Category | Desktop | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
---|---|---|
Target | mid-range | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Socket Compatibility | LGA1151 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Cooler Included | No | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Overclock Potential | 8.5 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Year | 2018 Model | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Price | 198 USD | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
Number of Cores | 6 Cores | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Number of Threads | 6 Threads | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Core Frequency | 3.7 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Boost Frequency | 4.6 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Max Stable Overclock | 5 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
Power Consumption | 95 W | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Manufacturing Process | 14 nm | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
L3 Cache | 9 MB | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Maximum Supported Memory | 128 GB | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
Price-Value Score | 73 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Speed Score | 71 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Productivity Score | 45 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Gaming Score | 89 % | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Max 1080p Bottleneck | 21.8 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 1440p Bottleneck | 10.9 % | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 4K Bottleneck | 5.5 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
Overall Score | 46/100 | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
The Core i5-9600K is one of Intel's mid-range Desktop processors. It was released in 2018 with 6 cores and 6 threads. With base clock at 3.7GHz, max speed at 4.6GHz, and a 95W power rating. The Core i5-9600K is based on the Coffee Lake Refresh 14nm family and is part of the Core i5 series.
Core i5-9600K is also the successor of Intel's last gen Core i5-8600K processor that was based on the Coffee Lake and 14nm process and was released in 2017.
In our mind, the best processors are the ones that deliver outstanding performance at a reasonable price point. And, the Core i5-9600K absolutely nails this concept.
That something is the Core i5-9600K. Intel cranks the TDP dial up to 95W on this 6-core 6-thread chip, making it the high-performance counterpart to the 65W Core i5-9500, which is basically the same 14nm chip built with the Coffee Lake Refresh microarchitecture, but with a lower TDP rating. That chip came away from our first look at the Coffee Lake Refresh series with an Editor's Choice award, going toe-to-toe with AMD's Ryzen 5 3600X, 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.
As the higher-priced version of the Core i5-9500, the Core i5-9600K has higher base and Boost frequencies of 3.7 and 4.6 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 i5-9500's PPT tops out at 65W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the Core i5-9600K 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.
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 i5-9600K on hand, which in itself isn’t anything new. It’s basically a refreshed Core i5-8600K 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 3600X as it comes with a better stock cooler, can be overclocked, and the AM4 platform offers a significantly better upgrade path.
We stand by that assessment, but that won't escape us from running a few up to date benchmarks. We'll focus on gaming performance which should make life a little easier for AMD's CPU. For application performance you can refer back to our day-one coverage of the Ryzen 5 3600X where the Core i5-8600K was included. You can safely bet the 2.5% factory overclock isn’t going to make the Core i5-9600K any more than about 1-2% faster than those figures.
When it comes to gaming it’s fair to say there’s no wrong option here and the Ryzen 5 3600X and Core i5-9600K are evenly matched. The Core i5-9600K is at times faster thanks to better game support and lower latencies, but the Ryzen 5 3600X is often able to ensure smoother frame rates thanks to its support for twice as many threads.
For general computing the Ryzen 5 3600X can take advantage of multi-threading capabilities and will be considerably faster than the Core i5-9600K on heavy application workloads. Remember the Core i5-9600K is only marginally faster than the Core i5-8600K, so you can safely use the older model as a measuring stick. For rendering and encoding workloads the Ryzen 5 3600X can up to 41% faster.
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 i5-9600K can be achieved with $90 memory, while the Ryzen 5 3600X 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.
Moving beyond games, it’s an easy win for the Ryzen 5 3600X. The Ryzen 5 upgrade path on A320, B350, B450, X370, X470, X570 motherboards, all support upcoming Zen 2 processors. So if you buy a nice A320, B350, B450, X370, X470, X570 board now with the Ryzen 5 3600X, you’ll be able to slap a Coffee Lake Refresh processor on there later in the year, or whenever you deem it necessary.
For a 6-core processor, Intel’s $198 flagship Core i5-9600K processor seems downright cheap. On paper, the cost of those 0 extra cores is almost an afterthought when you stack it up against its direct competitor, the $237 6-core AMD Ryzen 5 3600X.
If extended overclocking and boost frequencies are trivial matters to you, Intel also offers the Core i5-9500 at $207. It’s still outfitted with 6-cores and 6-threads, but clocks in at a slower 3GHz and maxes out at only 4.4GHz.
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 89% in our benchmarks.
If you’ve been looking for an affordable, powerhouse CPU that both works and parties hard, this is it.
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 i5-9600K processors, which the company is making available as of Oct 2018.
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 i5-9600K.
Graphics Card | Price | Cost Per Frame | Avg 1080p | Avg 1440p | Avg 4K |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 24GB | $ 1,599 | $ 5.2 | 309.4 FPS
|
269.8 FPS
|
181.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 2.8 | 288.7 FPS
|
251.8 FPS
|
169.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB | $ 999 | $ 3.6 | 279.3 FPS
|
239 FPS
|
146.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB | $ 1,199 | $ 4.5 | 268.1 FPS
|
233.6 FPS
|
157.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB | $ 799 | $ 3.1 | 257.6 FPS
|
224.4 FPS
|
150.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT 20GB | $ 899 | $ 3.5 | 253.9 FPS
|
217.3 FPS
|
132.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB | $ 1,499 | $ 6.2 | 241 FPS
|
202.7 FPS
|
128.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT 16GB | $ 1,099 | $ 4.8 | 230.7 FPS
|
197.5 FPS
|
120.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24GB | $ 1,999 | $ 8.8 | 226.9 FPS
|
197.7 FPS
|
132.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB | $ 999 | $ 4.4 | 225.9 FPS
|
191.1 FPS
|
118.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB | $ 649 | $ 3.1 | 212.7 FPS
|
179.9 FPS
|
111.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 3.8 | 210.1 FPS
|
180.2 FPS
|
118.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB | $ 699 | $ 3.3 | 210 FPS
|
176.6 FPS
|
111.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 12GB | $ 599 | $ 3 | 202.8 FPS
|
172.4 FPS
|
114.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB | $ 599 | $ 3.3 | 180.2 FPS
|
152.8 FPS
|
98.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB | $ 579 | $ 3.4 | 168.5 FPS
|
142.5 FPS
|
88.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 3.1 | 160.7 FPS
|
135.1 FPS
|
85.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB | $ 2,499 | $ 16.9 | 147.5 FPS
|
128.1 FPS
|
81.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB | $ 1,299 | $ 9 | 143.6 FPS
|
124.7 FPS
|
79.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB | $ 479 | $ 3.4 | 141.8 FPS
|
120.8 FPS
|
74.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 8GB | $ 399 | $ 2.9 | 139.5 FPS
|
120.1 FPS
|
78.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3 | 131.6 FPS
|
113.7 FPS
|
73.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB | $ 699 | $ 5.4 | 130.3 FPS
|
112.1 FPS
|
71 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.2 | 125.7 FPS
|
107.6 FPS
|
67.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB | $ 2,999 | $ 24 | 124.9 FPS
|
108.5 FPS
|
70.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 8GB | $ 299 | $ 2.4 | 124.9 FPS
|
108.1 FPS
|
70.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB | $ 269 | $ 2.2 | 124.8 FPS
|
106.9 FPS
|
66.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB | $ 699 | $ 5.7 | 123.2 FPS
|
104.8 FPS
|
65.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB | $ 379 | $ 3.2 | 118 FPS
|
100.5 FPS
|
62.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB | $ 759 | $ 6.6 | 115.5 FPS
|
100 FPS
|
63.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB | $ 499 | $ 4.3 | 114.8 FPS
|
96.5 FPS
|
61 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB | $ 1,199 | $ 10.6 | 113.2 FPS
|
96.5 FPS
|
62.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon VII 16GB | $ 699 | $ 6.2 | 113.2 FPS
|
95.8 FPS
|
59.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.6 | 110.3 FPS
|
93.3 FPS
|
58 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 4.6 | 108.8 FPS
|
90.2 FPS
|
57.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 8GB | $ 200 | $ 1.8 | 108.8 FPS
|
93.3 FPS
|
60.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB | $ 329 | $ 3 | 108 FPS
|
91.1 FPS
|
58.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB | $ 400 | $ 3.9 | 103 FPS
|
84 FPS
|
52.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB | $ 349 | $ 3.5 | 101.1 FPS
|
85.5 FPS
|
53.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB | $ 499 | $ 5.1 | 98.1 FPS
|
81.8 FPS
|
50.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB | $ 350 | $ 3.6 | 96.9 FPS
|
77.2 FPS
|
47.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB | $ 279 | $ 2.9 | 95.3 FPS
|
80 FPS
|
49.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB | $ 1,499 | $ 16.3 | 91.9 FPS
|
75.5 FPS
|
50.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB | $ 499 | $ 5.4 | 91.7 FPS
|
77.6 FPS
|
48.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB | $ 409 | $ 4.5 | 90.9 FPS
|
75.7 FPS
|
47 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB | $ 249 | $ 2.8 | 88.9 FPS
|
73.6 FPS
|
46.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB | $ 999 | $ 11.3 | 88.4 FPS
|
72.8 FPS
|
45.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB | $ 279 | $ 3.2 | 86.5 FPS
|
72.1 FPS
|
44.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB | $ 399 | $ 4.6 | 85.9 FPS
|
72.6 FPS
|
45 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB | $ 399 | $ 4.8 | 83.7 FPS
|
69.1 FPS
|
42.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB | $ 229 | $ 2.8 | 81.5 FPS
|
68 FPS
|
42.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB | $ 649 | $ 8.4 | 76.9 FPS
|
63.8 FPS
|
39.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB | $ 220 | $ 2.9 | 76.7 FPS
|
64 FPS
|
39.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB | $ 279 | $ 3.8 | 72.8 FPS
|
58.9 FPS
|
35.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB | $ 649 | $ 9.3 | 69.9 FPS
|
60.6 FPS
|
38.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB | $ 160 | $ 2.4 | 66.8 FPS
|
55.5 FPS
|
34.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB | $ 199 | $ 3 | 66.2 FPS
|
53.6 FPS
|
32.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB | $ 549 | $ 8.3 | 65.9 FPS
|
54.1 FPS
|
33.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB | $ 229 | $ 3.5 | 64.6 FPS
|
52.2 FPS
|
31.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB | $ 649 | $ 10.2 | 63.5 FPS
|
54.2 FPS
|
34.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB | $ 999 | $ 16.2 | 61.6 FPS
|
50.1 FPS
|
32.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB | $ 549 | $ 9.2 | 60 FPS
|
51 FPS
|
31.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB | $ 254 | $ 4.2 | 59.9 FPS
|
48.8 FPS
|
30.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB | $ 169 | $ 2.8 | 59.3 FPS
|
48.1 FPS
|
29.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB | $ 429 | $ 7.4 | 57.8 FPS
|
48.9 FPS
|
30.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB | $ 170 | $ 3 | 56.8 FPS
|
46.4 FPS
|
28.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB | $ 329 | $ 5.9 | 55.9 FPS
|
45.1 FPS
|
29.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB | $ 400 | $ 7.4 | 54.3 FPS
|
45.5 FPS
|
29 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB | $ 329 | $ 6.1 | 54 FPS
|
44.6 FPS
|
26.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB | $ 169 | $ 3.2 | 53.3 FPS
|
44.1 FPS
|
26.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB | $ 149 | $ 2.9 | 50.9 FPS
|
42.1 FPS
|
26 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB | $ 179 | $ 3.8 | 47.5 FPS
|
39.5 FPS
|
24.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB | $ 229 | $ 5.7 | 40 FPS
|
32.9 FPS
|
20.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB | $ 249 | $ 6.9 | 35.9 FPS
|
29.6 FPS
|
17.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB | $ 199 | $ 5.6 | 35.6 FPS
|
29.3 FPS
|
17.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB | $ 169 | $ 4.8 | 35.1 FPS
|
29 FPS
|
18 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB | $ 279 | $ 8 | 34.8 FPS
|
28.9 FPS
|
16.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB | $ 199 | $ 5.8 | 34.3 FPS
|
28.1 FPS
|
17.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB | $ 169 | $ 5.7 | 29.9 FPS
|
24.5 FPS
|
14.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB | $ 99 | $ 3.6 | 27.6 FPS
|
22.4 FPS
|
13.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB | $ 159 | $ 5.9 | 27.1 FPS
|
21.9 FPS
|
13.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB | $ 149 | $ 5.6 | 26.6 FPS
|
20.6 FPS
|
13.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB | $ 149 | $ 5.6 | 26.4 FPS
|
19.9 FPS
|
12.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB | $ 140 | $ 5.7 | 24.4 FPS
|
19.8 FPS
|
12.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB | $ 149 | $ 6.3 | 23.5 FPS
|
17 FPS
|
10.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB | $ 79 | $ 4.1 | 19.3 FPS
|
15.7 FPS
|
9.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB | $ 79 | $ 4.3 | 18.4 FPS
|
14.9 FPS
|
8.8 FPS
|
It's not stable. What board do you have and what are your LLC settings?
Download HWInfo and monitor these values: 1. VCore voltage, 2. CPU package temperature, 3. VRM temperature (optional).
HWInfo can even open some graphs, here's how my graphs look like: https://puu.sh/FNMS3/b04491d0ca.png
My 9600kf runs at 5.2GHz at 1.368v (as reported by HWInfo).
First of all, when you start monitoring these values, check what's your actual voltage under stress test load. See if it's really 1.375v. Then also check if your CPU is not overheating. And also good idea to check if VRMs are not overheating.
My voltage not under load was 1.384 then under load was 1.36. Just adjusted LLC, and now its 1.384 not under load, now 1.376 under load. Is that good enough now?
I have a Asrock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac LGA 1151 with a i5 9600k and a Thermaltake 3.0 AIO.
In my bios, I cannot get the cpu clock to increase. I tried to multiplier and it didnt change a thing. I just need some basic tuning here. No limits pushed. I am not sure what settings I need to change to get this clock speed up and I don't want to burn anything. Please help if you can
I have a 500watt psu and every time I try and oc over 3700 ghz my pc crashes any help would be greatly appreciated
U will not get any explaination with that lack of info
Either your cpu has lost the silicon lottery or your psu can’t handle the oc
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 i5-9600K. The ~$263 Core i5-9600K lands between the $299 Ryzen 7 2700 and $225 Ryzen 5 2600X. Inexplicably, Intel raised the -9600K's price by $5 compared to its previous-gen Core i5-8600K.
Buy Intel Core i5-9600K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.6 GHz Turbo unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W: CPU Processors - Amazon.com FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
Intel’s Core i5-8600K has been one of the top gaming CPUs ever since it came out at the end of 2017. Now, however, there’s a new best gaming CPU in town in the form of its 9th Gen Coffee Lake successor, the Core i5-9600K.. Priced at a very competitive £220 / $230 at time of writing, Intel’s Core i5-9600K is a tough act to beat – especially when AMD’s upcoming Ryzen 5 3600X CPU is ...
The Core i5 9600K on its end is the entry-level product with a boost towards 4.6 GHz And with six logical cores, this might become a very attractive gaming processor. For multithreaded ...
The Intel Core i5-9600K is a mid-range 6-core desktop processor targeted at gamer enthusiasts, a user segment that mainly games on their PC, but has an understanding of hardware tweaking with the want to eke out a little more performance over time.
Test System & Configuration: Hardware: Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 ...
i5 9600k Prime95 errors - Help please
Hello
I've overclocked my i5 9600k to 4.9ghz with 1.375v. -1 AVX. But i kept getting whea uncorrectable error. So as advised I lowered clock to 4.8ghz. I ran prime 95 on 4.9ghz and then on 4.8ghz, second test is 0 AVX. Both test fixed over all cores.
So to be clear, first test results are 4.9ghz 1.375v -1 AVX. Second set of results below is 4.8ghz 1.375v 0 Avx.
These were the results:
[Wed May 20 20:45:51 2020]
FATAL ERROR: Final result was 01EF9848, expected: 87610A79.
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 1.154252334, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
Self-test 288K passed!
Self-test 288K passed!
Self-test 288K passed!
Self-test 288K passed!
[Wed May 20 21:03:29 2020]
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.4865316838, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
Self-test 288K passed!
FATAL ERROR: Final result was A4F988E5, expected: BA409794.
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
Self-test 288K passed!
Self-test 288K passed!
Self-test 288K passed!
Does this mean its unstable? This voltage is really high compared with other people. I could pull the OC back again to 4.7 but everyone says i5 9600k is capable of 5ghz easily usually, 4.9 minimum?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated