Intel Core i5-8600 3.1 GHz

[GoldenX]

TBH $20 less than 8600K is a pretty bad price point. 8600K can hit 5 GHz easily.

I agree, this 8600 makes the 8400 look even better.
Good to know there are more 6 core options, anyway.

 

[Assimilator]

Would be nice if the Ryzen reviews had a similar active threads vs clock speeds graph.

 

[ClashClan]

Are there any explanations for the benchmarks (especially Java and MySQL but also Excel etc.) what they do and what they measure? For example some sites admit that their sql database fits into the level 3 cache and are therefore meaningless.

 

[Renald]

But you'd spend $48 more than i5 8400 for 1-2% more performance ?

I agree.
I see no point for this CPU where the i5 8400 does nearly the same job for a cheaper price.

 

[W1zzard]

Are there any explanations for the benchmarks (especially Java and MySQL but also Excel etc.) what they do and what they measure? For example some sites admit that their sql database fits into the level 3 cache and are therefore meaningless.

The database is 2 GB on disk. TPC-C is well specified.

Java measures a mix of various operations/benchmarks/threaded unthreaded, no disk intensive or networking stuff
Excel is just typical operations, not Monte Carlo, or similar pure compute tests, which I find highly unrealistic to be done in Excel.

 

[trparky]

I see no point for this CPU where the i5 8400 does nearly the same job for a cheaper price.

But more often than not the price difference is a less than $50 USD. Now if there was a $100 difference then I could see why one would would go for the cheaper locked i5 chip. With decent Z370 boards being often being priced very close to that of the lesser chipset it's really not very much more expensive to get a Z370 board and K-series chip and get the added benefit of being able to overclock it. After all, that's why people go Intel to begin with; to overclock.

 

[nickbaldwin86]

yeah that is my point, the $20 just isn't right... grab an 8400... or spend $20 and get the unlocked 8600k... I KNOW 8600 is for those that don't OC but for $20 why cut yourself short. if you want budget get the 8400.

"budget" whatever that means... is basically the way this is playing out. but if you are truly on a "budget" and in this case a "low budget" you would go with the 8400 because the step up to the 8600 makes no sense.

I guess this is just Intel filling every hole they could in the market, knocked the K off and took a whole $20 off the top for fill a nitch

 

[BarbaricSoul]

But you'd spend $48 more than i5 8400 for 1-2% more performance ?

Huh? Where did I say I'd buy an 8600? Actually, I'd probably go with the 8500 myself.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#s=12

 

[cucker tarlson]

A better HSF and mobo have a value on their own, I don't understand people complain about the added costs of 8600K. Were you going to put a stock intel cooler on that 8600 ? Good luck. A z370 mobo not only has support for multiplier change but also faster ram,better vrm,more connectors and better audio.

 

[GoldenX]

You can put all that, multiplier included, on a H310. Why we don't have such a thing? Because Intel can make you pay more by forcing the Z370 chipset.
In the past you could overclock a core 2 duo even on a i865 chipset. Now you have to pay, slave.

I can reach the max "normal" air cooler oc of my R3 1200 with just the stock cooler, and a B350 chpset, no need to spend extra on anything. Don't justify bad consumerism.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Cause you have the cheapest 4c 4t, not the 8c 16t. That's why you can hit max oc on a cheap board. It also doesn't change the fact that stock cooler is going to sound like a jet engine compared to a 140 mm aftermarket cooling. Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.
I admit I know very little about such budget components so You're probably right. But what you claim does not apply to people who wanna run a 4.2ghz oc on 2600x daily, with 3400 ram, while staying cool and quiet.

 

[Xuper]

No. Abslolutely not.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,45

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k

4800Mhz vs Stock ............

 

[cucker tarlson]

4800Mhz vs Stock ............

Lol 4200 is both stock and max oc on 2600x.

And @GoldenX why are you running a b350 board not a 320 one ? For the same reason some of us would choose an x370 over b350 for ryzen 1600x. Lay off that 'all You ever need is budget components" and "intel made You slaves" talk from time to time, you're sounding like that crazy old lady at the bus station who screams at birds

 

[Assimilator]

Cause you have the cheapest 4c 4t, not the 8c 16t. That's why you can hit max oc on a cheap board. It also doesn't change the fact that stock cooler is going to sound like a jet engine compared to a 140 mm aftermarket cooling. Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.
I admit I know very little about such budget components so You're probably right. But what you claim does not apply to people who wanna run a 4.2ghz oc on 2600x daily, with 3400 ram, while staying cool and quiet.

That's not the point.

The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with, for significantly less than what an equivalent-functionality Intel platform would cost. You then put some of that saved money towards a quiet HSF (AMD's stock cooler is pretty good, just noisy). Alternatively, you can buy a top-end AMD motherboard and the lowest-end AMD Ryzen, and overclock the balls out of it - you cannot do that with Intel.

Bottom line is, AMD gives you more choice and flexibility to buy what you want and need, not what they think you should be buying to inflate their profit margins.

 

[bug]

That's not the point.

The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with, for significantly less than what an equivalent-functionality Intel platform would cost. You then put some of that saved money towards a quiet HSF (AMD's stock cooler is pretty good, just noisy).

Yes, the point about a no-overclock CPU (the type IBM, HP and others put in in every employee's system) is you can overclock similarly priced CPUs from the competition.

Alternatively, you can buy a top-end AMD motherboard and the lowest-end AMD Ryzen, and overclock the balls out of it - you cannot do that with Intel.

Bottom line is, AMD gives you more choice and flexibility to buy what you want and need, not what they think you should be buying to inflate their profit margins.

If by "overclock the balls out of it" you mean get ~300MHz more than the default turbo, then yes, that's also what TPU's reviews have shown.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.

Correction, most of us who frequent tech forums , that tweak their computers for the best performance, and those of us that build custom computers don't don't cheap out like that on quality components. The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"

 

[cucker tarlson]

Correction, most of us who frequent tech forums , that tweak their computers for the best performance, and those of us that build custom computers don't don't cheap out like that on quality components. The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"

Yes but such people do not come here. You expect people whom you talk to on TPU to be able to apprieciate quality, not just be all about $10 saved.

 

[trparky]

The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with

If you mean a measly 300 MHz then yes, you can overclock it; that is if you can even call that overclocking. The bad part is that a lot of the reviewers have been getting worse performance with manual overclock than just letting XFR2 do its thing. Meanwhile in the Intel camp you can overclock by as much as 500 to 600 MHz (or even higher) depending on if you have good cooling. When you take that into account the AMD Ryzen Platform looks pretty pathetic. No fanboy here, just facts here.

 

[Nihilus]

"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"."

When looking purely at livesteaming, the difference IS a between playable and a slideshow... just that the 8600 is a slideshow:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender

 

[bug]

"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"."

When looking purely at livesteaming, the difference IS a between playable and a slideshow... just that the 8600 is a slideshow:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender

You will note that, while the results are not unexpected, only two games were tested and in one of them the 8600k did just fine when streaming at realistic settings.

But yes, when you use more cores, having more cores is beneficial.

 

[trparky]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you do streaming correctly and let the video card do the video encoding (which it's really great at doing) you shouldn't need more cores. Use the hardware for what its designed for, video cards have hardware video codecs; general purpose CPUs don't.

 

[GoldenX]

Encoding is only one part of the process, a GPU doesn't replace the horsepower needed for IO.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Am I being blind, but I don't see anything on the temperature of this CPU with its shoddy-looking cooler? It would be nice to see how that holds up compared to Ryzen 200-series more robust offerings.

If you mean a measly 300 MHz then yes, you can overclock it; that is if you can even call that overclocking. The bad part is that a lot of the reviewers have been getting worse performance with manual overclock than just letting XFR2 do its thing. Meanwhile in the Intel camp you can overclock by as much as 500 to 600 MHz (or even higher) depending on if you have good cooling. When you take that into account the AMD Ryzen Platform looks pretty pathetic. No fanboy here, just facts here.

Yeah, you don't sound like a fanboy at all...

Calling the whole platform 'pathetic' is ridiculous. Get your head out of Intel's backside and breathe.

 

[trparky]

Excuse me? You can overclock a Core i7 8700K to 4.7 GHz with relatively no effort at all and more often than not you can do this simply by enabling Multi-Core Enhancement. Meanwhile AMD Ryzen can barely break 4.3 GHz. Combine this with the fact that Intel has an IPC advantage on Ryzen and you have a chip that can outperform Ryzen by a wide margin. Will this be the case for forever? I'm not saying that at all, however the 8700K is the better chip when compared to Ryzen; there's no denying this. Next year? Ryzen may be very well on top but not this year.

 

[bug]

Excuse me? You can overclock a Core i7 8700K to 4.7 GHz with relatively no effort at all and more often than not you can do this simply by enabling Multi-Core Enhancement. Meanwhile AMD Ryzen can barely break 4.3 GHz. Combine this with the fact that Intel has an IPC advantage on Ryzen and you have a chip that can outperform Ryzen by a wide margin. Will this be the case for forever? I'm not saying that at all, however the 8700K is the better chip when compared to Ryzen; there's no denying this. Next year? Ryzen may be very well on top but not this year.

Citing flat numbers is not the best way to go about overclocking (I admit, I did it above), percentage increase is more like it. Intel has no IPC advantage (less than 5%, depending on the banchmark). Look it up, I believe HardOCP tested CPUs at the same clock speed. At this point Intel is only faster because of clock speed.
I do believe Intel has some advantage over Ryzen, but that in perf/W department, not perf/GHz (aka IPC).