Category | Desktop | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
---|---|---|
Target | mid-range | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Socket Compatibility | LGA1151 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Integrated Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 630 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Cooler Included | No | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Overclock Potential | 12 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Year | 2017 Model | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Price | 242 USD | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Number of Cores | 4 Cores | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Number of Threads | 4 Threads | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Core Frequency | 3.8 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Boost Frequency | 4.2 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Max Stable Overclock | 4.7 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Power Consumption | 91 W | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Manufacturing Process | 14 nm | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
L3 Cache | 6 MB | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Maximum Supported Memory | 64 GB | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Price-Value Score | 65 % | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Speed Score | 63 % | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Productivity Score | 37 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Gaming Score | 83 % | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Max 1080p Bottleneck | 34.2 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 1440p Bottleneck | 17.1 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 4K Bottleneck | 8.5 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Overall Score | 38/100 | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
The Core i5-7600K is one of Intel's mid-range Desktop processors. It was released in 2017 with 4 cores and 4 threads. With base clock at 3.8GHz, max speed at 4.2GHz, and a 91W power rating. The Core i5-7600K is based on the Kaby Lake-S 14nm family and is part of the Core i5 series.
Core i5-7600K is also the successor of Intel's last gen Core i5-6600K processor that was based on the Skylake-S and 14nm process and was released in 2015.
In our mind, the best processors are the ones that deliver outstanding performance at a reasonable price point. And, the Core i5-7600K absolutely nails this concept.
That something is the Core i5-7600K. Intel cranks the TDP dial up to 91W on this 4-core 4-thread chip, making it the high-performance counterpart to the 65W Core i5-7500, which is basically the same 14nm chip built with the Kaby Lake-S microarchitecture, but with a lower TDP rating. That chip came away from our first look at the Kaby Lake-S series with an Editor's Choice award, going toe-to-toe with AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X, so it's fair to say we have high hopes for the higher-performance model. Intel still hasn't sampled the chip to the press, so we bought one at retail to put it under the microscope.
But we've also found that, after simple push-button overclocking, the Core i5-7500 offers similar performance to the Core i5-7600K, even when it is also overclocked. But for $70 less. The Core i5-7600K is an impressive chip and offers a better mixture of performance than AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X, no doubt, but in this case, value seekers might opt for its less expensive sibling.
As the higher-priced version of the Core i5-7500, the Core i5-7600K has higher base and Boost frequencies of 3.8 and 4.2 GHz, respectively. That's an increase in base frequency and a bump to boost clocks, but the real advantage should lay in the higher Package Power Tracking (PPT) envelope, which is a measurement of the maximum amount of power delivered to the socket. The Core i5-7500's PPT tops out at 65W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the Core i5-7600K at peak performance. That opens up much more aggressive boost behavior, on both single and multiple cores, that could widen the performance gap beyond what we see on the spec sheet.
The Intel Core i5-7600K was rolled out on Jan 2017 for $242, which puts it in the same general price range as the last-generation Core i5-6600K. This means that at least we're not seeing any considerable price jumps from generation to generation.
The Intel Core i5-7600K is another impressive release from Intel and its 7 Generation of Core i5 chips. With it, you’re getting 4-cores and 4-threads, with a boost clock of 4.2GHz. It may not be the strongest contender ever made on paper, but when you see and feel the actual performance gains it offers, you’re certainly getting a lot of bang for your $242 buck.
Intel has been having some trouble as of late which has made it even harder to compete with the incoming wave of Ryzen 5 processors. That has forced the chip maker to be a little more creative and make do with their current product lines. Today we have the Intel Core i5-7600K on hand, which in itself isn’t anything new. It’s basically a refreshed Core i5-6600K with a clock speed boost. We say basically because it’s not a straight refresh however, there’s another change.
So which should you buy? Let's get that out of the way. Before this comparison review we updated our Best CPU feature and we said you should go with the Ryzen 5 1600X as it comes with a better stock cooler, can be overclocked, and the AM4 platform offers a significantly better upgrade path.
If you're mostly playing games on your PC, you will be happy buying either processor. Both proved to be solid options and are evenly matched with a slight advantage to the AMD chip if you don't tune up the Ryzen 5 processor. The base performance we showed for the Core i5-7600K can be achieved with $90 memory, while the Ryzen 5 1600X will require $110 - $120 memory in order to enable the frame rates shown here. It’s not a big cost difference and right now with anything less than an RTX 2070 or Vega 64 you’ll more than likely become GPU limited.
Our look today at the Intel Core i5-7600K showed that it is a very capable processor. A 4-core processor sounds like it would be really under-powered these days, but we were pleasantly surprised with a snappy and very capable system. Having just 4 cores had this processor coming in at the back of the pack for heavily threaded workloads, but it performed better than some of its more expensive siblings in lightly threaded workloads where it shined thanks to its high base clocks.
If extended overclocking and boost frequencies are trivial matters to you, Intel also offers the Core i5-7500 at $202. It’s still outfitted with 4-cores and 4-threads, but clocks in at a slower 3.4GHz and maxes out at only 3.8GHz.
Now the biggest question is can Intel’s Core i5 processor play games? The answer is simply yes as it got a respectable gaming score of 83% in our benchmarks.
Fresh from a successful roll-out of mainstream Core i5 CPUs, Intel's attack on AMD now extends down into the mid-range with its Core i5-7600K processors, which the company is making available as of Jan 2017.
Below is a comparison of all graphics cards average FPS performance (using an average of 80+ games at ultra quality settings), combined with the Intel Core i5-7600K.
Graphics Card | Price | Cost Per Frame | Avg 1080p | Avg 1440p | Avg 4K |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 24GB | $ 1,599 | $ 6.1 | 260.3 FPS
|
251 FPS
|
175.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 3.3 | 242.9 FPS
|
234.2 FPS
|
163.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB | $ 999 | $ 4.3 | 235 FPS
|
222.4 FPS
|
141.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB | $ 1,199 | $ 5.3 | 225.6 FPS
|
217.4 FPS
|
152.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB | $ 799 | $ 3.7 | 216.8 FPS
|
208.8 FPS
|
146 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT 20GB | $ 899 | $ 4.2 | 213.6 FPS
|
202.2 FPS
|
128.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB | $ 1,499 | $ 7.4 | 202.8 FPS
|
188.6 FPS
|
124.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT 16GB | $ 1,099 | $ 5.7 | 194.1 FPS
|
183.8 FPS
|
116.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24GB | $ 1,999 | $ 10.5 | 190.9 FPS
|
183.9 FPS
|
128.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB | $ 999 | $ 5.3 | 190.1 FPS
|
177.8 FPS
|
115.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB | $ 649 | $ 3.6 | 179 FPS
|
167.4 FPS
|
108.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 4.5 | 176.8 FPS
|
167.6 FPS
|
114.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB | $ 699 | $ 4 | 176.7 FPS
|
164.3 FPS
|
108.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 12GB | $ 599 | $ 3.5 | 170.6 FPS
|
160.4 FPS
|
110.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB | $ 599 | $ 4 | 151.6 FPS
|
142.1 FPS
|
95.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB | $ 579 | $ 4.1 | 141.8 FPS
|
132.5 FPS
|
85.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 3.7 | 135.2 FPS
|
125.7 FPS
|
82.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB | $ 2,499 | $ 20.1 | 124.1 FPS
|
119.2 FPS
|
79 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB | $ 1,299 | $ 10.7 | 120.9 FPS
|
116.1 FPS
|
76.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB | $ 479 | $ 4 | 119.3 FPS
|
112.4 FPS
|
71.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.4 | 117.3 FPS
|
111.7 FPS
|
75.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.6 | 110.8 FPS
|
105.7 FPS
|
71 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB | $ 699 | $ 6.4 | 109.7 FPS
|
104.3 FPS
|
68.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.8 | 105.8 FPS
|
100.1 FPS
|
65.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB | $ 2,999 | $ 28.5 | 105.1 FPS
|
101 FPS
|
68.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 8GB | $ 299 | $ 2.8 | 105.1 FPS
|
100.6 FPS
|
68.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB | $ 269 | $ 2.6 | 105 FPS
|
99.5 FPS
|
64.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB | $ 699 | $ 6.7 | 103.7 FPS
|
97.5 FPS
|
63.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB | $ 379 | $ 3.8 | 99.3 FPS
|
93.5 FPS
|
60.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB | $ 759 | $ 7.8 | 97.2 FPS
|
93 FPS
|
61.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB | $ 499 | $ 5.2 | 96.6 FPS
|
89.8 FPS
|
59.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB | $ 1,199 | $ 12.6 | 95.3 FPS
|
89.8 FPS
|
60.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon VII 16GB | $ 699 | $ 7.3 | 95.3 FPS
|
89.2 FPS
|
57.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 4.3 | 92.8 FPS
|
86.8 FPS
|
56.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 5.5 | 91.5 FPS
|
83.9 FPS
|
55.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 8GB | $ 200 | $ 2.2 | 91.5 FPS
|
86.8 FPS
|
58.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB | $ 329 | $ 3.6 | 90.9 FPS
|
84.7 FPS
|
56.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB | $ 400 | $ 4.6 | 86.6 FPS
|
78.1 FPS
|
51.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB | $ 349 | $ 4.1 | 85 FPS
|
79.6 FPS
|
51.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB | $ 499 | $ 6 | 82.5 FPS
|
76.1 FPS
|
49.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB | $ 350 | $ 4.3 | 81.5 FPS
|
71.8 FPS
|
46.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB | $ 279 | $ 3.5 | 80.2 FPS
|
74.4 FPS
|
48 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB | $ 1,499 | $ 19.4 | 77.4 FPS
|
70.3 FPS
|
48.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB | $ 499 | $ 6.5 | 77.1 FPS
|
72.2 FPS
|
46.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB | $ 409 | $ 5.3 | 76.5 FPS
|
70.5 FPS
|
45.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB | $ 249 | $ 3.3 | 74.8 FPS
|
68.4 FPS
|
45 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB | $ 999 | $ 13.4 | 74.4 FPS
|
67.7 FPS
|
43.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB | $ 279 | $ 3.8 | 72.7 FPS
|
67.1 FPS
|
43.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB | $ 399 | $ 5.5 | 72.3 FPS
|
67.5 FPS
|
43.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB | $ 399 | $ 5.7 | 70.4 FPS
|
64.3 FPS
|
41.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB | $ 229 | $ 3.3 | 68.6 FPS
|
63.3 FPS
|
41 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB | $ 649 | $ 10 | 64.7 FPS
|
59.3 FPS
|
38.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB | $ 220 | $ 3.4 | 64.6 FPS
|
59.5 FPS
|
38.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB | $ 279 | $ 4.6 | 61.3 FPS
|
54.8 FPS
|
34.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB | $ 649 | $ 11 | 58.8 FPS
|
56.4 FPS
|
37.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB | $ 160 | $ 2.8 | 56.2 FPS
|
51.7 FPS
|
33.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB | $ 199 | $ 3.6 | 55.7 FPS
|
49.8 FPS
|
31.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB | $ 549 | $ 9.9 | 55.5 FPS
|
50.3 FPS
|
32.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB | $ 229 | $ 4.2 | 54.3 FPS
|
48.5 FPS
|
30.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB | $ 649 | $ 12.2 | 53.4 FPS
|
50.4 FPS
|
33.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB | $ 999 | $ 19.3 | 51.8 FPS
|
46.6 FPS
|
31.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB | $ 549 | $ 10.9 | 50.5 FPS
|
47.4 FPS
|
30.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB | $ 254 | $ 5 | 50.4 FPS
|
45.4 FPS
|
29.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB | $ 169 | $ 3.4 | 49.9 FPS
|
44.8 FPS
|
28.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB | $ 429 | $ 8.8 | 48.6 FPS
|
45.5 FPS
|
29.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB | $ 170 | $ 3.6 | 47.8 FPS
|
43.2 FPS
|
28 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB | $ 329 | $ 7 | 47 FPS
|
42 FPS
|
28.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB | $ 400 | $ 8.8 | 45.7 FPS
|
42.4 FPS
|
28.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB | $ 329 | $ 7.2 | 45.4 FPS
|
41.5 FPS
|
25.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB | $ 169 | $ 3.8 | 44.8 FPS
|
41 FPS
|
25.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB | $ 149 | $ 3.5 | 42.8 FPS
|
39.1 FPS
|
25.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB | $ 179 | $ 4.5 | 40 FPS
|
36.8 FPS
|
23.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB | $ 229 | $ 6.8 | 33.6 FPS
|
30.6 FPS
|
20.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB | $ 249 | $ 8.2 | 30.2 FPS
|
27.5 FPS
|
17.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB | $ 199 | $ 6.6 | 30 FPS
|
27.3 FPS
|
17.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB | $ 169 | $ 5.7 | 29.5 FPS
|
27 FPS
|
17.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB | $ 279 | $ 9.6 | 29.2 FPS
|
26.9 FPS
|
16.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB | $ 199 | $ 6.9 | 28.9 FPS
|
26.2 FPS
|
16.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB | $ 169 | $ 6.7 | 25.2 FPS
|
22.8 FPS
|
14.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB | $ 99 | $ 4.3 | 23.2 FPS
|
20.8 FPS
|
13.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB | $ 159 | $ 7 | 22.8 FPS
|
20.4 FPS
|
13.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB | $ 149 | $ 6.7 | 22.4 FPS
|
19.2 FPS
|
12.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB | $ 149 | $ 6.7 | 22.2 FPS
|
18.5 FPS
|
12.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB | $ 140 | $ 6.8 | 20.5 FPS
|
18.4 FPS
|
11.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB | $ 149 | $ 7.5 | 19.8 FPS
|
15.8 FPS
|
10.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB | $ 79 | $ 4.9 | 16.2 FPS
|
14.6 FPS
|
9.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB | $ 79 | $ 5.1 | 15.5 FPS
|
13.9 FPS
|
8.5 FPS
|
Not worth upgrade atm. If you really need upgrade to Ryzen 9 3900x. If that's too pricy, anything you can afford won't give a serious performance improvement.
I used to have a 6600k and upgraded to a Ryzen 3600, the upgrade wasn't very massive in terms of FPS alone (minus some very well threaded games like BF, Siege)...but it honestly gives me so much liberty in multitasking while gaming and not noticing any performance loss at all. With my 6600k I couldn't for example stream and play at the same time or have a YouTube video in the background without having stutters or noticeable dip in FPS.
Hey guys, I've been trying to get my i5-7600k up to 5ghz and I'm unable to do so because everytime I go up to 4.8ghz from 4.7ghz I get a "page_fault_in_nonpaged_area" error. I tried to do some research for myself and found that it could be a ram error but after switching around my ram I've still gotten the same error. Any ideas?
Update: Just got a "no execute memory" error
I have my i5 7600k overclocked to 4.6ghz. I use a stock hyper 212 Evo cooler. I noticed one core temp was reaching 80-85 degrees, so I remounted and repasted the cooler and now I'm reaching near 90 on core 1, and 2 and 3 are pushing 85. Should I move to liquid cooling or upgrade the fan on the hyper 212 Evo? Is there another solution? Budget isn't terribly concerning but I don't WANT to spend a ton of money.
Jul 12, 2020 - A rivalry for the ages, and a question often asked and wondered about. Whenever you want to build or upgrade your PC, you have to make a decision: Buy an Intel or AMD processor?
Jul 5, 2020 - Does RAM size and speed affect your gaming performance? should you invest in a high performance RAM kit? Find out here.
Jul 24, 2023 No evil entity is more scary than Lilith herself, shrouded in darkness.
Jun 23, 2020 - Mid- and high-range builds perform very well for their price, and are better than the entry-level in terms of power, longevity, and reliability, and they offer more bang for your buck especially when looking at their price-by-year advantage.
Jun 11, 2020 - Pre-built systems are an attractive option for those who are less concerned with the minute details of every component in their build. Building your own PC is the best solution for those who want full control over every aspect of their build. It provides the most thorough customization options, from the CPU to the fans and lighting.
Jun 2, 2020 - How to find the Right CPU? Whether you’re building or upgrading a PC, the processor matters a lot. CPUAgent is the right tool to help you find and choose the right CPU for your needs.
Sep 03, 2020 - Save your CPU money and invest it in a powerful GPU instead. So, which affordable yet powerfulrt CPU strikes the best performance-price balance with the NVIDIA RTX 3070?
May 23, 2020 - The best performance to price value mid-range cpus are here. Find out more in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i5-10600K vs Ryzen 5 3600X's capabilities.
May 22, 2020 - Which one is worth it, Core i7-10700K or Ryzen 7 3700X? Find out in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i7-10700K vs Ryzen 7 3700X's capabilities.
May 21, 2020 - 10 cores vs 12 cores. Top-of-the-line very high-end cpus duke it out.
May 21, 2020 - In this massive comparison across 8 generations of Intel Core i5 series CPUs, we explore the performance improvements by generation and whether it is reasonable or not to upgrade to Intel's latest.
Intel Core i5 7600K performance. Inevitably the straight CPU performance of the Core i5 7600K is off the pace compared with the much more expensive, eight-threaded i7 7700K, but because of its ...
The Core i5-7600K is mostly a lateral move for the Core i5 series of processors, with a slight upward trend in performance—exactly the same approach Intel has taken since the Core i5-2500K.
The other processor that we have on hand is the Core i5-7600K which comes clocked at 3.8GHz but depending on load can boost as high as 4.2GHz. Of course, like the 7700K the 7600K is an unlocked ...
Buy the Intel Core i5 7600K from Amazon with free shipping.; We were sent an engineering sample Core i5 7600K for review, and we paired this with an Asus Maximus 9 Code Z270 board, and four sticks ...
Intel Core i5 7600K – Performance Analysis. The i5 7600K might not be a huge jump on the previous generation but it sure does provide some decent benefits. But before we go into the benefits, it is worth noting that the 7600K is mostly a lateral move over the 6 th generation processor. That is probably why the 7600K retails at the same price ...
The Core i5-7600K, launched today, is the other unlocked processor from Intel’s 7 th Generation line of Kaby Lake Processors. Kaby Lake is Intel’s third set of processors at 14nm, using the ...
I need help deciding what cpu upgrade to do. (I5-7600k)
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/PCw7ZR current build
Ive been looking at a i5 9600k but I don't think that's enough of a bump or worth it. Also AMD is looking pretty good but it confuses me.
Also I can get a threadripper 1950x for 300cad on fb