• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should I get Ryzen 2600 or i5 9600K?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,741
1,145
136
I know when it comes to emulation, I need good single thread performance and for PS2/Wii/Gamecube emulation, the 2600 seems to be fast enough to run most games at 100 % speed. I can get the Ryzen 2600 for only $160, whereas the 9600K will be $280. I also like that AM4 motherboards will support AMD processors through 2020. My thought process is that I would spend less on a CPU now and in 2 years, I would upgrade to whatever the mid-range AMD processor is then. As far as I can tell, in terms of performance per dollar, this makes the most sense for the next 5 years but I'd still like your opinions on which processor would suit me better.
Yes emulation needs fast single-threaded performance. It seem you checked that yourself and if 2600 is good enough, go for it.

What i disagree is with upgrading. Forget it. Whatever is out in 2 years time from AMD will not be significantly faster single-threaded than a 9600k and if that is the case it would be visible in price. Spending $160 know and another $160 in 2 years is still more than $280 for the 9600k and with the 9600k you get the performance now and not in 2 years. Or said otherwise upgrading the CPU is simply not worth it after such a short time. Better to buy a better one right now. If you don't trust the 2600 is good enough that you need an upgrade in 2 years, get the 9600k. You can easily save the money on the gpu. A 1070 is overkill for 1080p 60hz. Get a 1060 6gb or RX 580.
 

tim9317

Junior Member
Jul 31, 2018
16
2
41
Yes emulation needs fast single-threaded performance. It seem you checked that yourself and if 2600 is good enough, go for it.

What i disagree is with upgrading. Forget it. Whatever is out in 2 years time from AMD will not be significantly faster single-threaded than a 9600k and if that is the case it would be visible in price. Spending $160 know and another $160 in 2 years is still more than $280 for the 9600k and with the 9600k you get the performance now and not in 2 years. Or said otherwise upgrading the CPU is simply not worth it after such a short time. Better to buy a better one right now. If you don't trust the 2600 is good enough that you need an upgrade in 2 years, get the 9600k. You can easily save the money on the gpu. A 1070 is overkill for 1080p 60hz. Get a 1060 6gb or RX 580.
Single thread performance is important to me for emulation but I am also considering the processors ability to play current games. The 2600 has an advantage in that it has 12 threads vs the 6 threads of the 9600k that has no hyper threading. This could be an issue with modern games in a few years. Also, I'm guessing the 2600 will be better with multi-threaded tasks.

If I upgrade the Ryzen to a Zen2 cpu in 2-3 years, I might spend $200 on a Zen2 cpu which would bring the total cpu cost for the life of my PC to $400. The 9600k will be $280 and a decent cooler will be around $40, which brings the total to $320. For an extra $80, in 2-3 years, I would get a new Zen2 cpu with even more cores and threads which will be great for the latest games. I do understand that the single thread performance won't be that much better but the benefit for modern games with Zen2 will be significant.

I was considering getting a GTX 1070 because I want to get a video card that will last me a long time without having to upgrade in a few years.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,773
1,218
136
Would it be possible to overclock the 2600 enough to achieve the same single core performance as the 2600x. If so, how much would a decent cooler cost for the 2600? I would mainly be doing this to improve emulation performance.

I can currently get the 2600x for $220 and the 2600 for $160. Considering that the following options are the same price, I'm wondering if I bought a $60 cooler and the 2600 if I could get the same performance as the 2600x with its stock cooler?
Depends on where you shop. I just got this 2600X for $180 delivered. And the cooler that comes with it is a little better than the one that comes with the 2600. Just letting AMD's precision boost do its thing it does 4.2 all cores. 4.3 to 4.4 single cores. With stock settings and cooler.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
At $160 for the 2600 and $220 for the 2600X I would get the 2600 and pocket the change. Because you really only need to spend $20 - $25 on a HSF and you will be able to clock just as high as the 2600X does with its stock cooler.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,741
1,145
136
If I upgrade the Ryzen to a Zen2 cpu in 2-3 years, I might spend $200 on a Zen2 cpu which would bring the total cpu cost for the life of my PC to $400. The 9600k will be $280 and a decent cooler will be around $40, which brings the total to $320. For an extra $80, in 2-3 years, I would get a new Zen2 cpu with even more cores and threads which will be great for the latest games. I do understand that the single thread performance won't be that much better but the benefit for modern games with Zen2 will be significant.

I was considering getting a GTX 1070 because I want to get a video card that will last me a long time without having to upgrade in a few years.
Then get a 9700k when it releases or wait for Zen2 which releases Q2 2019, probably. Upgrading the CPU after 2 years doesn't make much sense. Simply a waste of money. Rather spent the $400 upfront and be done with it. Zen 2 won't magically demolish a 9700k. My guess is 9700k is still ahead single-threaded and zen 2 will also be 8-cores.

You are doing it wrong. future proof your CPU and then upgrade the GPU every 3 years. Much more to be gained. So get a rx580 / gtx 1060 (or even lower) and put the money saved in the CPU. then when you want to upgrade your display down the road, get a new GPU (honestly without a new display upgrading the GPU will make little sense).
 

tim9317

Junior Member
Jul 31, 2018
16
2
41
Then get a 9700k when it releases or wait for Zen2 which releases Q2 2019, probably. Upgrading the CPU after 2 years doesn't make much sense. Simply a waste of money. Rather spent the $400 upfront and be done with it. Zen 2 won't magically demolish a 9700k. My guess is 9700k is still ahead single-threaded and zen 2 will also be 8-cores.

You are doing it wrong. future proof your CPU and then upgrade the GPU every 3 years. Much more to be gained. So get a rx580 / gtx 1060 (or even lower) and put the money saved in the CPU. then when you want to upgrade your display down the road, get a new GPU (honestly without a new display upgrading the GPU will make little sense).
I generally agree with your approach but I guess this isn't the greatest time to buy a CPU considering my situation. I will wait and see what the benchmarks are for the 9700k. I don't like that the 9700k doesn't have hyperthreading and that Intel motherboards are more expensive. I generally agree that you get the best CPU you can afford but I think this isn't the greatest time to buy an intel processor. Unfortunately, I'm not open to getting an 8th gen intel processor because of the Spectre and Meltdown exploits which don't have a hardware fix for that gen. I would hate to spend a lot of money on an Intel CPU now and then next year, Intel releases their next gen CPUs which will likely have more cores and possibly hyper threading.

My thinking is that for the type of casual gaming I do, a 1070 seems likely to last me 5 years. I would only upgrade the CPU if I wasn't happy with the emulation performance of the 2600. I would be the 2700 and be done with it but the single core performance is not much better than the 2600.

Also, I could even upgrade in 3 years and put the highest end AMD CPU from 2020 in PC, 3 years from now.
 

JimmyH

Member
Jul 13, 2000
181
9
81
Spending $160 know and another $160 in 2 years is still more than $280 for the 9600k and with the 9600k you get the performance now and not in 2 years.
This is absolutely wrong. I bought my 1600X for $150 on Black Friday. Upgraded to 2600X for $190 and sold my 1600X for $162 on eBay. Worked out to be $60 for upgrade from 1600X to 2600X with wraith spire included. I expect similar upgrade cost when I buy 3600X to replace my 2600X. The 9600K offers zero upgrade path and is very overpriced for ONLY 6 threads without hyperthreading. Can't imagine playing a frostbite game like Battlefield One or future console ports with only 6 threads. It'll be stutter city once u play modern games w/ web browser tons of tabs, steam, blizz app, origin app, email checking, teamspeak etc. on a windows rig w/ some wear and tear. 9600k would stutter more than my 3770k from 2012. Absolute disgrace that 6 years later Intel offering less smooth performance for same price.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,573
126
This is absolutely wrong. I bought my 1600X for $150 on Black Friday. Upgraded to 2600X for $190 and sold my 1600X for $162 on eBay. Worked out to be $60 for upgrade from 1600X to 2600X with wraith spire included. I expect similar upgrade cost when I buy 3600X to replace my 2600X. The 9600K offers zero upgrade path and is very overpriced for ONLY 6 threads without hyperthreading. Can't imagine playing a frostbite game like Battlefield One or future console ports with only 6 threads. It'll be stutter city once u play modern games w/ web browser tons of tabs, steam, blizz app, origin app, email checking, teamspeak etc. on a windows rig w/ some wear and tear. 9600k would stutter more than my 3770k from 2012. Absolute disgrace that 6 years later Intel offering less smooth performance for same price.
Lighten up, Francis!

"Less smooth performance" o_O

(What is this, high school drama?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,010
126
This is absolutely wrong. I bought my 1600X for $150 on Black Friday. Upgraded to 2600X for $190 and sold my 1600X for $162 on eBay. Worked out to be $60 for upgrade from 1600X to 2600X with wraith spire included. I expect similar upgrade cost when I buy 3600X to replace my 2600X. The 9600K offers zero upgrade path and is very overpriced for ONLY 6 threads without hyperthreading. Can't imagine playing a frostbite game like Battlefield One or future console ports with only 6 threads. It'll be stutter city once u play modern games w/ web browser tons of tabs, steam, blizz app, origin app, email checking, teamspeak etc. on a windows rig w/ some wear and tear. 9600k would stutter more than my 3770k from 2012. Absolute disgrace that 6 years later Intel offering less smooth performance for same price.
Technically it offers an upgrade path to a 9700K or a 9900K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,573
126
Technically it offers an upgrade path to a 9700K or a 9900K.
Plus, we still have the 8700 and 8700K, and we only have 3 of this new bunch of chips announced...yet we are already at "absolute disgrace" level...

And somehow the 3770K is the smoothie king, despite having only 4 cores...
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,619
1,646
136
Technically it offers an upgrade path to a 9700K or a 9900K.
True, but I don't see the price on the 9900k dropping a whole lot anytime soon. With AM4 you can upgrade to Zen 2 or very likely Zen 3 as well. Maybe the catch up to Intel IPC wise by then, maybe not. Given the budget though I would lean towards AMD.
 

JimmyH

Member
Jul 13, 2000
181
9
81
And somehow 6 years later 6 threads in the 9600k is more than 8 threads in the 3770k!


Lighten up, Francis!

"Less smooth performance" o_O

(What is this, high school drama?)
Lighten up, Biff! What is this, high school viral marketing by Rollo?

What about the 8700, 8700k, 9700k, 9900k as an upgrade path? 14nm, 14nm, 14nm, 14nm...same node, damn near same IPC and same mhz on average overclock.

AMD 1600X, 2600X, 3600X? 14nm, 12nm, 7nm...all new nodes with better IPC and mhz overclocks. Like real honest to god upgrades and not throwing money down drain on repackaged 14nm+++++ sidegrades.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,741
1,145
136
This is absolutely wrong. I bought my 1600X for $150 on Black Friday. Upgraded to 2600X for $190 and sold my 1600X for $162 on eBay. Worked out to be $60 for upgrade from 1600X to 2600X with wraith spire included. I expect similar upgrade cost when I buy 3600X to replace my 2600X. The 9600K offers zero upgrade path and is very overpriced for ONLY 6 threads without hyperthreading. Can't imagine playing a frostbite game like Battlefield One or future console ports with only 6 threads. It'll be stutter city once u play modern games w/ web browser tons of tabs, steam, blizz app, origin app, email checking, teamspeak etc. on a windows rig w/ some wear and tear. 9600k would stutter more than my 3770k from 2012. Absolute disgrace that 6 years later Intel offering less smooth performance for same price.
And somehow 6 years later 6 threads in the 9600k is more than 8 threads in the 3770k!
Get a clue...This is just ridiculous and deceiving and plain wrong. You know the difference between a thread and a core? I very much doubt that.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,741
1,145
136
My thinking is that for the type of casual gaming I do, a 1070 seems likely to last me 5 years.
RX580 / GTX 1060 will lastjust as long if you don't upgrade the display. a 1070 is overkill for 1080p 60 hz.

As for the CPU I agree. 9 series has some meltdown hardware fix vs 8 series but it's not out and probably overly expensive due to intel supply shortage. 2600x is probably best bang for the buck. Better cooler than a 2600 and really not much need to OC it.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,145
938
126

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,619
1,646
136
Get a clue...This is just ridiculous and deceiving and plain wrong. You know the difference between a thread and a core? I very much doubt that.
There could be some truth to it. 4C/8T could be more responsive even if the 6C/6T is faster at certain tasks such as a game. Outside of Anand's review of the Athlon 64 X2 way back when, nobody has really tested multitasking that I have seen.

In fact, looking back through those pages, look at the P4 EE 840 vs the vanilla 840. The only difference is the EE was 2C/4T and the 840 was 2C/2T. It was considerably faster in those multitasking tests. It was right up there with the top AMD dual core. In all of the other benchmarks, the A64 generally smokes the P4 840 EE. Of course, things were different then when you were only talking about two cores.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,619
1,646
136
I actually kind of agree. I think for once Intel disabled HT on all but the top chip for security reasons and not just for segmentation's sake. I'm sure they did more than just disable HT, but not enough to fix all of the exploits. It could be that they are just buying time until they have it fixed with Ice Lake or whatever.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,741
1,145
136
And another AMD-biased post from you. seriously...

A 6-core CPU with SMT is better than a 6-core CPU without it? (which isn't even obvious in this graph) How is that relevant to comparing a 4-core CPU with SMT to a 6-core CPU without SMT? Hint: There is absolutely 0 relevance.

Disabling SMT is the hardware fix they are actually talking about...
This is just wrong. By your logic the 9900k then doesn't have the fixes as it has HT enabled. And same for whiskey lake which they state having the same fixes but all whiskey lake parts have HT enabled.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,145
938
126
And another AMD-biased post from you. seriously...
A 6-core CPU with SMT is better than a 6-core CPU without it?
Why biaised since the OP is about 2600 vs 9600K..?..
Of course that a 12T is better, but since the 8400 has higher all cores clocks it should be checked if more threads scale better enough in multitasking than more frequency, wich is obviously the case.

This is just wrong. By your logic the 9900k then doesn't have the fixes as it has HT enabled. And same for whiskey lake which they state having the same fixes but all whiskey lake parts have HT enabled.
There was no fix in the SMT weakness because it would require a too broad re design of the circuitry, so for the 9900K the fix is made through firmware, that s why you have fixes that say "firmware + hardware", that doesnt mean that there s both but that it s made either through firmware, for the 9900K, or trough hardware for the CPUs that got SMT disabled.
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,573
126
Why biaised since the OP is about 2600 vs 9600K..?..
Of course that a 12T is better, but since the 8400 has higher all cores clocks it should be checked if more threads scale better enough in multitasking than more frequency, wich is obviously the case.



There was no fix in the SMT weakness because it would require a too broad re design of the circuitry, so for the 9900K the fix is made through firmware, that s why you have fixes that say "firmware + hardware", that doesnt mean that there s both but that it s made either through firmware, for the 9900K, or trough hardware for the CPUs that got SMT disabled.
So then the 8000/7000/6000 series chips without SMT also have the hardware fix? Those gen chips without SMT are safer to use in your server?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS