News Intel 9th Gen Coffee Lake CPU Pricing Plummets

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
The price of a 9600K at Microcenter has been $169.99 for at least a month. When paired with a 2080ti the 9600K at 5.0 OC beats every AMD CPU in TH gaming suite according to your reviews.

AMD 3600x is $199.88
Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.
 
Reactions: Phaaze88

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
795
362
1,260
0
Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.
If you're exclusively a gamer, there is no reason to pick any AMD CPU over even a 9600k, let alone anything higher.


3900X is bottlenecking so badly that a 9900K with a 5700XT beats the 3900X with a 2080Ti at 1080p. 9600k is 15% faster than 3900x. AMD may be able to eek out a win here or there, but if the margin is large, it is always an Intel CPU in front.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
What part of running a 2080ti at the proper resolution, for such a card did you not get? A 2080ti should not be run at anything below 1440p, period. The CPU becomes a bottleneck, even with Intel, at 1080p, with a 2080ti. MS flight sim is a horribly optimized title, that is not well threaded, as well. There is a reason why the 3600 was so popular and the 9600k was not. The 9600k doesn't do well in titles that are highly threaded, in comparison.

View: https://youtu.be/7AbNeht4tAE?t=1623
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Phaaze88

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
795
362
1,260
0
What part of running a 2080ti at the proper resolution, for such a card did you not get? A 2080ti should not be run at anything below 1440p, period. The CPU becomes a bottleneck, even with Intel, at 1080p, with a 2080ti. MS flight sim is a horribly optimized title, that is not well threaded, as well.
Cars 3 at 1440P


Why would you recommend a 3900x, when it is losing by about 10% to a 9600k that cost half as much? You can sit in denial all you want, the benchmarks don't lie. If your primary focus is gaming, don't buy AMD. That may change this month, but as of now, Intel is the choice.
 
If the leaks are true with the Zen3.. Intel should do the world a favor and give their chips out for free.
If intel would do that AMD would not be able to sell one single chip and it would be back to debt for AMD.
But in all seriousness AMD can only produce such a limited number of CPUs that intel can keep asking whatever they want for their CPUs.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Cars 3 at 1440P
Why would you recommend a 3900x, when it is losing by about 10% to a 9600k that cost half as much? You can sit in denial all you want, the benchmarks don't lie. If your primary focus is gaming, don't buy AMD. That may change this month, but as of now, Intel is the choice.
I never recommended a 3900x. I said 3600. Also see my edit above. It is a better all around CPU, with more consistent performance, vs a 9600k. The 9600k can have frametime variance issues, the 3600 does not experience. That is why the 10600k is such a great CPU. Intel finally added HT to their 6c cpu.

Project Cars doesn't need more than 6c/6t, which is pretty obvious, when looking at the 9600k, vs the 9900k. Given how well the 9100 performed vs the faster clocked 9600k, and 9900k, that also have more cache, it probably doesn't need more than 4c.

As far as pecking order, for newer titles, that need more than 6c/6t it is 9600k --> 3600 --> 10600k. Hands down, the 10600k is the best gaming only CPU, for the $$ right now. The 9600k is a great E-Sports/lightly threaded gaming chip, but in newer core/thread heavier titles, it falls behind, on what really matters, which is the .1% / 1% lows that can cause stuttering, if they dip too low. The 9600k is not a terrible chip, but like any CPU, it has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
Feb 18, 2020
23
12
15
0
I grabbed one of these back in august when they went on sale on amazon, the price dropped 150 bucks 20 days later, and amazon refunded me the difference... Not much cheaper now actually. Good chip, got a nice 5gz all core overclock thats stable and should be good for a few years with this.
 

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
795
362
1,260
0
I never recommended a 3900x. I said 3600. Also see my edit above. It is a better all around CPU, with more consistent performance, vs a 9600k. The 9600k can have frametime variance issues, the 3600 does not experience. That is why the 10600k is such a great CPU. Intel finally added HT to their 6c cpu.
3900x is AMD's fastest mainstream gaming CPU, with only the $700 3950 faster, and it still wouldn't have caught the 9600k. My point was, if AMD's fastest can't beat a 9600k, why would you recommend any AMD CPU for gaming? If you drop to your 3600 recommendation, the 9600k is now over 17% faster in Project Cars 3, and they both cost $200 at Newegg. There has not been any market shift to games having any meaningful benefit from more than 6 cores recently. Project Cars 3 and Flight Simulator are both brand new titles.
 
Reactions: shady28 and Gurg
Sadly AMD markets Ryzen 9 for gaming, which it's not a great value for.

For the money, the 9600k is very good for gaming in most titles. However, at the same time, it has issues with frame time consistency in some demanding games, and I predict this will get worse in the future. A higher framerate is nice, but if it's not stable, it will feel far worse than a lower but stable framerate.

While the 9600k only has frame time issues in SOME games, the 9600k is only significantly better than a Ryzen 5 3600 in SOME games, as well.

View: https://imgur.com/kCoB4GM


9600k isn't here, but with a 2080ti at 1080p, the 9900k is like 9% faster than an R5 3600 OVERALL. I'd imagine the difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and 9600k would be maybe 5-6% overall.

I'd take 5-6% lower overall framerate in most games in exchange for being able to have a smooth experience in games like battlefield 5, a far better experience in tasks that can leverage many cores, and a CPU that will probably be relevant far longer than the 9600k. You have to realize, both Intel and AMD are pushing for more and more cores on mainstream, and heck consoles even have 16 threads now. 6 threads is a limit now, and this will only get worse with time.
 
Reactions: Phaaze88

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
795
362
1,260
0
Sadly AMD markets Ryzen 9 for gaming, which it's not a great value for.

For the money, the 9600k is very good for gaming in most titles. However, at the same time, it has issues with frame time consistency in some demanding games, and I predict this will get worse in the future. A higher framerate is nice, but if it's not stable, it will feel far worse than a lower but stable framerate.

While the 9600k only has frame time issues in SOME games, the 9600k is only significantly better than a Ryzen 5 3600 in SOME games, as well.

View: https://imgur.com/kCoB4GM


9600k isn't here, but with a 2080ti at 1080p, the 9900k is like 9% faster than an R5 3600 OVERALL. I'd imagine the difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and 9600k would be maybe 5-6% overall.

I'd take 5-6% lower overall framerate in most games in exchange for being able to have a smooth experience in games like battlefield 5, a far better experience in tasks that can leverage many cores, and a CPU that will probably be relevant far longer than the 9600k. You have to realize, both Intel and AMD are pushing for more and more cores on mainstream, and heck consoles even have 16 threads now. 6 threads is a limit now, and this will only get worse with time.
You'd be hard pressed to find a 9600k that didn't OC to 5GHz all core. At stock speeds as in your chart, it's only running at 4.3Ghz all core. At 5GHz, the 9600k is going to be faster than the 9900k (4.7Ghz all core) in your chart which is at stock clocks. After OC'ing both CPU's, the 9600k is going to be on average 10% or more faster than the 3600, and it will be way ahead in any single threaded applications which are still plentiful, and make up most of the gap in multi-threaded.
 
Reactions: Gurg
Let's look here:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3cSTREcGCUVxFjbSDhgAT8-650-80.png.webp
Stock for stock, the difference is within the margin of error. Near as makes no difference.

There are no proper overclocked results there for the R5 3600. PBO isn't a true overclock.

If you look at stock 3600 vs a 5ghz 9600k, the i5 is about 10% better. That's like the difference between 60 and 65fps. This is a difference, but its a relatively minor IMO.

My 3600 can do 4.35ghz on CCX1 and 4.325ghz on CCX2 when tested using CTR. About 4% higher clocks on a single core. Assuming the 3600 turbos to around 4ghz all core (I may have to test myself to see what it does), this is maybe 10% higher all core. Couple that with a ram tune which benefits Ryzen far more than intel, and I feel the Ryzen 3600 oc would be very very close to the 9600k oc. Maybe within 5%.

With a 9600k you get nearly identical stock performance and maybe 5% better when both are overclocked. And at the same time, you lose massive amounts of performance in multi-core workloads, you lose framerate stability in modern demanding titles, you put yourself into a dead-end platform, and you loose future longevity with games using more and more cores.

I paid $160 for my 3600, which is $40 less than a 9600k at the time. $40 less for similar stock gaming performance, and better performance most other tasks. Even if both are overclocked the difference is small.

Yea, the more I look at this, the less I can justify a 9600k at all.
 
Last edited:

Phaaze88

Champion
Ambassador
Too little, too late?

The 9700K, I can see - somewhat.
The 9900K is still terrible though. It will force users with cheapo motherboards and crap coolers to replace them, making it far more expensive than they bargained for.
 
If you get luck with the new 3600 4.4ghz all core boost is possible. At least with my chip.
Picked it up for $159 at Newegg.
Some numbers for you with a GTX 1070 a 2ghz.
Time Spy 6625 CPU 7837 GPU 6450
Real bench 166871
Cinebench R20 3991
CPUZ s 541.6 m 4481 8.27 core equivalent.

I have AMD and Intel systems and prefer AMD for multitasking responsiveness.
 
If you get luck with the new 3600 4.4ghz all core boost is possible. At least with my chip.
Picked it up for $159 at Newegg.
Some numbers for you with a GTX 1070 a 2ghz.
Time Spy 6625 CPU 7837 GPU 6450
Real bench 166871
Cinebench R20 3991
CPUZ s 541.6 m 4481 8.27 core equivalent.

I have AMD and Intel systems and prefer AMD for multitasking responsiveness.
What cooler and voltage are you using?
 
Have a hyper 212 EVO and max voltage is 1.432 but usually hovers around 1.36with one core folding@4.3ghz.
Did not set a static overclock.
Enabled PBO and a 200mhz boost override.
Will play with it more when time avails and see how low voltage can be tweeked.
 

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
795
362
1,260
0
Let's look here:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3cSTREcGCUVxFjbSDhgAT8-650-80.png.webp
Stock for stock, the difference is within the margin of error. Near as makes no difference.

There are no proper overclocked results there for the R5 3600. PBO isn't a true overclock.
Because most sites recommend you don't overclock Ryzen since you often end up with worse performance since you lose the higher boosting for lower threaded workloads from PBO.

With a 9600k you get nearly identical stock performance and maybe 5% better when both are overclocked.
Highly unlikely.



That's a 17% advantage for the 5GHz 9600k. Certainly a meaningful difference, and there is no way a typical oc for a 3600 would make up 12% of that difference.
 
Reactions: shady28 and Gurg

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
477
54
18,870
1
Too little, too late?

The 9700K, I can see - somewhat.
The 9900K is still terrible though. It will force users with cheapo motherboards and crap coolers to replace them, making it far more expensive than they bargained for.
Actually I think its the opposite. The 9900k is $50 more but you get 8 core/16 threads vs 9700K 8c/8t. If I personally used applications requiring more than six core/threads the 9900k would probably be the better choice for only $50.

The next logical question would be why a 9900k 8c/16t vs a 10700k 8c/16t and that would come down to the cheaper Z390 vs Z490 motherboards.

However using my 9600k for internet, I-Heart radio, internet TV, gaming and MS Office applications the 5ghz OC all core 9600K performs all those at the top of the charts.

From what the TH has indicated, pairing a 5ghz OC all-core 9600K with a 3080 would be pretty much golden for gaming at this time.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS