9600k vs. 2600x upgrade question

T

tantalus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
263
So I got a 2600x on the cheap to build a new rig. I'm also gonna get an RX 580 when the Sapphire goes on sale, regardless of what CPU I have. I don't have a mobo or ram yet. I want to game at 1080p 60hz (Darks Souls III, Witcher III, maybe Civ, stuff like that). I also use Word, Adobe Acrobat (for pdfs), etc. Nothing too taxing other than having 40 tabs open in Chrome while word processing and listening to Spotify.

I haven't opened the box on the 2600x and it's been gnawing at me. I know the 9600k is better for games. It's a bit more expensive, but I can afford it. I don't want to *waste* money, but I don't want to penny pinch either.

So my question is, is it worth getting rid of the 2600x (and the hassle involved) and getting the 9600k for gaming at 1080p, which I will be for the time being? I know the framerates wil be higher, but I don't know if I'll see it on a 60hz monitor. I'd mostly run the 9600k at stock unless I got bored. But with a kid I doubt that will happen.

Thanks!
 
Ryzen 2600/x are the best bang for buck out there, 9700k is one of the worst.
 
The 2600x is a great chip and considering you already have it just use it. Ryzen will be supported for another 2 years (say til end 2020), so you'll be able to drop-in a new CPU later if required.

The chip is fast, plenty for 60hz gaming, and great for multi-tasking/overall.

Coming from a 2600 user, I'd just go with it.
 
vick1000 said:
Ryzen 2600/x are the best bang for buck out there, 9700k is one of the worst.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking to pay that much :) The 9600k is on ebay now for 229, which is not that far off from a 2600x. If it gives me a noticeable improvement, I'd be happy with that price premium. But if it's not going to be noticeable at all, I won't bother.

I guess what's impressive to me about Intel chips is that even old ones continue to be usable for gaming. And I like to keep my CPUs for close to a decade :)
 
The 9600k IS faster, in games, but the amount isn't huge in general... As an overall CPU the 2600x is the better choice. And the fact you already own it makes it an 'easier' one currently.

You're learning yourself towards the 9600k, in which case go buy it, either are great, but the 2600X isn't a slouch and will do you fine too.
 
tantalus said:
...

I guess what's impressive to me about Intel chips is that even old ones continue to be usable for gaming. And I like to keep my CPUs for close to a decade :)
Click to expand...

That's because they have not advanced much over the past decade, it's a pitty AMD is just now catching up to pressure them.
 
tantalus said:
I'm not looking to pay that much :) The 9600k is on ebay now for 229, which is not that far off from a 2600x. If it gives me a noticeable improvement, I'd be happy with that price premium. But if it's not going to be noticeable at all, I won't bother.

I guess what's impressive to me about Intel chips is that even old ones continue to be usable for gaming. And I like to keep my CPUs for close to a decade :)
Click to expand...
If you use a lot of older apps compiled for Intel that Ryzen is gonna run them like shit. It's an unfortunate truth I learned and I saw a massive uplift going from my Ryzen 1700 at 4ghz to my lowly i5 laptop 7 series Intel. Now i'm running a 9600K at 5Ghz in my main rig and it's night and day in performance differences. I only run games at 60Hz so I don't need anything faster or with more cores. It maxes out all my games at 60fps in 4k on my 2080Ti and my apps run flawless as opposed to choppy and random crashing on the Ryzen. Don't get me wrong , the Ryzen is a great processor, for the RIGHT applications.

Use anything a couple years old... It's likely optimized for Intel. AMD is endeavoring to change that, however, it's gonna be a while before EVERYONE in the industry jumps on the AMD optimization bandwagon.

Last Edit... I'm running it on a hundred buck Z370 Gigabyte motherboard. SO, you don't need an expensive motherboard to push the 9600K to the maximum.
 
Last edited:
Geforcepat said:
1080P? yeah, get the 9600k.
Click to expand...
Works great for me in 4K as well. The argument has been presented that if you denand above 60fps, you might need a higher end, Intel, multithreaded processor. So, for those seeking upwards of 75-100+ fps, I have to admit I really never thought about it. A couple guys / gals on here demand that level of performance and ... Yeah, then shoot for a ballsy 9900K ... But for the rest of us playing at 60hz, it really doesn't matter.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
Works great for me in 4K as well. The argument has been presented that if you denand above 60fps, you might need a higher end, Intel, multithreaded processor. So, for those seeking upwards of 75-100+ fps, I have to admit I really never thought about it. A couple guys / gals on here demand that level of performance and ... Yeah, then shoot for a ballsy 9900K ... But for the rest of us playing at 60hz, it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Um yeah, it does. you still have your minimums to worry about.
 
Geforcepat said:
Um yeah, it does. you still have your minimums to worry about.
Click to expand...
It's a helluva lot more dependent upon what GPU you're using at 4K than at other resolutions. Sure, the CPU matters but at lower rez you can get away with an older dual or quad core CPU. Tho I will never recommend dual as an option. Older Quad i5 and i7's perform just fine.
 
I have a 2600x on my 1070ti 1080p 144hz rig upstairs.

It can deliver a solid, and I mean solid 144fps in almost all titles. The best part is that th CPU runs at like 30% in all these modern titles and the GPU is much higher. This means that a 2600x is absolutely more than enough power for any modern gaming rig. When I had my 3440x1440 hooked up and my 1080ti the 2600x was still running at low utilization while the1080ti was pegging 99% at that resolution.

2600x is a beast of a chip when you look at the price to performance ratio.

My other rig is a 2950x 16 core and I cant tell the difference between my hedt chip and my modest 2600x in gaming.

I had a 7820x Intel before, I miss it for its avx512 capability, but gaming feels identical between all of these.

With a 2600x it's more important that you select the right GPU for the best gaming experience as the chip will not hold you back except in 1080p 240hz applications where an 8700k ++ will give a person 70 more fps above the AMD already giving then 190fps. Oh whoopie do.

Without being mean there is already some fud in this very thread so use caution as you read opinions.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
I have a 2600x on my 1070ti 1080p 144hz rig upstairs.

It can deliver a solid, and I mean solid 144fps in almost all titles. The best part is that th CPU runs at like 30% in all these modern titles and the GPU is much higher. This means that a 2600x is absolutely more than enough power for any modern gaming rig. When I had my 3440x1440 hooked up and my 1080ti the 2600x was still running at low utilization while the1080ti was pegging 99% at that resolution.

2600x is a beast of a chip when you look at the price to performance ratio.

My other rig is a 2950x 16 core and I cant tell the difference between my hedt chip and my modest 2600x in gaming.

I had a 7820x Intel before, I miss it for its avx512 capability, but gaming feels identical between all of these.

With a 2600x it's more important that you select the right GPU for the best gaming experience as the chip will not hold you back except in 1080p 240hz applications where an 8700k ++ will give a person 70 more fps above the AMD already giving then 190fps. Oh whoopie do.

I want to remind you to be aware of the fud tellers on the forum. People that say AMD sucks for X y or z. These people, I am almost certain, have never owned a ryzen in thier life and they repeat, in typical lemming fashion, the same played out anti-AMD talking points.
Click to expand...
Not everyone is a bullshit artist as you suggest. My Ryzen platform has it's uses, however, there are indeed some applications it runs like shit. Like desktop publishing. The bigger the book, the worse it runs. If you're rocking a lot of graphics in those documents it runs even worse.

Here's a good example. The 524 page Star Wars 3RD edition book I spent 9 years writing chugs worse than a goat with broken legs pulling a cart. It freezes , it locks, and it fails to desktop.

Now, I open that same file up on any (and I mean any) Intel processor and it runs rather admirably. That app, Page Plus 9, utterly fly's on my 9600K and is fluid and flawless.

So, while the Ryzen runs fine for a lot of stuff there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. A great example of this is taking a look at Quake and running it in software mode. Run it on an Intel and it runs fine, run it on a Ryzen and it runs like shit. Now, apply the old AMD optimizations to the game for the K6 arcitectire and it runs just as fast as the Intel on the Ryzen.

Not every program on the planet has a set of optimized code to improve AMD performance and that's something to keep in mind.

Modern games and apps will likely be unaffected or less likely to suffer from issues. Older games and apps may very well never received optimizations for AMD as they're old, unsupported and such.

I love AMD but it's not the solution everyone is looking for. Some processors are just better at some tasks.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
Not everyone is a bullshit artist as you suggest. My Ryzen platform has it's uses, however, there are indeed some applications it runs like shit. Like desktop publishing. The bigger the book, the worse it runs. If you're rocking a lot of graphics in those documents it runs even worse.

Here's a good example. The 524 page Star Wars 3RD edition book I spent 9 years writing chugs worse than a goat with broken legs pulling a cart. It freezes , it locks, and it fails to desktop.

Now, I open that same file up on any (and I mean any) Intel processor and it runs rather admirably. That app, Page Plus 9, utterly fly's on my 9600K and is fluid and flawless.

So, while the Ryzen runs fine for a lot of stuff there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. A great example of this is taking a look at Quake and running it in software mode. Run it on an Intel and it runs fine, run it on a Ryzen and it runs like shit. Now, apply the old AMD optimizations to the game for the K6 arcitectire and it runs just as fast as the Intel on the Ryzen.

Not every program on the planet has a set of optimized code to improve AMD performance and that's something to keep in mind.

Modern games and apps will likely be unaffected or less likely to suffer from issues. Older games and apps may very well never received optimizations for AMD as they're old, unsupported and such.

I love AMD but it's not the solution everyone is looking for. Some processors are just better at some tasks.
Click to expand...

Dude he wants to game at 1080p at 60hz.... what you gonna tell him?

Go buy a 500 dollar 9900k and delid it and water block it so he can get 60 fps solid on his $180 gpu?
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
Dude he wants to game at 1080p at 60hz.... what you gonna tell him?

Go buy a 500 dollar 9900k and delid it and water block it so he can get 60 fps solid on his $180 gpu?
Click to expand...
If you read any of the things I posted, then you would have noticed that was the last thing I was suggesting. Nowhere in anything I wrote suggested that. I did refer to a conversation I had with other [H] readers about high FPS and certain processors that are better at delivering 75-100+ FPS on a solid level with all things maxed out and a bad ass video card. Some people are more demanding than others. However, I have been saying that the 9600K is a good all around processor (with no need to be delid due to the solder it uses) and it can be acquired for 229 bucks. And Motherboards in the Z370 range can be purchased for 100 bucks.

So, I'm not really sure where you're getting that.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
If you read any of the things I posted, then you would have noticed that was the last thing I was suggesting. Nowhere in anything I wrote suggested that. I did refer to a conversation I had with other [H] readers about high FPS and certain processors that are better at delivering 75-100+ FPS on a solid level with all things maxed out and a bad ass video card. Some people are more demanding than others. However, I have been saying that the 9600K is a good all around processor (with no need to be delid due to the solder it uses) and it can be acquired for 229 bucks. And Motherboards in the Z370 range can be purchased for 100 bucks.

So, I'm not really sure where you're getting that.
Click to expand...

Gotcha but in typical hardforum fashion this thread is going to derail more than likely into an AMD vs Intel pissing contest.

You make solid points. But the trend always follows where the OP wants simplicity and 35 replies deep someone is forcing the OP to consider a 28 core Xeon with 512 GB of ram and full.liquid cooling to run minecraft.
 
tangoseal said:
Gotcha but in typical hardforum fashion this thread is going to derail more than likely into an AMD vs Intel pissing contest.
Click to expand...
I see what your'e talking about. Honestly, I only recommend Intel if you run a bunch of older stuff. The AMD platform, however, is superior in enthusiast friendly ways that Intel has never embraced. SO, if he's just playing games, you're 100% correct, he's better off on AMD. Not to mention, the platform has longevity, being able to drop 3-4 generations of processors into the same socket on AMD Motherboards supporting Ryzen. That, alone, IMO makes the platform a significant cost savings until something like 2020 or later.

AMD is doing a lot of things right (possibly almost everything). With Intel only being able to field Mobile 10nm CPUs by the very end of 2019, the Ryzen is really the way to go ;) for newer apps and games and long term support and cheaper upgrade path and Jesus... Need I say more?
 
tangoseal said:
You make solid points. But the trend always follows where the OP wants simplicity and 35 replies deep someone is forcing the OP to consider a 28 core Xeon with 512 GB of ram and full.liquid cooling to run minecraft.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be me. I have seen what you are referring to, however, and your argument is sound.
 
tangoseal said:
Yeah I never suggested it was you. But it happens far too much right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed. I don't have much eloquent wisdom to share about that recurring argument other than... It's exhausting to see, every damn time...

I like to believe that there are a lot of tools out there now, and some are better at some things than others. However, the best argument is from the standpoint of value. So, you have to ask yourself, "What's gonna give me the best return on my investment?" Right now, its AMD. Honestly, even with the Bulldozer architecture thrown in the mix... The AMD platform has always allowed you to drop multiple generations of CPU into the same socket. Intel never got that right. So, if you're on a budget, the Ryzen is the best possible value right now. Allowing you to upgrade several times on the same main board, and it just keeps getting better.

Maybe in 2020 when the 10nm Intel Desktop processors come out, they will give AMD a run for their money. A year or two after that the Intel 7nm chips might overtake AMD on 5nm... If their chip stacking tech pans out.

But until then, if you pickup a B450 for around a hundred bucks (or possibly a well supported B350 for less) and your CPU is dirt cheap with a ton of power and it allows you to upgrade as Intel finally comes out with their new tech, pretty hard to look at that as anything other than awesome. Ryzen 2 already kicks ass by all accounts. Ryzen 3 is only going to be better. Picking up a 12nm Ryzen right now is the sweet spot on price before the 7nm chips launch.

I recently built a Ryzen 2200 for a friend and I was nothing but impressed for a 90+ dollar part on the 90+ buck Gigabyte B450 I dropped it into. It's a sweet little system as a HTPC. Just gotta pick the right tool for what you need.
 
Ryzen 5 is really worth the money, also ryzen 5 beats intel I5 when it comes to price to performance ratio. So get Ryzen 5 and save some bucks
 
I would keep the 2600X. You get twelve threads with Ryzen, and only six with the 9600K.

This won't necessarily be an advantage in every game, but both of the most recent Assassin's Creed games make use of more than four threads, and thus run like crap on quad core i5s, which lack hyperthreading. I'm not sure how many threads are required, but it's at least five, and I would assume this kind of design is the future, since clock speeds don't seem to be going up that rapidly anymore.
 
2600X for sure. I got my 9700K for free so that's the only reason I'm with Intel right now.
 
2600X, not to mention if you have a tighter budget, a Z390 board would cost more than a B450 or X470 board. B450 boards will be better value overall without the need of getting X470.
 
I have both a 7700k and 2600x...you get what you pay for both are nice...but team blue still pulls ahead in frame timing and peaks a little bit.
But I am pissed at them though...knowing it would rather run HOT with that dow corning tim shit....3$ paste on 300-400$ cpu's….Liquid Metal took care of it real Quick.
Both are actually really manageable for My Sycthe Mugen 5, need at least 6 pipe cooler and preferably one with the Block in the middle. It's about like the D14 dude, On Par.
I can do 5ghz easily I just never need to...
 
So which one overclocks better/easier? Runs cooler? I have a buddy that's planning on doing one last retirement new tech build. And I've got him narrowed down between a Ryzen 5 2600x or an Intel 9600k. Not sure on the board for either yet, but not skimping in an effort to offer decent overclocking ability. Also going to pair it with an AIO cooler - Corsair or Cooler Master.

My initial assumption is the Intel platform will cost him roughly $100 more. As of yesterday the 2600x was $189 compared to 9600k for $239 at Microcenter. (He's right next to one) And I figured around $50 more spent on a motherboard of same quality/features. Maybe I'm off on it. His max budget for this build is $1,000. He's going to re-use some parts from his current build - GPU, power supply, SSD. He wants a new case and I figure subtracting ~$120 off his budget for that. I know he's going to go with a mid-tower case and it won't need to be extreme. So $880 for CPU, mobo and RAM. I think Microcenter had 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance for ~$140. So $740ish to play with. I know that'll easily cover either brand. But is the 9600k worth the extra dough? Also keep in mind anything under budget is okay, but it's not critical.

Finally we're talking about 1080p gaming. Doesn't need super high FPS. Some older games will be played along with newer titles. Probably the most demanding game/games we play are Company of Heroes 2 and Dawn of War Retribution. We also play games like The Division and Splinter Cell. At this point though, he'll probably be limited by his GPU no matter the CPU (1060 6GB). Although he will be upgrading that at some point not far down the road.

Main question - better overclocker? Is the cost difference worth it?

I understand in the OP's situation already having the 2600x makes perfect sense to go ahead and use it - and if my buddy was in this situation, easy answer.

So what would any of you go with considering primarily a gaming machine? FYI I'm currently leaning him towards the Ryzen 5. Of course cost could change on either two months down the road, so that'll all depend once the time comes.

Oh, one last thing. I ask mainly because I've not kept up well with the Ryzen series, or Intel since about the 6*** series. Thanks for you guys' expertise, always appreciated.
 
keep the 2700, at 60hz there will be zero difference gaming between it and any intel CPU. If you were going 144hz+ then this would be a much harder decision.
 
I've seen a 1700 nonX stock on a b350 board push 120 FPS on Doom2016 with ultra settings at 1080p, I'm not sure where the whole "Ryzen is bad for gaming" thing comes from. It's great for gaming, but Intel is slightly better.
 
xTrident said:
So which one overclocks better/easier? Runs cooler? I have a buddy that's planning on doing one last retirement new tech build. And I've got him narrowed down between a Ryzen 5 2600x or an Intel 9600k. Not sure on the board for either yet, but not skimping in an effort to offer decent overclocking ability. Also going to pair it with an AIO cooler - Corsair or Cooler Master.

My initial assumption is the Intel platform will cost him roughly $100 more. As of yesterday the 2600x was $189 compared to 9600k for $239 at Microcenter. (He's right next to one) And I figured around $50 more spent on a motherboard of same quality/features. Maybe I'm off on it. His max budget for this build is $1,000. He's going to re-use some parts from his current build - GPU, power supply, SSD. He wants a new case and I figure subtracting ~$120 off his budget for that. I know he's going to go with a mid-tower case and it won't need to be extreme. So $880 for CPU, mobo and RAM. I think Microcenter had 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance for ~$140. So $740ish to play with. I know that'll easily cover either brand. But is the 9600k worth the extra dough? Also keep in mind anything under budget is okay, but it's not critical.

Finally we're talking about 1080p gaming. Doesn't need super high FPS. Some older games will be played along with newer titles. Probably the most demanding game/games we play are Company of Heroes 2 and Dawn of War Retribution. We also play games like The Division and Splinter Cell. At this point though, he'll probably be limited by his GPU no matter the CPU (1060 6GB). Although he will be upgrading that at some point not far down the road.

Main question - better overclocker? Is the cost difference worth it?

I understand in the OP's situation already having the 2600x makes perfect sense to go ahead and use it - and if my buddy was in this situation, easy answer.

So what would any of you go with considering primarily a gaming machine? FYI I'm currently leaning him towards the Ryzen 5. Of course cost could change on either two months down the road, so that'll all depend once the time comes.

Oh, one last thing. I ask mainly because I've not kept up well with the Ryzen series, or Intel since about the 6*** series. Thanks for you guys' expertise, always appreciated.
Click to expand...

The 9600k will OC higher, and for 1080p, in most cases, be better for gaming. As above, though, that doesn't mean the Ryzen will be bad. But especially older games which are more core-speed dependant, rather than core-count, intel will typically play those better. I personally advocate for the 2600x. Cheaper, double the threads, and is still great for gaming. I have a Ryzen 2600 myself, (non-x) at 1440p, so I'm less CPU bound, but it was over 100 bucks cheaper in Australia than the X variant so worth non-x here. Both will last a long time to come. I just think if they ever want to do some editing, depending on the program, the 2600x will win out.. Unless they're using premier in which case the IGP of the 9600k will allow hardware encoding faster than either CPU can do alone.

Can't really go wrong, but if saving money is the goal, grab the 2600x and call it a day.
 
xTrident said:
So which one overclocks better/easier? Runs cooler? I have a buddy that's planning on doing one last retirement new tech build. And I've got him narrowed down between a Ryzen 5 2600x or an Intel 9600k. Not sure on the board for either yet, but not skimping in an effort to offer decent overclocking ability. Also going to pair it with an AIO cooler - Corsair or Cooler Master.

My initial assumption is the Intel platform will cost him roughly $100 more. As of yesterday the 2600x was $189 compared to 9600k for $239 at Microcenter. (He's right next to one) And I figured around $50 more spent on a motherboard of same quality/features. Maybe I'm off on it. His max budget for this build is $1,000. He's going to re-use some parts from his current build - GPU, power supply, SSD. He wants a new case and I figure subtracting ~$120 off his budget for that. I know he's going to go with a mid-tower case and it won't need to be extreme. So $880 for CPU, mobo and RAM. I think Microcenter had 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance for ~$140. So $740ish to play with. I know that'll easily cover either brand. But is the 9600k worth the extra dough? Also keep in mind anything under budget is okay, but it's not critical.

Finally we're talking about 1080p gaming. Doesn't need super high FPS. Some older games will be played along with newer titles. Probably the most demanding game/games we play are Company of Heroes 2 and Dawn of War Retribution. We also play games like The Division and Splinter Cell. At this point though, he'll probably be limited by his GPU no matter the CPU (1060 6GB). Although he will be upgrading that at some point not far down the road.

Main question - better overclocker? Is the cost difference worth it?

I understand in the OP's situation already having the 2600x makes perfect sense to go ahead and use it - and if my buddy was in this situation, easy answer.

So what would any of you go with considering primarily a gaming machine? FYI I'm currently leaning him towards the Ryzen 5. Of course cost could change on either two months down the road, so that'll all depend once the time comes.

Oh, one last thing. I ask mainly because I've not kept up well with the Ryzen series, or Intel since about the 6*** series. Thanks for you guys' expertise, always appreciated.
Click to expand...

2600X all day.
 
Thanks guys. Will stick with the 2600x unless prices change drastically once we get to the point of purchase.
 
xTrident said:
Thanks guys. Will stick with the 2600x unless prices change drastically once we get to the point of purchase.
Click to expand...
get the best asus or msi high end board you can afford and some ryzen friendly memory that possibly is on the qvl...the bright side of the amd rig is having the 7nm choices coming later on this year which should be exciting for all of us
 
KazeoHin said:
I've seen a 1700 nonX stock on a b350 board push 120 FPS on Doom2016 with ultra settings at 1080p, I'm not sure where the whole "Ryzen is bad for gaming" thing comes from. It's great for gaming, but Intel is slightly better.
Click to expand...

It depends heavily on the game. I "upgraded" from a 7700k to a 1700x and most games were noticeably slower even with the same DDR4-3000 modules and the lowly RX570. I don't remember for sure but I think DOOM was close but the FPS would range from 90-120 while the 7700k would always be right around 120. Even easy to run games like League of Legends had issues getting to a stable 120hz on the 1700x whereas the 7700k would never drop below 200fps. The 1700x literally ran League at about the same FPS as the 7700HQ in my now dead laptop (damn you wobbly laptop stand and open beer). Word is that this was fixed but there were issues in the early days of Ryzen which caused it to get the "bad for gaming" label. It didn't really matter that it was the software having to catch up because we already had CPUs that were faster at gaming.

I wouldn't change from a 2600x to anything else unless you're needing more cores for rendering or encoding. In most modern games Ryzen and i5s/i7s from the 6th gen and up are stupidly close to each other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top