Monday, October 15th 2018

Benchmarks for Intel Core i5-9600K Leak, Can Be Overclocked to 5.2 GHz On Air

The first official data we have received about the performance of the new Intel processors are not exactly spectacular. The Core i9-9900K has aroused considerable controversy due to the unfair Principled Technologies test bench. The results have been reviewed and confirm that the performance gain is debatable, but independent analyses have yet to appear for Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K processors.

Today we have some info about one of them: a new video in China shows a Core i5-9600K being benchmarked with a MSI Z390 MEG Godlike motherboard with 16GB of DDR4 memory and a Silver Arrow Extreme cooler from Thermalright. We don't have game benchmarks, but at least we have some Cinebench results both with the processor working with its 3.7 GHz base clock and overcloked to 5.2 GHz. That process was done without problems despite using an air cooler.
The results in Cinebench R15 were 1,034 CB without overclocking and 1,207 with overclocking. These performances are at the level of the Core i5-8600K, which obtained 1,051.66 CB compared to 976.61 CB of the Core i5-8400 with their base clock. The price of the Core i5-9600K is now around $280 dollars when we've also have got the Core i5-8600K at $260 and the Core i5-8400 priced at $205. Everything gets even more interesting if we consider that the AMD Ryzen 7 2700 costs $250 and the Ryzen 2700X is at $295. The latter has been the one compared with the Core i9-9900K in the tests officially published by Intel.
Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

35 Comments on Benchmarks for Intel Core i5-9600K Leak, Can Be Overclocked to 5.2 GHz On Air

#26
Ruru
S.T.A.R.S.
I still stay with X99. <3
Posted on Reply
#27
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
timta2The numbers are in English.
At this rate its fake
Posted on Reply
#28
Space Lynx
Astronaut
Winter 2019, AMD 7nm CPU and GPU combo. Be patient my brothers. The end game at a reasonable price is less than a year away!
Posted on Reply
#29
Upgrayedd
DR4G00NI don't know where they got that voltage from but these basically clock the same as the 8000's. So 5.0-5.2GHz+ @ 1.35V.
Check the source article. Idk why TPU left the voltage out that was all I cared about. Source says 1.507v
Posted on Reply
#30
Prima.Vera
1.507V @ 90C :kookoo::kookoo::eek::eek:
WTF!!
Posted on Reply
#31
DR4G00N
UpgrayeddCheck the source article. Idk why TPU left the voltage out that was all I cared about. Source says 1.507v
If that's the actual vcore needed for a manual 5.2GHz oc then that is probably the worst chip I've seen in a while. Likely what's going on is an "auto oc'ing" abombination was being used on it which of course love to crank the volts real high for no reason.
Posted on Reply
#32
robot zombie
Why does that seem abysmally low to me? Like, almost unrealistically low...

I mean, my Ryzen 2600 (non-X) scores in the 1200's running stock settings. It's only boosting to >3.8ghz to score that. And then it easily overclocks to 4.25 @ 1.33v, pushing it just into the upper-mid 1400's. And it's maxing 78C under heavy stress. I broke 1500 at 4.35 at around 1.45v the other day and the voltage/temps were just beginning to approach that i5, which is stupidly high imo - completely unrealistic overclock, but still. The 4.25 isn't too far off and I ran that for quite a while.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's really something to brag about. Don't wanna be one of those "duhhrr... mah aye ehm dee" guys, but this is a $150 CPU getting those scores no problem. Call it $210 if you count the Scythe Mugen Max on top.

Just looking at the base specs, I don't see how it can be that comparatively bad. Obviously I'd be oversimplifying, but I would expect a 6c/6t Intel CPU to at least keep up with a 6c/12t AMD one with almost a full ghz max clock difference. Even if you take the advertised boost of 4.6ghz you'd think that'd be enough to give it some edge. There's no way this is even close to the whole picture. Something is missing.

If that's a real indicator, it's a joke. I wonder what the SC score is like. Not to mention other benchmarks. Just doesn't seem right. CB doesn't usually mislead - there's something to it I suppose... ...I dunno, I don't fully trust this. Reserving judgement. I think in this case comparing CB scores has got to be misleading. I like my AMD chip but that's a ridiculous difference.

But hey, at least it has integrated graphics :p

One thing I will say... if real, it does make Intel look a little haggard, being that they've used CB scores against AMD in the past.
Posted on Reply
#33
londiste
robot zombieWhy does that seem abysmally low to me? Like, almost unrealistically low...

I mean, my Ryzen 2600 (non-X) scores in the 1200's running stock settings. It's only boosting to >3.8ghz to score that. And then it easily overclocks to 4.25 @ 1.33v, pushing it just into the upper-mid 1400's. And it's maxing 78C under heavy stress. I broke 1500 at 4.35 at around 1.45v the other day and the voltage/temps were just beginning to approach that i5, which is stupidly high imo - completely unrealistic overclock, but still. The 4.25 isn't too far off and I ran that for quite a while.
HT/SMT is about 30% boost for Intel, a little more for AMD. Additional threads help a lot, especially on an extremely well threaded benchmark like Cinebench. Cinebench is also scaling linearly with everything, cores, threads and clock speeds. As well as having low, if any, scaling from memory and no AVX support. AMD chose to focus Ryzen marketing on Cinebench for a reason.

At stock 9600 boosts to 4.3GHz on all cores. OC was to 5.2GHz. This makes gains from 1034 to 1207 linear enough. 20% overclock, 17% better score.
Posted on Reply
#34
Unregistered
eidairaman1In a blurry foreign language.
It's Chinese, it's normal not to understand a language other than your own.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#35
Vlada011
I change my mind, X299 and i9-9800X or i9-9820X are more interesting than i9-9900K.
It's sad that I didn't bought ASUS Rampage VI Apex for 250 euro new never removed from box.
I could even get for less money but I was not sure that I will have cash for processor.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 07:47 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts