Thoughts on the 2600 vs. 8600k and possibly 9600K

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#1
I am thinking budget build. Is the 2600 enough? What is the value PC for gaming. Minimum for Intel is an 8600k. Prices for the 2600 look really good for a value play. Thoughts appreciated. I have a Coolermaster Master Liquid Pro 280mm new in box and a Phanteks tempered glass case new in box waiting for a new build.

I do a lot of multi tasking. The kind of stuff where I browse the web while gaming multiple windows. Need something where I can flip from game to browser on the fly with no lag.

My 3570k is feeling a bit dated. The SOB has 240mm liquid cooling and an NZXT case. I hate to see it taking it's place in the garage as a backup PC.
 

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
446
79
136
#2
A tough call. If you weren't going to overclock, I'd rather compare 2600 to a 8400 or 8500, as they compete very well for gaming and light-multitasking (until you start streaming or encoding, etc at the same time)

But since you are overclocking (and on water, it seems) then 8600K (and 9600K i presume) net just a tiny bit more performance out of their OC (to about ~4.8+) than a 2600 (to 4.0-4.1)

It also depends @ what resolution and refresh-rate are you gaming on (e.g. on 60Hz it doesn't really matter what you choose) and when do you plan to upgrade the CPU/GPU. There is also the option of saving 80$ for now and later selling the 2600 and upgrading to zen2. I quess you could say the same for a 9900K upgrade down the line ... but that will probably cost you more,knowing that Intel pretty much never discounts their CPUs, even when they age and that 9600K is more expensive to begin with.
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#3
I will be getting a new GPU as well. Think 1080ti or better. 4K gaming. Which is better for 4k, AMD or Intel. Is the 2700 worth considering or not needed?
 

Gideon

Senior member
Nov 27, 2007
446
79
136
#4
At 4K, even with a 1080 Ti, they are all ridiculously close (from this TPU review):


2700 is nice, but if you plan to have such a costly GPU anyway, I'd rather pay ~100$ extra, go with at least the soldered 9700K and OC the crap out of it. That is unless you're willing to upgrade your CPU in a year (in which case I would consider the budget option 2600 and upgrading once it becomes the bottleneck).
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#5
Good information. I guess I will wait and see what intel looks like with the 9700K and the 9600K when released.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,333
147
136
#6
I will be getting a new GPU as well. Think 1080ti or better. 4K gaming. Which is better for 4k, AMD or Intel. Is the 2700 worth considering or not needed?
For 4k gaming, there is no difference. Buy whatever has the lower build cost.
 
May 15, 2012
146
17
116
#7
I am thinking budget build. Is the 2600 enough? What is the value PC for gaming. Minimum for Intel is an 8600k. Prices for the 2600 look really good for a value play. Thoughts appreciated. I have a Coolermaster Master Liquid Pro 280mm new in box and a Phanteks tempered glass case new in box waiting for a new build.

I do a lot of multi tasking. The kind of stuff where I browse the web while gaming multiple windows. Need something where I can flip from game to browser on the fly with no lag.

My 3570k is feeling a bit dated. The SOB has 240mm liquid cooling and an NZXT case. I hate to see it taking it's place in the garage as a backup PC.
Here's one good advice, do not buy any Intel 6/6 CPU or you will regret it in the near future.R5 1600 is still dirty cheep 6/12 CPU for only 150$.

SMT or Hiperthreding is a very useful extra CPU performanse weight on the scale.AMD is practically almost offers SMT free of charge, "but on the Intel side well you now pay much more or no SMT".

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/#post-38770122
 
Last edited:

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#8
Newegg had a flash sale for a 2600 and a MSI x470 gaming pro motherboard for $250 minus $20 rebate. Almost pulled the trigger on that one last night.
 

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
287
131
86
#9
Here's one good advice, do not buy any Intel 6/6 CPU or you will regret it in the near future.R5 1600 is still dirty cheep 6/12 CPU for only 150$.

