k. Even in a best case scenario (Cinebench multi-threaded), 1600X is only ~20% faster.
> It's a good chip, but because you need a motherboard to go with it, you might as well go AMD. Imho, positioning is a bit iffy.



one thing i would like to see in review ... is per core usage ... because for now we don't know if the 1600X ran on 4, 6 or 12threads if it was 4C for each of them .... then the 1600X falling so little behind is not bad at all and as you write in heavily multithreaded , it's 20% ahead (well its not that bad ... HT/SMT does not really double the cores/performances ratio) 

for now my vote goes for the R5 1600/1600X  i gladly prefer paying 200ish "insert currency here" for 6C/12T than 6C/6T (plus AM4 mobo are becoming cheaper nowadays and DDR4 is dropping a bit at my etailers )



FeelinFroggy said:


> You still need a motherboard to go with AMD's 1600x.


you still need a motherboard to go with the 8600K .... and probably the next one  (Ryzen 2 seems to be staying on AM4 as far as i have read )

you readed crossway ...  he said : you need a mobo for both you might aswell go AMD


----------



## Mirkoskji (Oct 5, 2017)

Its basically r7 1700 performance for the same price. Maybe a full build is cheaper on the AMD side, since you can pick b350 motherboards for 80$ and still overclock.
Overclock enabled Intel boards are more expensive.
I wouldn't compare it with the r5 1600


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Oct 5, 2017)

meh.... in no way a beast ... even as i own a 6600K for me it's a "so-so" improvement ... what 2C/2T more? well ... it's not putting enough ahead of the 1600/1600X to justify the price

plus ... in the summary ... funny but 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz (overall performances increase noticed across all the table also) does not show not impressive change/gain, might aswell keep it at 3.6





Obviously you don't know how to read a graph.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 5, 2017)

FeelinFroggy said:


> meh.... in no way a beast ... even as i own a 6600K for me it's a "so-so" improvement ... what 2C/2T more? well ... it's not putting enough ahead of the 1600/1600X to justify the price
> 
> plus ... in the summary ... funny but 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz (overall performances increase noticed across all the table also) does not show not impressive change/gain, might aswell keep it at 3.6
> 
> ...


read the difference in fps .... not in % ... yep it's not putting much ahead ... and yep it's no monster to a 1600/1600X or even toward a 6600K

after that yes difference in % is not that much either.



obviously you don't know how to "quote" but you are a new member, so it's not really a big thing :



it might come in handy later on 




Mirkoskji said:


> Its basically r7 1700 performance for the same price. Maybe a full build is cheaper on the AMD side, since you can pick b350 motherboards for 80$ and still overclock.
> Overclock enabled Intel boards are more expensive.
> I wouldn't compare it with the r5 1600


actually ... yep, the price point is 1600/1600X ... if you have cheaper 1700 were you are ... i would be happy with a 1700 at a 1600 pricepoint and not 100~more or a 1600/1600X at a lower pricepoint than what i have.
and it does compare well to a 1600 (rather a 1600X tho)

aahhhh edit: my etailer listed the 8600K just now: yep greedy 319chf while the 1700 is 329chf nice MSRP oh wait ... nah it's 60$~ above msrp thanks taxes ... 

well the 1600/1600X is still a better option then .... my sweetspot pricepoint is 250$ max and in that category there is only 6600K/7600K/1600/1600X (you are right on the total price since even a B350 is OC capable but with the little OC'ability of a Ryzen ... it's rather weird to even take a X370 .... tho the one at 150$ are not that expensive ... my own Z170 G7 was 229chf  )

i can resell my current set for near the initial retail price and take a 1600 build and have 150$ left (or 120$ left if i took a 1600X ) if taking a B350 or 50 and 20$ if taking a X370, while taking the "monster"  i would have to add 100$


----------



## Lightofhonor (Oct 5, 2017)

Looks good, but not enough to upgrade from Ryzen 1700X. Does make the 1600/X a little bit harder of a sale, but once you price the cooler and MB the bang for buck is still AMD.

Unless you are playing 144hz


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Oct 5, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> read the difference in fps .... not in % ... yep it's not putting much ahead ... and yep it's no monster to a 1600/1600X or even toward a 6600K
> 
> after that yes difference in % is not that much either.



I think an average of 20% better fps is a pretty good jump in performance over a similarly priced 1600x.  Most people are pretty excited for the competition but you are "meh".


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 5, 2017)

FeelinFroggy said:


> I think an *average of 20% better fps* is a pretty good jump in performance over a similarly priced 1600x.  Most people are pretty excited for the competition but you are "meh".


Did you count in the OCed 8600k & the OCed 1600x, because without a hefty OC the 8600k will not be 20% faster on avg wrt 6 core Ryzen!






















Well what do you know, even with a massive OC the 8600k isn't winning 20% on avg FPS, in games!


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 5, 2017)

FeelinFroggy said:


> I think an average of 20% better fps is a pretty good jump in performance over a similarly priced 1600x.  Most people are pretty excited for the competition but you are "meh".


The new i5 is also much better than the overpriced 1800x.




AMD needs to stay in their lane which is catering to low budget builds.


----------



## Mirkoskji (Oct 6, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> actually ... yep, the price point is 1600/1600X ... if you have cheaper 1700 were you are ... i would be happy with a 1700 at a 1600 pricepoint and not 100~more or a 1600/1600X at a lower pricepoint than what i have.
> and it does compare well to a 1600 (rather a 1600X tho)
> 
> aahhhh edit: my etailer listed the 8600K just now: yep greedy 319chf while the 1700 is 329chf nice MSRP oh wait ... nah it's 60$~ above msrp thanks taxes ...
> ...



Yes, I was considering euro prices of r7 1700 here in Italy, where I can find it for about 260 euro (1600 is 179 euro), which is just the base price of the 8600k. I am a little bit more inclined towards ryzen cause I like the whole concept of it, but I also really like Intel's single threaded performance. In my use case I'd be happy with 6 cores clocked near 5ghz. I make plenty of multi tab browsing (also 100 tabs In different pages) which is a particular workload that benefits from threads and frequency, but most of my productivity software is not optimized for multitrhead (gis software). About motherboard solidity, even if you clock a 8600k to 5 GHz you get the power consumption of a base 1800x, so I don't really think that a high end board is needed to get stable.


----------



## Mistral (Oct 6, 2017)

So, is this real a real or a paper launch? I keep hearing that stock is close to non-existent at the moment and is only expected to improve H1 next year.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 6, 2017)

Please spoiler the graphs guys. That was a lot of scrolling for something I read in the review.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 6, 2017)

FeelinFroggy said:


> I think an average of 20% better fps is a pretty good jump in performance over a similarly priced 1600x.  Most people are pretty excited for the competition but you are "meh".


ah? 0.1fps difference = 20% ... wow i didn't see, thanks 

mixing up % and fps is not a good idea


----------



## r9 (Oct 6, 2017)

R7 1600 is 10% slower in both cpu and game tests.
You can buy 1600 for $170 and get $30 off when you buy motherboard from Microcenter.
So for $220 you can get R7 1600 / B350 motherboard.
I think that is pretty good deal.
Same Intel combo will set you back around $500.


----------



## bug (Oct 6, 2017)

r9 said:


> R7 1600 is 10% slower in both cpu and game tests.
> You can buy 1600 for $170 and get $30 off when you buy motherboard from Microcenter.
> So for $220 you can get R7 1600 / B350 motherboard.
> I think that is pretty good deal.
> Same Intel combo will set you back around $500.


First, I doubt a mobo for Intel is $200+ (I cand find them on newegg at $129.99). Second, you're comparing the price of a product that's been on the market for half a year to the price of a newly released product. It's a fair comparison at the moment, but we all know there's a markup around launch time. Third, going by MSRP, 8600k's direct competitor is 1600X, not the plain 1600.

I think if you give it a month or two, these will be priced pretty much the same, making choosing between them a toss up, unless you specifically need either multithreaded or single threaded performance. I just wished they'd be priced a tad lower.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 6, 2017)

bug said:


> First, I doubt a mobo for Intel is $200+ (I cand find them on newegg at $129.99). Second, you're comparing the price of a product that's been on the market for half a year to the price of a newly released product. It's a fair comparison at the moment, but we all know there's a markup around launch time. Third, going by MSRP, 8600k's direct competitor is 1600X, not the plain 1600.
> 
> I think if you give it a month or two, these will be priced pretty much the same, making choosing between them a toss up, unless you specifically need either multithreaded or single threaded performance. I just wished they'd be priced a tad lower.



https://www.pccasegear.com/category/138_1902/motherboards/intel-socket-1151-cl

Every Z370 Motherboard there is $200 or up!


----------



## bug (Oct 6, 2017)

Melvis said:


> https://www.pccasegear.com/category/138_1902/motherboards/intel-socket-1151-cl
> 
> Every Z370 Motherboard there is $200 or up!


Nice try, but that's AUD, we were talking USD.


----------



## cap87 (Oct 7, 2017)

Mirkoskji said:


> Its basically r7 1700 performance for the same price. Maybe a full build is cheaper on the AMD side, since you can pick b350 motherboards for 80$ and still overclock.
> Overclock enabled Intel boards are more expensive.
> I wouldn't compare it with the r5 1600



VRM's on B350 MB's are garbage and the decent ones cost as much as X370's. I've never really understood the AMD fans argument, I mean if you do pick Ryzen for longevity then why buy the cheapest parts? I'd never stick with a heatsink that blows hot air into the MB components and if any of them were serious about OC'ing they'd pick something better than the wraith cooler, even a cheap $35 Hyper EVO 212 does a better job.



r9 said:


> R7 1600 is 10% slower in both cpu and game tests.
> You can buy 1600 for $170 and get $30 off when you buy motherboard from Microcenter.
> So for $220 you can get R7 1600 / B350 motherboard.
> I think that is pretty good deal.
> Same Intel combo will set you back around $500.



I bought an i5 8600K/Z370 combo for $364 on newegg so it's nowhere near the $500 tag unless you meant that for an 8700K combo. I could have waited for a price drop but then again I don't felt like waiting for two or three months.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 7, 2017)

bug said:


> Nice try, but that's AUD, we were talking USD.



Exactly, and we all know that USA has the cheapest prices in the world, so people complaining about prices in USA don't have any reason to, its dirt cheap there period! and there is more people in the world then just USA and we all pay a lot more, so yes there is many hobos priced over $200 regardless of the small amount of Americans that get them under the rest of the worlds $200+


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Exactly, and we all know that USA has the cheapest prices in the world, so people complaining about prices in USA don't have any reason to, its dirt cheap there period! and there is more people in the world then just USA and we all pay a lot more, so yes there is many hobos priced over $200 regardless of the small amount of Americans that get them under the rest of the worlds $200+



Sorry but no, over here in Netherlands as well; Z boards have always started at around the 110-120 EUR mark. Not 180 or up. That is the subtop of the stack price point and even with a bad USD/EUR rate.


----------



## Mirkoskji (Oct 7, 2017)

cap87 said:


> VRM's on B350 MB's are garbage and the decent ones cost as much as X370's. I've never really understood the AMD fans argument, I mean if you do pick Ryzen for longevity then why buy the cheapest parts? I'd never stick with a heatsink that blows hot air into the MB components and if any of them were serious about OC'ing they'd pick something better than the wraith cooler, even a cheap $35 Hyper EVO 212 does a better job.
> 
> 
> 
> I bought an i5 8600K/Z370 combo for $364 on newegg so it's nowhere near the $500 tag unless you meant that for an 8700K combo. I could have waited for a price drop but then again I don't felt like waiting for two or three months.


Do you really need those exxxxtreme ultra-dope vrms for a crappy 65/95 watt CPU that even overclocked can't surpass 140w? I mean I had countless crappy parts, they never failed for age or normal usage. They either failed in the first week or after misuse  (apart from mechanical HDDs). I know more extreme builds with way more problems than normal ones (I have a problematic motherboard that was 500 euros when new, I never had such problems with my precedent cheap builds). As for cooling, when you have a CPU that barely reaches 70 degrees what "hot air" do you think comes out from the heatsink? 45 degrees? 50? Those vrms are not made of human parts, that's plastic, copper, aluminium, and glass fiber.. If I touch the heatsink of my rivbe x79 motherboard' vrms ( liquid cooled cpu), I risk 1 grade burns even with a fan on it, and Never had problems with a 160w cpu pulling power from them. (With or without a fan). Sometimes overkill is too much overkill maybe?


----------



## Melvis (Oct 8, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Sorry but no, over here in Netherlands as well; Z boards have always started at around the 110-120 EUR mark. Not 180 or up. That is the subtop of the stack price point and even with a bad USD/EUR rate.



Sorry but no what? im confused, Netherlands cost alot more then USA for computer parts as well you mean? thats exactly what im getting at, the cheapest Z370 here in Australia starts at 131 Euro's, converted for you, thats even more then what you quoted.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 8, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Sorry but no what? im confused, Netherlands cost alot more then USA for computer parts as well you mean? thats exactly what im getting at, the cheapest Z370 here in Australia starts at 131 Euro's, converted for you, thats even more then what you quoted.



Yes, even though it costs 'more' over here, the vast majority of boards still ends up way below 180 EUR price points, which is about the same as $200. The gap between USA and NL really isn't that big, the main culprit is the way VAT is handled.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 26, 2017)

cap87 said:


> VRM's on B350 MB's are garbage and the decent ones cost as much as X370's. I've never really understood the AMD fans argument, I mean if you do pick Ryzen for longevity then why buy the cheapest parts? I'd never stick with a heatsink that blows hot air into the MB components and if any of them were serious about OC'ing they'd pick something better than the wraith cooler, even a cheap $35 Hyper EVO 212 does a better job.
> 
> Do you have a Wraith cooler to confirm that statement? The Wraith cooler from AMD is the best included cooler ever sent with a CPU. I know I was able to OC my R7 1700 to 3.7 GHZ just using the "garbage" Wraith cooler.
> 
> I bought an i5 8600K/Z370 combo for $364 on newegg so it's nowhere near the $500 tag unless you meant that for an 8700K combo. I could have waited for a price drop but then again I don't felt like waiting for two or three months.



If you are just a gamer that CPU makers sense but $364 US is $497 Canadian dollars. For $364 you could get the 1600 and a good B350 board. The biggest difference between these 2 CPUs is the 5% to 10% aggregate performance in (some) games.


----------



## cap87 (Nov 2, 2017)

Mirkoskji said:


> Do you really need those exxxxtreme ultra-dope vrms for a crappy 65/95 watt CPU that even overclocked can't surpass 140w? I mean I had countless crappy parts, they never failed for age or normal usage. They either failed in the first week or after misuse  (apart from mechanical HDDs). I know more extreme builds with way more problems than normal ones (I have a problematic motherboard that was 500 euros when new, I never had such problems with my precedent cheap builds). As for cooling, when you have a CPU that barely reaches 70 degrees what "hot air" do you think comes out from the heatsink? 45 degrees? 50? Those vrms are not made of human parts, that's plastic, copper, aluminium, and glass fiber.. If I touch the heatsink of my rivbe x79 motherboard' vrms ( liquid cooled cpu), I risk 1 grade burns even with a fan on it, and Never had problems with a 160w cpu pulling power from them. (With or without a fan). Sometimes overkill is too much overkill maybe?



Hahaha nice one, sometimes overkill can indeed be too much. I've always leaned towards the more robust components due to functionality but more importantly because over where I live there's a ton of problems with power delivery, the climate is very humid and I like to OC (not a great combo but what can be done?). Nothing super wild but all things considered I'd rather be on the safe side plus I just keep my boards for a while. I don't have a lot of qualms in regards to buying higher end motherboards right now since the things I'm most interested about such as DDR5 of PCI-E 4 won't be here for at least another 3 years so a Z370 will suffice.


----------



## Palladium (Nov 3, 2017)

cap87 said:


> VRM's on B350 MB's are garbage and the decent ones cost as much as X370's. I've never really understood the AMD fans argument, I mean if you do pick Ryzen for longevity then why buy the cheapest parts? I'd never stick with a heatsink that blows hot air into the MB components and if any of them were serious about OC'ing they'd pick something better than the wraith cooler, even a cheap $35 Hyper EVO 212 does a better job.
> 
> I bought an i5 8600K/Z370 combo for $364 on newegg so it's nowhere near the $500 tag unless you meant that for an 8700K combo. I could have waited for a price drop but then again I don't felt like waiting for two or three months.



When one put together the poorer ST, much poorer DDR4 support and Broken CnQ when OC...I could care less if the AMD solution is $100 cheaper.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 11, 2018)

The power efficiency of this CPU is almost jaw dropping... My PC idles between 78-81w. my 3930k on the other hand was at least 100-120w. I havent paid too much attention on the load wattage yet but I doubt my system even peaks over 350w


----------

