Question 6600k to 9400f

[im23ran]

I am currently using 6600k with a non-k board so I have to choices.

1. get a 9400f build
2. get and OC board with a cooler and OC my processor.

What should I go with?

Also if I dont oc 6600k, is switching to 9400f is good or not?

 

[Phaaze88]

Depends on what you use the cpu for.

IMHO, any non hyper-threaded cpu, except for the 9700(K) is a poor investment right now.
But if all you do is browse the web, and watch movies here and there, then the choice doesn't matter as much.

 

[cryoburner]

What are your current system specs and if you are gaming, what resolution and refresh rate is your screen? It might potentially be better for you to upgrade something else, like a graphics card, depending on what you have.

As far as stock performance is concerned, a 9400F should perform quite similar to a 6600K in applications and games that don't heavily utilize more than four threads, as per-core performance should be about the same. Some of the more demanding games do make use of more threads though, and in those, the two additional cores of the 9400F could help. The 9400F is not unlocked for overclocking though, and overclocking the 6600K could get you a little more performance in lightly-threaded games and applications.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't do either. You likely wouldn't gain a lot of performance at most tasks either way. Going forward, the 9400F will undoubtedly stay relevant longer as games and applications become more multithreaded, but it's questionable whether it would be enough of an upgrade over a 6600K to get one now. And as Phaaze88 pointed out, even six cores without SMT might not be an ideal long-term investment, at least for gaming. Something like a Ryzen 3600 could be another option, and I would consider it to be a bit better since it includes SMT to better handle up to 12-threads, but again, it's performance at most lightly-threaded tasks should be rather similar to the 9400F or 6600K, and you may potentially want faster RAM to get optimal performance out of it.

I also can't see buying an overclocking-capable motherboard for a 6600K at this point either, as that platform has limited upgrade options in terms of CPUs it can support, and you will likely want a higher core-count processor eventually if you are gaming.

Rumor is that Intel may be enabling SMT across their lineup for their next generation of processors to better match Ryzen, so you may potentially see better value around this price range next year. Unless you have some immediate need for more CPU performance, it might potentially be worth waiting for a more justifiable upgrade.

 

[AlwaysReaper]

Try hunting for a i5-9600KF since i recently got a i5-9400F and returned it cause a week later 9600KF was at the same price.
(150$) Even if you have a non K board, it has significantly better base clock and futureproof if you want to change mobo

 

[theonerm2]

I'd say Ryzen is the better choice.

 

[Phaaze88]

Try hunting for a i5-9600KF since i recently got a i5-9400F and returned it cause a week later 9600KF was at the same price.
(150$) Even if you have a non K board, it has significantly better base clock and futureproof if you want to change mobo

While higher frequency is always good, that's still just 6 cores/6 threads. Not a good long term investment - at least for games - plus, non-SMT/hyperthreaded cpus run into frametime hiccups(stutters, fps drops) once all their threads are used up.

...futureproof if you want to change mobo.

What does this mean, exactly?

I would imagine most would want at least 5 years out of a cpu - so, if someone is to go the Intel route, they may as well go straight for the 9900K - that'll be good for several years to come(what, with the 5ghz wall and 16 threads)... it just requires a large initial investment.

Even the AM4 platform's several year long upgrade support loses face this far in; good options available for Ryzen 1000/2000 users. For 3000 users... well, no one knows how 4000 with fare compared to 3000 - I'm not sure what to expect when 3000 was already maxed out of the box.
But if I were going to use a Ryzen 3700X for 5 or so years, I highly doubt my next cpu upgrade would still be on AM4 - there's always something new and better(subjectively) available every year - I'm going to need to invest in a new motherboard and ram anyways.

 

[vMax]

The simplest upgrade is the 9400F and it will provide a performance boost over the 6600K as the additional two cores will come into play. In production workloads the performance uplift is even better but bottom line it will be better.

I would avoid the 9600K as it would mean a new motherboard to get the best out of it but then I would recommend the 9700K as it is right at the top barr the 9900K and only fractions away or go Ryzen in the 3600 or 3700X.

If you can pick up a second hand 8700 or 8700K but only at a very good price, that might be an option as well.

 

[Gmoney06ss]

The simplest upgrade is the 9400F and it will provide a performance boost over the 6600K as the additional two cores will come into play. In production workloads the performance uplift is even better but bottom line it will be better.

I would avoid the 9600K as it would mean a new motherboard to get the best out of it but then I would recommend the 9700K as it is right at the top barr the 9900K and only fractions away or go Ryzen in the 3600 or 3700X.

If you can pick up a second hand 8700 or 8700K but only at a very good price, that might be an option as well.

The 9400f vs the 9600k would both need a new board, so as far as simplicity goes, they're equal. Just that the k cpu would need a better board. I agree with the rest of your statement.

 

[vMax]

The 9400f vs the 9600k would both need a new board, so as far as simplicity goes, they're equal. Just that the k cpu would need a better board. I agree with the rest of your statement.

Ah...I thought he meant he had a board and that is why he wanted to look at the 9400F...my mistake.