Question Core i5 9600k bottleneck??

ProPlayerGR

Reputable
Aug 7, 2016
560
38
5,040
9
Will a core i5 9600k bottleneck with a gtx 1660
No it won't, but I am against 6c/6th CPUs, as games already demand more than 6 threads and I can see your system stuttering in one year or so. Go with ryzen. A ryzen 5 3600 should do the job for you. Except you already have the motherboard for the intel CPU. Then I recommend that you go with a 9700k, but if you care about cost, then the 9900k is also an option. What is your budget? Do you already have some parts or this is a complete cpu/ram/mobo upgrade?
 
No it won't, but I am against 6c/6th CPUs, as games already demand more than 6 threads and I can see your system stuttering in one year or so. Go with ryzen. A ryzen 5 3600 should do the job for you. Except you already have the motherboard for the intel CPU. Then I recommend that you go with a 9700k, but if you care about cost, then the 9900k is also an option. What is your budget? Do you already have some parts or this is a complete cpu/ram/mobo upgrade?
There is the issue of 6C/6T i5 seeing 100% usage in CPU intensive games like Battlefield V multiplayer. It's not bad though, at least not yet. It's only bad if you are very particular about framerate and GPU usage. You won't notice it unless you are watching those specs. A couple of years from now, there's not telling. It could be worse, but if you still have the same GPU it shouldn't be bad.
 

ProPlayerGR

Reputable
Aug 7, 2016
560
38
5,040
9
There is the issue of 6C/6T i5 seeing 100% usage in CPU intensive games like Battlefield V multiplayer. It's not bad though, at least not yet. It's only bad if you are very particular about framerate and GPU usage. You won't notice it unless you are watching those specs. A couple of years from now, there's not telling. It could be worse, but if you still have the same GPU it shouldn't be bad.
That's true, but if the OP doesn't already have a z390 motherboard, then they should go with ryzen, they offer so much better performance for money right now. However, it's their choice and the 9600k will do great with their GPU for now.
 
Dec 11, 2019
5
0
10
0
You guys are just a little bit out of touch, I believe. You can check bottleneck numbers pretty easily. 1660 w/ 9600k is golden. 9700k vs 9600k performance numbers dont justify the price difference for gaming.

My own setup is a 9600k w/ rtx2070 super. At factory clock speed, the 9600k is a slight bottleneck, but an easy OC to 4.6ghz on all cores will do fine. I usually run mine at 4.7ghz with a slight OC on the 2070 super.

I havent loaded up Battlefield V since I no longer have Premier l, but I just picked up Division 2 on sale and I run 1440p on mostly high (not ulta) settings at 100-135fps depending on location. I can run benchmark later, but the rtx2070 super is pegged at 100% while the processor around 80% usage.

Rtx2080, rtx2080 super, or rtx1080ti is going to need a faster processor, but even the 9700k doesnt fit the bill well. I really wouldnt even worry about future game compatibility with 6 cores vs 8 cores, by the time it's an issue you will have an issue with the 1660.
 
Last edited:

Zizo007

Notable
Feb 23, 2019
1,372
170
940
33
Multiplayer games like BFV with 64 players need at least 6 cores preferably 8 to work. I upgraded from 1300X to 1800X only because BFV 64 player was stuttering with a Vega 64 at 1080p, CPU usage was 100% on all cores.

After installing the 1800X everything was smooth and core usage dropped to under 60%.
 

rickypicky5

Proper
Sep 9, 2019
221
22
115
8
I have an i5-9600k paired with an RTX 2060 Super. Overall, I'm pleased with my gaming performance, primarily BF5. I'm play with ULTRA settings, @ 1080p, multi-player, typically on 32 player servers. I do not have ray tracing enabled. My CPU usage varies up to 100% as does my GPU usage up to 100%. I am not experiencing any stuttering. If I play on a 64 player server, I DO get some stuttering, not really bad but noticeable.

If I had to do it over again, if I stuck with Intel, I'd have gotten either a 9700k or a 9900k. If I switched to AMD, I'd have gotten a Ryzen 7 3700x.
 
Reactions: Zizo007
Dec 11, 2019
5
0
10
0
Multiplayer games like BFV with 64 players need at least 6 cores preferably 8 to work. I upgraded from 1300X to 1800X only because BFV 64 player was stuttering with a Vega 64 at 1080p, CPU usage was 100% on all cores.

After installing the 1800X everything was smooth and core usage dropped to under 60%.
I believe that. The OP is asking about it 9600k, which is a 6 core processor. The 1300x was definately bottlenecking the Vega 64 by around 40% based in the calculator. Even comparing 1800x to 9600k, the landslide advantage goes to the 9600k in pure single core speed. Just newer tech.

You can easily see if the gpu or the cpu is holding you back by comparing usage between the two. Usually one will be 100% while the other is less. The one that's pegged at 100% is working as hard as it can, whereas the other that is less has headroom that it can still use.

I've seen some ryzen vs i5 comparison videos explicitly calling out the cpu usage noticing it's much lower on the ryzen. However in the videos I watched, fps was much lower with gpu usage well below max in the ryzen. Something was limiting the frames or the ryzen couldn't feed the graphics card quick enough. It could also have something to do with hyper threaded usage calculation. Or it could have been error or direct manipulation on the part of the youtube reviewers. I dont have experience with ryzens so I dont have much to say about the particular videos ir the cpu usage in question.

I just know there are multiple factors to take into account while gaming, and unless your running something like a rtx2080ti your not going to see much gaming performance increase from a 9600k to 9700k to 9900k in today's games. I do wonder how they would perform differently with something like Civ6 air turn calculations late game.
 
No one really cares (or at least, they should not) about 'bottleneck numbers/calculators'...

Additionally, I'm not overly concerned with 100% CPU utilization...there is no magic CPU/GPU utilization ratio to be maintained.

What IS concerning for the 9600K is that in many games is it's minimum FPS numbers in the 1%/.1% lows, which, in thread starved scenarios leads to frame rates dropping precariously below 60 FPS which might not happen with an 8 core cpu or even a 6c/12t design.... The 9600K often has good average FPS, but, sometimes dismal .1% lows, leading to a stutter. (Not everyone has this issue, depending on GPU, res, detail settings, background apps/processes, etc...) But, in my opinion, I'd gladly sacrifice some average and peak FPS for a higher .1%/1% minimum FPS...
 
Reactions: sizzling
Dec 11, 2019
5
0
10
0
No one really cares (or at least, they should not) about 'bottleneck numbers/calculators'...

Additionally, I'm not overly concerned with 100% CPU utilization...there is no magic CPU/GPU utilization ratio to be maintained.

What IS concerning for the 9600K is that in many games is it's minimum FPS numbers in the 1%/.1% lows, which, in thread starved scenarios leads to frame rates dropping precariously below 60 FPS which might not happen with an 8 core cpu or even a 6c/12t design.... The 9600K often has good average FPS, but, sometimes dismal .1% lows, leading to a stutter. (Not everyone has this issue, depending on GPU, res, detail settings, background apps/processes, etc...) But, in my opinion, I'd gladly sacrifice some average and peak FPS for a higher .1%/1% minimum FPS...
Do you have some links to good reviews I could check over? Im always interested to learn more. The higher tiered processors ARE better, no question. But even in most reviews they are comparing all these CPUs when paired with very high end cards. I dont see the 1% lows being a factor on a low or mid tier card. The OP asked specifically if the 9600k would be a bottleneck when paired with a 1660. In my experience, the answer is a solid no.

Bottleneck calculators arent accurate on a per use basis, but they can give you a pretty fair idea of what your dealing with. To each his own if you prefer not to use them at all, but for the record I didnt use it when picking parts either. Just suggesting to look into it.

Price point is usually the biggest factor. When comparing intel only, it's the best bang for the buck. There is obviously a diminishing return on $200 9600k vs $379 9700k vs $499 9900k.

If price was no object, I would have went with 9900k.
 
Dec 11, 2019
5
0
10
0
I decided I'd do some real world testing. I bought the 9700k. I dont have a huge suit of games to benchmark but I thought I'd share my results.

Division 2 at 1440p had 1 fps difference 9600k vs 9700k. CPU usage dropped by 17% though, settling average to 47% on i7 vs 64% on i5. Stock clocks on both. 106fps on the i7. The fps was obviously limited by gpu performance.

I didnt have other tools available, but it did feel smoother while in-game during the busy firefights. Civ6 ai benchmark dropped about .5sec. XTU score was a massive increase of 67%.

I was able to overclock to 5.1ghz on the i7 at 1.27v. I'd need a better cooler but temps stayed under 80c.

Anyway, that was my limited experience in direct comparison. Using a gfx card less powerful will only lead to more headroom on the CPU side of things.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS