# Intel Core i5 9600k worth to upgrade to a i9 9900k in these AMD days?



## PeterPaul0808 (Dec 8, 2019)

I have a very good Z370 mini ITX motherboard a Asrock Fatal1ty z370 Gaming-ITX/ac, I use my i5 9600k at 5ghz with a NZXT Kraken x62, and I know today is the AMD the king of desktop CPUs, but as I counted the Ryzen 9 3900x would be very expensive in my country to change and I would need to buy better memory, I'm using a 16GB Corsair Vengance 3000mhz CL16 kit, which perfect for Intel, but not for AMD. What do you think, i9 9900k would be futureproof, I would use about 2 years. And my graphics card is RTX 2080 Super.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2019)

I think your current cpu will last 2 years...


----------



## PeterPaul0808 (Dec 8, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I think your current cpu will last 2 years...


Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...


----------



## windwhirl (Dec 8, 2019)

What do you use your computer for? Gaming only or other workloads? 1080p, 1440p, 4K? 60 Hz or high refresh rates? That's important too...

EDIT: Consider adding your full system specs in your profile (through account settings), so we can know what we're dealing with...


----------



## PeterPaul0808 (Dec 8, 2019)

windwhirl said:


> What do you use your computer for? Gaming only or other workloads? 1080p, 1440p, 4K? 60 Hz or high refresh rates? That's important too...


1440p gaming at 75hz, because my monitor only handle that refresh rate (it's an UltraWide monitor) and I have a youtube channel, where I want stream, but I wasn't ready to start yet and also I edit my videos (1080p@60fps) with this CPU, sometimes very long with high bitrate (12000).


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 8, 2019)

I'd stick with the 9600K, especially with that motherboard.  I think the 9900K would have a hard time staying at 5GHz with that motherboard.



PeterPaul0808 said:


> I would need to buy better memory, I'm using a 16GB Corsair Vengance 3000mhz CL16 kit, which perfect for Intel, but not for AMD.



Just FYI, this kit would be just fine with AMD.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 8, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...


Your CPU will be more then enough once the new consoles come out especially if you already have it at 5ghz.  Don't be fooled by a bunch of fan boys scouring non real world benchmarks just to justify their own purchase.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 8, 2019)

9900k is still the best gaming cpu by far.
the problem I have with the question is the word "worth".
IMO you buy a 9900k specifically when 9700kf or 3700x won't do,which they likely will.

get an adaptive sync monitor,it's 2020,being able to hit a specific framerate cause my monitor is XY hz has not been my problem for 5 years.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 8, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...



Why would you upgrade within the same gen just to get performance you've never been short of?

If you have to ask if 6 cores will be enough, there is absolutely no reason to do anything.

These 6 core CPUs will drop in value just like any other, and they are going to be fine for many many segments of the market for a long time.


----------



## windwhirl (Dec 8, 2019)

Gaming wise, I'd agree with EarthDog. Most of the load is GPU-dependent. And as far as we know, the PS5 will have 8 Zen 2 cores (which will probably be not as highly clocked as their PC counterparts), so it's not an outrageous difference.

You may want to consider that CPU upgrade for video editing and streaming, mostly. However, if you feel that your current CPU is enough, I'd save the money and wait to replace the whole platform for something that is not close to EOL (End Of Life). It's unlikely that you will see new CPUs for Z370 or LGA 1151 that are not a rehash of current or previous ones. [EDIT: And DDR5 is getting closer, so another reason to wait a bit more...]

In short, I wouldn't upgrade yet. And not on a dead-end platform.


----------



## PeterPaul0808 (Dec 8, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 9900k is still the best gaming cpu by far.
> the problem I have with the question is the word "worth".
> IMO you buy a 9900k specifically when 9700kf or 3700x won't do,which they likely will.
> 
> get an adaptive sync monitor,it's 2020,being able to hit a specific framerate cause my monitor is XY hz has not been my problem for 5 years.


I have an adaptice sync monitor, I set a custom resolution with 1hz below the maximum and works fine. 



windwhirl said:


> Gaming wise, I'd agree with EarthDog. Most of the load is GPU-dependent. And as far as we know, the PS5 will have 8 Zen 2 cores (which will probably be not as highly clocked as their PC counterparts), so it's not an outrageous difference.
> 
> You may want to consider that CPU upgrade for video editing and streaming, mostly. However, if you feel that your current CPU is enough, I'd save the money and wait to replace the whole platform for something that is not close to EOL (End Of Life). It's unlikely that you will see new CPUs for Z370 or LGA 1151 that are not a rehash of current or previous ones. [EDIT: And DDR5 is getting closer, so another reason to wait a bit more...]
> 
> In short, I wouldn't upgrade yet. And not on a dead-end platform.


So you suggest wait for the next generation and decide when it's arrive. It's a fair point. I bought that CPU, because it had better framer rates than the Ryzen 7 2700x back then. I will wait, thank you for open my eyes. I can edit with that and if I think about that used to I edit my videos with my 4 core i5 6500, I have a far better system now.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 8, 2019)

windwhirl said:


> Gaming wise, I'd agree with EarthDog. Most of the load is GPU-dependent.


most is vague.
if you have a game like AC:Odyssey which you play for 200h-300h you'll likely see that this "most" load is maybe 60% of the time you play on average.in every city you're cpu limited if you're pairing a fast card with an entry-level cpu.

looking at it from the quantity viewpoint is wrong imo.most of the time you'll be gpu bound in Battlefiled 1/5,but you don't want your framerate to tank every time there's an explosion.


----------



## windwhirl (Dec 8, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> most is vague.
> if you have a game like AC:Odyssey which you play for 200h-300h you'll likely see that this "most" load is maybe 60% of the time you play on average.in every city you're cpu limited if you're pairing a fast card with an entry-level cpu.
> 
> looking at it from the quantity viewpoint is wrong imo.most of the time you'll be gpu bound in Battlefiled 1/5,but you don't want your framerate to tank every time there's an explosion.



True, but looking at TPU's reviews on the Ryzen 3900X and 3700X the difference in gaming performance at 1440p between the OP's current CPU against other processors (gaming-wise) was rather negligible, with the 9600K usually being close to the top.

That's why I said that the OP should consider the upgrade with streaming and video editing in mind...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...


It wont happen overnight man. Existing games wont suddenly need mkre and new ones wont always use more.


----------



## Vario (Dec 9, 2019)

It would be a waste of money to upgrade, your 9600K will be fine for several more years.


----------



## Hyderz (Dec 9, 2019)

well next gen games will come out end of 2020, and if by chance your cpu is not handling the new games in 2021 then upgrade.
its a waste of money now going to 9900k now or changing to amd cpu with higher cores just for gaming from a 9600k cpu.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 9, 2019)

If we haven't convinced OP yet;

9900K is also hot, pretty expensive and requires additional investment in cooling, has security flaws, and is on a dead-end platform.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 9, 2019)

To me it would depend on how much it would cost after you sell your 9600k. I own both a 3900X and a 9900k and if you were going brand new system Ryzen is a significantly better choice. The 9900k only runs hot when you turn off all limits but if you only use your pc for gaming it isn't that hard to cool even at 5ghz mine never breaks 65C even in cpu demanding games. Even when not overclocked it is still faster in gaming than Ryzen.

if a 3700X/MOBO/Ram is more expensive for you than just grabbing a 9900k I would grab the 9900k. I'm not a huge fan of the 9600k but I would also only do the swap if it's holding you back or stuttering in the games you play. You could also look at used 8700k and see how much that swap would cost you I would do that over a 9700k.

Worth only you can answer with a 2080 super I would say maybe and it would really come down to the games you play.

As other's have mentioned you will definitely need good airflow around your vrm if you decided to overclock a 9900k with your current board.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> So you suggest wait for the next generation and decide when it's arrive. It's a fair point. I bought that CPU, because it had better framer rates than the Ryzen 7 2700x back then. I will wait, thank you for open my eyes. I can edit with that and if I think about that used to I edit my videos with my 4 core i5 6500, I have a far better system now.


It still has (substantially) better frame rates than 2700X and in almost all games also better than 3700X, so definitely no need to upgrade now, especially not for 1440p ultrawide gaming on a 75Hz screen. It will likely be a wise move to do it in 2-3 years though, however I suspect that a 9900k will never be cheap enough second hand to really make sense (over an entirely new system), but 8700k/9700k probably will and should be enough to carry you over for a couple additional years.


oxrufiioxo said:


> To me it would depend on how much it would cost after you sell your 9600k. I own both a 3900X and a 9900k and if you were going brand new system Ryzen is a significantly better choice.


Definitely not for gaming, maybe for video editing work, but even then, I wouldn't say significantly, for the former though, I would more likely say, 9900k is a significantly better buy (at least out of these two options), especially as on top of being a class above performance-wise, it is currently mostly quite a bit cheaper as well (moreso if we count the kf version too).


----------



## bug (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...


Long story short, if you have to ask (i.e. don't have specific requirements), 6 cores will be enough.


----------



## Komshija (Dec 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I think your current cpu will last 2 years...


I would add *at least.*


----------



## Vario (Dec 9, 2019)

Saw an i9 9900 at microcenter in the open box category this week, $339.  At that price, it would be closer to worth it, but still isn't worth it in my opinion, I have an 8600K, much like your 9600K.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> Do you think 6 cores will be enough? I always here these in 2020 when the new consoles comes, the 6 core CPUs will worth nothing anymore...


Yes. For at least 2 years.

It isn't like when these consoles release, in a year, that things become instantly obsolete. It will still take YEARS for the market to gain traction on a majority of games being able to use more than 4c...the consoles should speed that process up, but again, it isn't instant obsolescence by any stretch. There are a few titles out now which can use more, but a vast majority will be fine with 6c/6t.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 9, 2019)

People need to realize that if something is good for odyssey and bf5 now,it's going to be good for another couple of years at least.these games are friggin CPU viruses.I had my CPU OC pass ibt max ten times and crap its pants in watch dogs 2 within 3 minutes.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> People need to realize that if something is good for odyssey and bf5 now,it's going to be good for another couple of years at least.these games are friggin CPU viruses.I had my CPU OC pass ibt max ten times and crap its pants in watch dogs 2 within 3 minutes.


That's what happens when you test the AC but your brakes are the issue. 

Actually being serious, I hate IBT.. that is one of the more useless stress tests around.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> That's what happens when you test the AC but your brakes are the issue.
> 
> Actually being serious, I hate IBT.. that is one of the more useless stress tests around.



The only pro IBT really has is that you can get an idea of relative performance between settings/runs because it gives you a simple number, and heat. Lots of heat.

its a bit like a Furmark with a bench score.

Personally still partial to OCCT for quick testing, and then on to real workloads until the OC falls apart, basically  I do still think a synthetic test is essential because you need some sort of similar testing/starting situation to analyze stuff. And the graphs, OCCTs graphs are great.



bug said:


> Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.



I don't... I'll even happily back down another 100-200mhz if it means a big reduction in voltage/heat/noise. Given the actual clock, 200mhz is negligible anyway.


----------



## bug (Dec 9, 2019)

Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.


Short answer, Yes (at least I do). 


Otherwise, why not? You just tested it to be stable... Unless voltage/temperature was higher than one prefers, then there isn't a reason to.

Why test at X.xGHz when you are only going to lower it? That makes little sense to me assuming one *has proper stress tests and methods* (length of time running it for their needs and using a test that works out all instruction sets).


----------



## windwhirl (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.



Personally, no way. I'm not drowning in money, so I try to keep all my gear working for at least 3 to 5 years before upgrading. Right now, I have my Ryzen 3600 CPU running in "Eco-Mode", and my RX 580 stays at default clocks. No extra OC.


----------



## bug (Dec 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Short answer, Yes (at least I do).
> 
> 
> Otherwise, why not? You just tested it to be stable... Unless voltage/temperature was higher than one prefers, then there isn't a reason to.
> ...


But that's just it, how do you test for proper stress tests? As elaborate as a tool may be, I highly doubt it will exercise all combinations of CPU load that you'll see irl.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> But that's just it, how do you test for proper stress tests? As elaborate as a tool may be, I highly doubt it will exercise all combinations of CPU load that you'll see irl.


This is something one figures out when testing as it varies depending on use. If you are overclocking, you should at least figure out which works best for YOU instead of running one thing. It is trial and error. While none are perfect, some simply work better for users depending on their workload. But most work fine for most people. Ive never felt the need to do so, ever.

But yeah, I don't follow the logic in lowering clocks on a stress tested stable and otherwise stable system unless temps/voltage are too high. Makes no sense to me to test higher and lower after.


----------



## bug (Dec 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> This is something one figures out when testing as it varies depending on use. If you are overclocking, you should at least figure out which works best for YOU instead of running one thing. It is trial and error. While none are perfect, some simply work better for users depending on their workload. But most work fine for most people. Ive never felt the need to do so, ever.
> 
> But yeah, I don't follow the logic in lowering clocks on a stress tested stable and otherwise stable system unless temps/voltage are too high. Makes no sense to me to test higher and lower after.


I just gave you the logic: it leaves a little room for scenarios the tool doesn't stress


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 9, 2019)

windwhirl said:


> Gaming wise, I'd agree with EarthDog. Most of the load is GPU-dependent. And as far as we know, the PS5 will have 8 Zen 2 cores (which will probably be not as highly clocked as their PC counterparts), so it's not an outrageous difference.



They are not Zen 2 cores but rather "Zen 2 based cores" so something is getting cut down (probably cache levels at least) so that the CPU draws the typical 20w that console CPU historically use.  Digital foundry tested a Ryzen 3700x (since the console CPUs are 8c/16t) at the rumored 1.8ghz and 3.2ghz levels that seem to be the low and high frequency out on the internet.  At 1.8ghz the Ryzen 3700x performed similar to an FX-8350 while at 3.2ghz it performed similar to a Ryzen 1500x.  Hard to say how efficient console game developers can make the CPU and remember the 3700x doesn't use cut down cores.


----------



## Deleted member 171912 (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> I have a very good Z370 mini ITX motherboard a Asrock Fatal1ty z370 Gaming-ITX/ac, I use my i5 9600k at 5ghz with a NZXT Kraken x62





PeterPaul0808 said:


> And my graphics card is RTX 2080 Super.





PeterPaul0808 said:


> 1440p gaming at 75hz





PeterPaul0808 said:


> I have a youtube channel, where I want stream, but I wasn't ready to start yet and also I edit my videos (1080p@60fps) with this CPU, sometimes very long with high bitrate (12000).



For gaming in your case it is not needed but it can help with streaming and video editing. i9 9900K is not so hot and you have NZXT Kraken X62 already.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.


I'm going for max overclock but only for cpu intensive gaming.I'm using a balls to the walls XTU profile in odyssey,bf1,division and other cpu dependent games but a standard oc in others.
I like software oc more than bios,I can use profiles like in afterburner.got two overclocked profiles,default one and undervolted one.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> I just gave you the logic: it leaves a little room for scenarios the tool doesn't stress


illogical when there are tests that work. 

You also specifically stated STABLE which means a stress test works for the user to be stable. So I answer why, if I am actually stable, would I lower my clocks??? I wouldn't because I am stable and that isn't logical (to me) to do so. You are saying its stable on one side of your mouth but trying to make a point about 'just in case it isnt' out of the other side. It doesn't work like that. Its stable for your uses, or it isnt. And if I am stable, I do not bother lowering the clocks, no. I don't test and show stability, and then lower it again for giggles. Get a more applicable stress test for your situation if you are not stable doing you daily tasks. 

Anyway, OT, so I digress.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 9, 2019)

what I do is find my stable oc settigs and then add +0.010-0.015 on top of that just to be sure.
my 5775c laughs at 1.41v anyway so I can afford it,barely hits 80W package TDP in IBT max.My D15S doesn't even go full 1500rpm   I think it's not a bad idea to add a little bit of voltage if you have temperature headroom.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> I have a very good Z370 mini ITX motherboard a Asrock Fatal1ty z370 Gaming-ITX/ac, I use my i5 9600k at 5ghz with a NZXT Kraken x62, and I know today is the AMD the king of desktop CPUs, but as I counted the Ryzen 9 3900x would be very expensive in my country to change and I would need to buy better memory, I'm using a 16GB Corsair Vengance 3000mhz CL16 kit, which perfect for Intel, but not for AMD. What do you think, i9 9900k would be futureproof, I would use about 2 years. And my graphics card is RTX 2080 Super.


Given that you already have a solid platform, upgrading your CPU to 9900k would bring you the best value and it will last you for several years. This presumes you need that much CPU power. If most of what you do is gaming, your 9600k will be good for a few years also. It just depends on your needs and usage model.


----------



## Vario (Dec 9, 2019)

bug said:


> Ok, I'm going full off-topic here, but do people really run their CPUs at max overclock? I mean, if a stress tool told me the CPU is stable at, say, 5GHz, I'd dial that back 5% or so if I was going for stability.


I run it well under, lately just run as far as the stock voltage takes me and leave it at that.  There isn't any reason to run it at max the speed is negligible.  I've gone to 5.1 before and it didn't make any difference that I could tell except generate a lot of heat.


----------



## Cheeseball (Dec 9, 2019)

PeterPaul0808 said:


> 1440p gaming at 75hz, because my monitor only handle that refresh rate (it's an UltraWide monitor) and I have a youtube channel, where I want stream, but I wasn't ready to start yet and also I edit my videos (1080p@60fps) with this CPU, sometimes very long with high bitrate (12000).



Your 9600K @ 5 GHz on a Z370 is more than enough for what you are currently doing with it (which is normal gaming and light video editing).

Once you start streaming though, you may want to (1) offload the streaming to another dedicated PC, (2) use NVENC (if you're planning to go Twitch.tv) or (3) upgrade the CPU to the 9900K if you're planning to use software encoding.


----------



## ERazer (Dec 9, 2019)

the question is how quick can you sell the 9600k? think about that before you upgrade. I cant sure afford 200$ worth CPU collecting dust.


----------



## Cheeseball (Dec 9, 2019)

ERazer said:


> the question is how quick can you sell the 9600k? think about that before you upgrade. I cant sure afford 200$ worth CPU collecting dust.



If the 9600K is $199 brand new at NewEgg.com, selling it would probably be around $150 or $130 depending on how new it is and if it still has a running warranty.

I still would recommend keeping it and *only upgrading* when needed, as it can handle all current games at 5 GHz with ease (it can also do it at stock speeds as well).


----------



## PeterPaul0808 (Dec 10, 2019)

ERazer said:


> the question is how quick can you sell the 9600k? think about that before you upgrade. I cant sure afford 200$ worth CPU collecting dust.


I started advertise my i5 9600k on used market place in my countrey at reasonable price. But noone needs today a Core i5, because everybody is in Ryzen frenzy. I will keep it, and thank you everyone who answered me.
P.S.: With NVENC I tried out the streaming, it's okay enjoyable.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 10, 2019)

I have a similar dilemma. Should i upgrade from an i5 8600k to a 9700k or a Ryzen 3700X. I made this small test, 4 cores/4 threads got me bellow 30 fps in this battle, 6c/6t to about 30 fps, the question is would another 2 cores and 12 threads get me to 40 fps ?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 10, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> I have a similar dilemma. Should i upgrade from an i5 8600k to a 9700k or a Ryzen 3700X. I made this small test, 4 cores/4 threads got me bellow 30 fps in this battle, 6c/6t to about 30 fps, the question is would another 2 cores get me to 40 fps ?


Look  up some reviews on CPU scaling for this titles and see... 









						Total War: Warhammer benchmarks strike fear into CPUs
					

An upcoming DX12 patch will help.




					www.pcgamer.com


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 10, 2019)

Those are irrelevant, the in-game benchmark is no way representative of an actual 40 vs 40 units like i posted above.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 10, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> Those are irrelevant, the in-game benchmark is no way representative of an actual 40 vs 40 units like i posted above.


I mean, who knew unless you mentioned it initially... 

It should still be relevant and scale... the more things on a screen that the CPU has to deal with...........right?


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 10, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> I have a similar dilemma. Should i upgrade from an i5 8600k to a 9700k or a Ryzen 3700X. I made this small test, 4 cores/4 threads got me bellow 30 fps in this battle, 6c/6t to about 30 fps, the question is would another 2 cores and 12 threads get me to 40 fps ?



Your best bet would be the total war forums as they would have far more experience with the game on various hardware.

It could be your CPU or it could be your GPU causing the low FPS.  Have you tried lowering graphic settings and does it help much?  

From personal experience I went from a 8600k to a 9700k and it wasn't a drastic change in performance since my 8600k handled all my games with ease already but I didn't play total war games.  Since you already have the mobo "upgrading" to the 9700k would be the most economical move and that CPU generally beats the Ryzen 3700x in gaming benchmarks.  OC the 9700k will further the separation.









						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X review: gaming performance tests
					

In assessing game performance, I went with a smaller range of titles designed to show a range of different CPU profiles…




					www.eurogamer.net


----------