SMT or Hiperthreding is a very useful extra CPU performanse weight on the scale.AMD is practically almost offers SMT free of charge, "but on the Intel side well you now pay much more or no SMT".

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/#post-38770122
Here is a free advise for you: fast single and multicore performance is something you always use. SMT? Only specific tasks. Better take the chip that is faster in most situations unless that one particular benchmark important to you profits a lot from SMT.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,377
766
136
#10
Here is a free advise for you: fast single and multicore performance is something you always use. SMT? Only specific tasks. Better take the chip that is faster in most situations unless that one particular benchmark important to you profits a lot from SMT.
I beg to differ, In most situations, more threads (especially 6 vs 16) will be better. Yes a few situations, the extra single core speed is better, but that is in the minority.
 

Dasa2

Senior member
Nov 22, 2014
240
7
91
#11
720P or 4K makes little to no difference to the amount of work the CPU has to do assuming the FPS are the same
At 4k with a 1080Ti most games will be completely GPU bottlnecked and frequently dip below 60FPS.

There is a few games that will drop below 60fps in a few places due to the 2600 or 8600k and in these places a overclocked 8600k will pull in font.
When looking at overclocked CPU performance your choice of ram speed is just as important and I would take 2600 with c3200c14 B-die over 8600K with cheap ram any day.
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#12
On my Ryzen test system. I have an R3 1200 running @ 3.8ghz on a MSI B350 gaming pro carbon. I was always planning on upgrading that to a 6 core. Problem is the R3 1200 runs so well I figured I would just leave well enough alone even thought it has a 240mm liquid cooler. The wall for the 1st gen Ryzen seemed to be 3.8ghz for low voltage OC. Once you go above 3.8ghz weird stuff can happen and you need close to 1.4v vs. 1.2-1.25v @ 3.8ghz. The Zen + stuff seems to hit 4ghz just as easy as the 1st gen stuff with low voltage OC's based on reviews that I have seen. Also the performance gaming seems to have closed the gap between AMD and Intel with AMD winning with the value play and the animosity worldwide towards Intel for price gouging for years.

Anyway I am probably looking @ an X470 motherboard with a 2600 CPU. Then when zen 2 is released, I would drop the 2600 into the B350 motherboard and retire the R3 1200. I have a couple of 4560/4620 builds and that R3 1200 really does outshine the 4560 as long as you have a graphics card.

There is no rush on my part. I figure by the end of the year I will put something together. I want to see what Intel's new stuff does and if AMD will capitalize on price wars against Intel CPU's further.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,453
18
91
#13
Given my experience with the 2500k vs 2600k and long term performance, the only non HT product I would consider right now is the 9700k.
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#14
Given my experience with the 2500k vs 2600k and long term performance, the only non HT product I would consider right now is the 9700k.
Noted but we are talking about the Ryzen R5 2600 not the Sandy Bridge 2500K or 2600K.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,453
18
91
#15
Noted but we are talking about the Ryzen R5 2600 not the Sandy Bridge 2500K or 2600K.
Well yes, and the R5 2600 is 6C/12T vs the 8600k which is 6C/6T thus I would take the Ryzen over the i5 despite some loss in ST performance. In theory the Ryzen platform is upgradeable and will be for awhile like AM3(+) was while Intel usually isn't so easily upgradable. However, I'm not a huge fan of cpu upgrades these days after my experiences with going from a phenom 2 955 to a fx-8350. I am tempted to try dropping a 3770k into my 2500k system (p67 board) for fun though.
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#16
Well yes, and the R5 2600 is 6C/12T vs the 8600k which is 6C/6T thus I would take the Ryzen over the i5 despite some loss in ST performance. In theory the Ryzen platform is upgradeable and will be for awhile like AM3(+) was while Intel usually isn't so easily upgradable. However, I'm not a huge fan of cpu upgrades these days after my experiences with going from a phenom 2 955 to a fx-8350. I am tempted to try dropping a 3770k into my 2500k system (p67 board) for fun though.
Yikes is all I can say with regard to both a phenom 2 955 and an FX-8350. With all due respect, both absolute garbage CPU's. This coming from a long time computer builder dating back to the Athlon XP 1800+ which were the start of the good years for AMD. I have about 6 AMD CPU's all prior to the Core2Duo release. The Ryzen stuff is the real deal. From the 1600 to the 2600. There seems to be a significant improvement in OC to 4ghz on the 2600 which was difficult on the 1600 requiring a lot of voltage. I am looking to Zen 2 mostly.

The 2600 seems to really narrow the gap more than the 1600 did clock for clock against Intel. AMD admitted last year that Zen 2 is the big leap forward. With ram prices and SSD prices dropping. A new build is starting to make more sense. My 3570K has never skipped a beat @ 4.5ghz over the years. Rock solid but the 4 cores are not enough for multi tasking. I think 8 cores may be the new sweet spot in the not to distant future.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,453
18
91
#17
Edit: Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2001
43,254
445
126
#18
Yikes is all I can say with regard to both a phenom 2 955 and an FX-8350. With all due respect, both absolute garbage CPU's.
They really weren't that bad, all things considered. At least, the Phenom II was IPC and clock-speed competitive with Core2Quad CPUs, what with its L3 cache. It made a fine gaming CPU, back in the day, and the Black Edition models were overclockable. The FX-8350, what can I say. Compared to Ryzen and Coffee Lake, yeah, IPC sucked. But again, back the day, before we had Intel X299 HEDT chips, the 8350 made an affordable, pseudo-HEDT option available for video editors, something that the higher-cored FX CPUs somewhat excelled at. Now, Ryzen is way better, but still, they were far from garbage.

I tend to think of Cyrix Super7 CPUs, when someone mentions "garbage CPUs". Factory overclocked, overheated, unstable, compatibility issues, etc. (Some of those might apply in part to the 8350, if you used it with a too low-grade mobo, too, I suppose, but it wasn't the norm.)
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,747
348
136
#19
Noted but we are talking about the Ryzen R5 2600 not the Sandy Bridge 2500K or 2600K.
Yes, he is saying that in his experience and word of the wise the the 2600k aged better with it's HT than the 2500 did without. Really the important part on system responsiveness, multitasking and 2017 games and newer you want at minimum 8 Threads. Preferbably more, but the 9700k being the minimum for the 9k family because only one 4c+ CPU will have HT. Meaning the 9700k is the cheapest with 8t.

Choices should be 2600x, 2700x, 8700k, 9700k, 9900k.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#20
Really the important part on system responsiveness, multitasking and 2017 games and newer you want at minimum 8 Threads.
There is ZERO evidence for this opinion.

An 8600K will be faster for most usage patterns, system responsiveness, and gaming than a 2600.

Really the main thing a 2600 will be faster at is 3D rendering (cinebench benchmark is based on this). Something almost no one actually does.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,747
348
136
#21
There is ZERO evidence for this opinion.

An 8600K will be faster for most usage patterns, system responsiveness, and gaming than a 2600.

Really the main thing a 2600 will be faster at is 3D rendering (cinebench benchmark is based on this). Something almost no one actually does.
This can go back and forth. The 6c6t Intel CPU's are in the nuetral zone. Most games seem optimized even as far back as 2014/15 for 8 threads. But they never put much pressure on those threads. I am seeing more general activity nowadays on all of threads and people still probably don't need a whole lot more than 8 threads for games. As a generality the 6c6t Intel CPU's will probably be quicker then a 2600x or 1600x. But Like the comparison with 2600k to the 2500k. Will that hold out forever. Newer games will use 8threads and put more pressure on more threads. Does this mean at this very second a 6c12t Ryzen beat a 6c6t i5, unlikely. But I would suggest the bare minimum setup for now and the future be an at least an 8 thread CPU.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#22
This can go back and forth. The 6c6t Intel CPU's are in the nuetral zone. Most games seem optimized even as far back as 2014/15 for 8 threads. But they never put much pressure on those threads. I am seeing more general activity nowadays on all of threads and people still probably don't need a whole lot more than 8 threads for games. As a generality the 6c6t Intel CPU's will probably be quicker then a 2600x or 1600x. But Like the comparison with 2600k to the 2500k. Will that hold out forever. Newer games will use 8threads and put more pressure on more threads. Does this mean at this very second a 6c12t Ryzen beat a 6c6t i5, unlikely. But I would suggest the bare minimum setup for now and the future be an at least an 8 thread CPU.
You need to stop thinking in terms of threads. 6C/6T blows away 4C/8T at everything (at same clock speeds for each). Games also don't have 4, 8, or 10 threads. Games have DOZENS of threads today. There is no kind of 1:1 correspondence between CPU and Game threads.

The is not that modern games lack threads, it's that Games are not a homogeneous load. They will never really represent anything like a idealized fully parallel load, and will always benefit from higher per core performance on fewer cores, when comparing something like a 8600K vs 2600.

If the 2600 was running 4.8GHz then it might catch up in gaming some day.

But given the clock speed/IPC disparity the 2600, will ALWAYS be slower for gaming vs 8600k.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
932
104
136
#23
You need to stop thinking in terms of threads. 6C/6T blows away 4C/8T at everything (at same clock speeds for each). Games also don't have 4, 8, or 10 threads. Games have DOZENS of threads today. There is no kind of 1:1 correspondence between CPU and Game threads.

The is not that modern games lack threads, it's that Games are not a homogeneous load. They will never really represent anything like a idealized fully parallel load, and will always benefit from higher per core performance on fewer cores, when comparing something like a 8600K vs 2600.

If the 2600 was running 4.8GHz then it might catch up in gaming some day.

But given the clock speed/IPC disparity the 2600, will ALWAYS be slower for gaming vs 8600k.
I agree with most of what you said except the bolded part. I do think in a few years, a a 2600 @ ~4GHz could challenge a 8600K @ ~5GHz, despite the higher IPC/clocks of the 8600K.

Single thread performance is important, of course, but the day will come when the 8600/8600Ks limited threads will become an issue, the same way the 6600K doesn't perform that well in heavily threaded modern titles today as 4C/4T has become a bottleneck. Eventually, the same fate awaits 6C/6T chips, it's just a matter of time.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#24
I agree with most of what you said except the bolded part. I do think in a few years, a a 2600 @ ~4GHz could challenge a 8600K @ ~5GHz, despite the higher IPC/clocks of the 8600K.

Single thread performance is important, of course, but the day will come when the 8600/8600Ks limited threads will become an issue, the same way the 6600K doesn't perform that well in heavily threaded modern titles today as 4C/4T has become a bottleneck. Eventually, the same fate awaits 6C/6T chips, it's just a matter of time.


How does an 8C/8T AMD FX-9590 (5GHz,200watts) perform in those heavily threaded modern titles? I best MUCH worse than that i5-6600K.

8600K will beat the 2600 at gaming as long as anyone would use either CPU.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,198
137
106
#25
How does an 8C/8T AMD FX-9590 (5GHz,200watts) perform in those heavily threaded modern titles? I best MUCH worse than that i5-6600K.

8600K will beat the 2600 at gaming as long as anyone would use either CPU.
Bulldozer architecture isn't comparable to Zen or Intel Core architecture to talk about cores/threads on a comparative basis. If you're arguing that a higher single-thread performance CPU with 6 cores will always be faster in gaming than a slower single-thread performance CPU with 6 cores and SMT, then you're wrong. Just look at Hardware Unboxed Ryzen 5 2600 Vs i7 7800X comparison which refutes your point.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS