[SOLVED] 8600K vs Ryzen 2600

Jan 30, 2019
34
0
30
So I'm a little stuck here. I have all the parts to my build (including the 2600) and then after everything comes I realize I can get the 8600K + Z370-A Pro for + Cooler for around $300, compared to the R5 and mobo at $275. My GPU is the RTX 2070. I've read several threads on this but can't seem to find a consistent opinion on which one to go with. I am only using this setup for gaming and basic work, and I'll be running games at 1080p 60fps (for now). Seems like the argument for the 2600 is that it can multi-task better, so it will run smoother, but the 8600K will push higher frames. Is it worth the $25 price difference and inconvenience (returns) to get the 8600K? I want to make the best use out of my 2070. Thanks.
 
Solution
As long as you keep temps in check and use a sane voltage your CPU is probably still going to last longer than the rest of your rig even if you did run it at 5+ GHz.

Sorry, not really up to date on what the best coolers are these days. I know the NH-D15(S) is something of a gold standard for air coolers, but it's a little pricey.
One thing to keep in mind is that more games are starting to get more multithreaded. So the 2600 will do better at that.

Also, AMD is supposed to support socket am4 through 2020. Zen 2 is supposed to be coming this summer. Leaks look pretty decent with it. At CES they showed an 8 core Zen 2 supposedly beating an i9.

At gaming the 2600 will be a little slower, but in a year or so you can probably drop in a new cpu and sell the 2600 if desired. With Intel, good luck. They seem to require new boards about every other generation.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Also, AMD is supposed to support socket am4 through 2020.
The socket may be supported into 2020 but most older motherboards won't properly support the CPU's PCIe 4.0 due to lack of appropriate PCIe repeaters (no NVMe 4.0x4 for you) and older chipsets won't support 4.0x4 link to the CPU to reduce potential IO bottlenecks there either, which could be a concern as 3.x-gen2 and NVMe SSDs become more common and affordable.

I wouldn't put a new CPU on an old motherboard unless I am fairly confident I won't be needing the new features for the system's 5+ years useful life. (I have a pretty long outlook on useful life - I built my current PC over seven years ago. PCIe 4.0 is very likely to go from unnecessary to must-have long before that.)
 
Jan 30, 2019
34
0
30
The socket may be supported into 2020 but most older motherboards won't properly support the CPU's PCIe 4.0 due to lack of appropriate PCIe repeaters (no NVMe 4.0x4 for you) and older chipsets won't support 4.0x4 link to the CPU to reduce potential IO bottlenecks there either, which could be a concern as 3.x-gen2 and NVMe SSDs become more common and affordable.

I wouldn't put a new CPU on an old motherboard unless I am fairly confident I won't be needing the new features for the system's 5+ years useful life. (I have a pretty long outlook on useful life - I built my current PC over seven years ago. PCIe 4.0 is very likely to go from unnecessary to must-have long before that.)
Best to just go with the i5-8600K then? If I can’t upgrade then the Ryzen isn’t a great option, and both are the same price anyway
 
You can upgrade the 2600 to 3rd gen in same mobo. The only feature you wouldnt get is pcie 4.0, which you wouldnt get with your i5 platform either. The 8600k has less cache and threads. It is faster in games but much worse in workloads. If you really want upgradability, go z390 so you can easily upgrade to 9900k. Keep in mind, the cpus you could upgrade to in an am4 mobo have already been proven to beat the 9900k in 8 core varients while using less power. They may get 12 or 16 core varients that would creame the 9900k.
 
