Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6 GHz

[W1zzard]

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]

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]

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]

Am i mistaken or there's no temperature test?

 

[bug]

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]

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

 

[Supercrit]

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]

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

 

[Frick]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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

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 )

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

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

 

[GreiverBlade]

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]

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]

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.