Jan 30, 2019
34
0
30
You can upgrade the 2600 to 3rd gen in same mobo. The only feature you wouldnt get is pcie 4.0, which you wouldnt get with your i5 platform either. The 8600k has less cache and threads. It is faster in games but much worse in workloads. If you really want upgradability, go z390 so you can easily upgrade to 9900k. Keep in mind, the cpus you could upgrade to in an am4 mobo have already been proven to beat the 9900k in 8 core varients while using less power. They may get 12 or 16 core varients that would creame the 9900k.
Will the B450 be able to properly support most of the other 3rd Gen features? Keep in mind I will only be using this for light work so no editing or anything, I’m really going for frames here. As far as the long-term goes as long as the B450 is able to support most of gen 3’s features then I’m fine.
 
if this is taken as a reasonable 'normal' high level workload then teh 8600k is better than the 2600 by quite a margin. I'm surprised, but it's probably the single core speed with sufficient cores that works, if that single core speed was present with insufficient cores it wouldn't be as good. (like the 7600k)


So that begs the question, what do you think will happen to the need for cores over the next 2-4 years, need more or stay the same?
 
I find this topic interesting, So i recently watched a youtube video explaining this. Correct me if im wrong, but to sum it up, all modern programs have a certain ratio of serialized code and parallelized code. Serialized code will only use 1 cpu thread so the faster that thread the faster the program runs. Parallelized code doesnt care as much about 1 threads speed but can use more cores, so the more cores the better. Programs like Google Chrome tend to use equal amount of serialized code and parallelized code so they will benefit a little from more cores and a little from a faster core 0. Traditionally when cpus had 1 core all code was serialized and most coders were taught mainly or solely serialized code. As more and more cpus started to gain more cores, developers and up and coming coders started to implement parallelized code to make use of these cores. Parallelized code is harder to write so the implementation has been slow. Intels lack of improved core counts from the first quad core i7 in 2010 to the quad core 7700k in 2017 certainly have not pushed developers to implement code that makes use or more threads. Game and software (including win10) developers did not feel the need to implement code that makes use of many cores, since most people had 4,8 or less threads. Because most people use few threads, games didnt need to make use of many threads. Because games didnt utilize many threads, cpus didnt need to have many, so core counts stagnated. Kindof a stagnate chicken and edd scenario.Ever since around 2017, the market has changed. Amd started the ryzen line of cpus bringing as much as 16 threads for cheap; The same or close to the amount of threads as intels $1000+ server and hedt cpus for simmilar money ae the flagship 8t 7700k. This left intel scrambling to increase thread count, and the 8700 k came out with 12 threads and more recently, the 9900k with 16 threads. The whole market felt this and even most phones have 8 or more cores now (hi apple). With ryzen threadripper bringing as much as 32 cores and 64 threads to consumers, this has caused issues in programs designed for 8 thread or less cpus. Windows 10, from 2014 when high thread count cpus didnt exist, freaks out and has sceduler issues with threadripper. some games on threadripper have so many issues that Amd made a game mode that disables half of the cpus cores to stop issues in games. Because of this, most games and Program developers have been implementing code that utilzes many threads at an alarming rate. As long as games use more and more cpu threads, thread counts will go up.

What i conclude from this is that games and programs are starting to use more and more cores and people with 8 threaded and 4 thread cpus (like me) will be left in the dust. 7nm ryzen may help this progression, so i still reccomend am4. While you wont see the benefits of many threads now, you will see the benefits soon down the road. Some games are already using more than 8 threads, but arent hurt by 6 threads. For now the 8700 or 8600 is better then even the 2700x at gaming, but only GOD knows what may change in the next years.
 
Last edited:
Here's the other part to keep in mind. PlayStation 5 and Xbox 2 or whatever they call it I believe will use AMD chips. So it stands to reason more cores are going to be normal. If that is the case, developers will likely continue to develop games etc that take advantage of the increased cores/threads.

Also, if we are talking PCI e 3.0 vs 4.0 in a generation or so, how long did it take for PCI e 3 to be utilized vs PCI e 2 to where users saw a difference? Just saying PCI Express may not be too big of a deal.
 
Very true.
Both Microsoft and Sony are using very similar 8 core AMD APUs for their competing consoles.
"PS4 - CPU: 1.6GHz 8-core AMD Jaguar; 1.84 TFLOP AMD Radeon (18CU, 800MHz); 8GB GDDR5 RAM. PS4 Pro - CPU: 2.1GHz 8-core AMD Jaguar; GPU: 4.2 TFLOP AMD Radeon (36CU, 911MHz); 8GB GDDR5 + 1GB RAM.
"The Xbox One is
powered by an AMD "Jaguar"... (APU) with two quad-core modules totaling eight x86-64 cores clocked at 1.75ghz..." This APU includes a GPU that performs similarly to an rx580. For the "Xbox One X’s CPU, GPU, and memory, Microsoft chose a custom AMD APU that features eight 2.3GHz custom x86 cores, 40 Radeon compute units running at 1,172MHz, and 12GB of GDDR5 memory."
The next generation Xbox and play station are expected to use a zen 2 7nm Apu rather than the 16nm apus from the ps4 and xbox one, likely since the current AMD based consoles are selling well and are capable of delivering 60fps 4k gaming.https://hothardware.com/news/microsoft-xbox-scarlett-rumor-amd-zen-2-navi-4k
My LG stylo 4 is a low-end smartphone which sells commonly for under $120 contract-free even has an 8 core/thread ARM cpu. This should make it clear that phones, consoles, smart TVs, pcs, and nearly everything is advancing to 8 or more threads. There is definitely a big push for more devs to make code that utilizes many cores coming from hardware manufacturers. There will be no difference between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 with video cards manufactured today. Even an RTX Titan doesn't support PCIe 4.0 and doesn't come close to being limited by the PCIE 3.0 interface when using an x16 slot. The PCIe 3 "restriction" shouldn't be a limit for high-end GPUs in the future, at least for the time that your cpu remains powerful enough to utilize a more powerful GPU. PCIe 4.0 will not make video cards of today or the next few years faster. There shouldn't be any other deal-breaking limitations of the motherboards of today using 3rd generation ryzen CPUs.
 
Last edited:

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
If you're gaming at 1080p/60Hz it's not going to matter. If you plan on moving to 1080p/144Hz in the foreseeable future and you really want to be able to maximize your fps, an overclocked 8600k would be superior. If you plan to get a 1440p or 4K monitor, then you're back to it not really mattering what CPU you get.

I'm a little skeptical that an 8600k+cooler+Z series mobo is only $25 more than a R5 2600 + B450 motherboard...
 
Jan 30, 2019
34
0
30
If you're gaming at 1080p/60Hz it's not going to matter. If you plan on moving to 1080p/144Hz in the foreseeable future and you really want to be able to maximize your fps, an overclocked 8600k would be superior. If you plan to get a 1440p or 4K monitor, then you're back to it not really mattering what CPU you get.

I'm a little skeptical that an 8600k+cooler+Z series mobo is only $25 more than a R5 2600 + B450 motherboard...
It’s not, it comes out to $351 vs $275 (300 with cooler). Microcenter has the 8600K at $200, the Z370 is an HD3 at $92, and the cooler is a Mugen 5 at $47. I live in Virginia so there’s no online sales tax (which is amazing) so it’s a damn good deal
 
Unless you have a local microcenter you'll have to buy elsewhere. Microcenter does not ship cpus. Other than that little issue, I'd lean toward Intel for now as they do perform slightly better in games. But if you already have the r5 parts you could use those for now, and then upgrade to the 3xxx when they release, if performance is what the leaks say. Then sell the r5 to recoup some cost.
 

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
Just a heads up, I wouldn't expect to be able to hit the high frequencies (close to 5 GHz or higher) you usually see people talk about with that cooler. The motherboard is entry level in terms of overclocking as well. An 8600k with a moderate overclock should still perform very nicely though.
 
Jan 30, 2019
34
0
30
Yeah I mean I’m not trying to take like 2 years off that thing just to get higher frames. I actually decided I’m not going with the Mugen 5 so if you have any other reccomendations I’d love to hear them
 

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador
As long as you keep temps in check and use a sane voltage your CPU is probably still going to last longer than the rest of your rig even if you did run it at 5+ GHz.

Sorry, not really up to date on what the best coolers are these days. I know the NH-D15(S) is something of a gold standard for air coolers, but it's a little pricey.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: andystraussreiswork
Solution