Intel i5-9600K vs i7-9700K Comparison – 6 or 8 CPU Cores?
Lets start out With the specs., The key difference is that the i5 9600K has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i7 9700K has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither has hyperthreading available.. The 9600K has a slightly higher base clock, but at stock the single core turbo boost of the 9700K is 300MHz higher.. When all cores are loaded up. The 9700K still has a 300MHz higher boost clock and the 9700K also has 33 more cache.. Both CPUs were tested in the exact same system, so the only difference was the CPUs making this as apples to apples as possible.. Both CPUs were tested with the MSI Z'0 ACE motherboard, with 16gb of DDR4 3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14, with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks. Ive tested, both with the same cooler, the Fractal S36 AIO, with Noctua NT H1 paste for Both CPUs. Testing was completed with the same version of Windows, Nvidia drivers and BIOS for each CPU, as well. Ive tested both CPUs at stock and overclocked to 5.1GHz at 1.35v. So we can see how this helps improve performance.. With that in mind, well, first check out the differences in various applications, as well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions. Afterwards, then finish up by comparing some performance per dollar metrics to see which is worth it. Lets start out with Cinebench R20. Ive got the overclocked results on the upper half of the graph and the stock results on the lower half.
In the single core results shown By the lighter purple bars, the 9700K was 5.5 ahead of the 9600K. Due to the 300MHz difference in clock, speed under single core workloads. Once both are overclocked to the same 5.1GHz, though theres much less, of a difference with the 9700K now just 0.9 ahead.. In terms of multicore performance theres, a much bigger difference between the two owing to the 9700K having two more cores available. At stock, the 9700K was 43 ahead of the 9600K, but once we overclock them to the same speed, the gap closes and the difference is closer To 35., Although Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the newer R20 just covered, I wanted to also include the results of this too, as many people havent moved to 20. Yet this will allow you to compare my results with others. Again in single core. There was a 5 higher score with the 9700K at stock, then, with both overclocked to 5.1GHz. The same score was achieved with either chip.. The multicore score was 42 higher, with the 9700K at stock dropping back a bit to a 35 difference when both are overclocked. So similar differences to R20. Ive tested the Blender, BMW and Classroom benchmarks and as a test that works better with more threads, its another clear win for the 9700K. At stock. The 9700K is completing the BMW test, 44, faster and 45 faster in the Classroom test. The largest difference out of all of the upcoming tests.
Once overclocked, although Blender, still sees some of the biggest differences. These results drop down to a 38 and 35 lead respectively. On the 9700K., Handbrake was used to convert a 4K file to 1080p and then a different 1080p file to 720p.. This is another workload that benefits from more threads, so at stock settings were seeing the 9700K perform 38 faster for the 4K conversion and 37 faster for 1080p.. When overclocked the gap lowers to a 31 and 30 increase respectively. With the 9700K. Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 1080p. As a workload that typically benefits from more CPU cores. The 9700K was completing the task around 27, faster at stock and 17, faster with both CPUs overclocked. Again theres. Less of a difference with the overclocks applied, as both CPUs now have the same clock speed of 5.1GHz, whereas at stock there was more of a difference. Ive, also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere. Basically, this processes a video file to smooth it out.. This is a single core workload, which is why the 9700K was able to complete the task 6 faster at stock, but then with both CPUs at 5.1GHz, the difference was only a second, as single core speeds are now. The same. Ive used 7 Zip to test compression and decompression speeds and at stock the 9700K was 43 faster when it came to decompression but 30 ahead at compression. Ive seen many CPUs actually get lower results when overclocked in this test – and this was happening to compression Speed with the 9700K resulting in it only seeing a 10 lead over the 9600K.
However, decompression speed was still a fair bit better. With the 9700K scoring 31 faster. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and at stock the 9700K was 42 faster for both encryption and decryption.. Once overclocked, the 9600K sees a larger improvement as its clock. Speed was lower at stock now putting the 9700K 34 faster than the 9600K.. The V Ray benchmark renders out a scene and relies on thread count to boost performance.. As a result of this, the 9700K is out in front as expected, with a 42 higher score at stock and lower, but still respectable 34 lead with both CPUs overclocked.. The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene and as another test that scales well over multiple threads, its giving us one of the highest improvements with the 9700K at stock, completing the task 44.5 faster than the 9600K., Like the other multicore benchmarks, with both Cpus overclocked, we can see the gap narrow and the 9700K now has a 33 lead over the 9600K.. I dont typically test Geekbench, but a few of you requested it on my previous CPU comparison. So here it is. Single core performance at stock was similar to other single core tests. With the 9700K seeing a 5 higher score over the 9600K, then both get around the same result once overclocked to the same 5.1GHz.. The multicore performance saw one of the lower differences at stock with the 9700K 31 ahead of the 9600K lowering to a 24 higher score once the overclocks are applied to both.
. These are the differences between the 9600K and 9700K CPUs in all of these applications. As we can see, it really depends on the specific workload. At stock. In all of these tests, the 9700K was coming out ahead as expected. Not only does it have two extra cores, but its also capable of higher clock speeds and has more cache too.. Most of these are multicore workloads except the four down the bottom, which are single core. Once we overclock both CPUs to 5.1GHz on all cores the differences between the two CPUs narrow in a bit.. This is because at stock theres, a 300MHz difference between both CPUs, both under single core or all core workloads., While overclocked, both chips were now running at the same speeds, so the only difference was the increased core count of the 9700K.. This is why the four single core tests towards the bottom show much less of a difference now.. Additionally, the difference in multicore performance has closed in a little too compared to the stock results. We just saw. Ive, also measured total system power draw from the wall while running the Blender Classroom benchmark. At stock. The 9700K required 32 more power, but this seems pretty fair when you consider that it was also completing the task. 45, faster too., Once both are overclocked to 5.1GHz. The power difference between them drops back a little with the 9700K now using 28.5 more power and in blender, specifically, the 9700K was 35 faster than the 9600K.
. These are the CPU temperatures with the same blender tests running.. Both at stock and while overclocked the 9700K was a little warmer as expected. It does have 33 more cores, afterall. Theres, less of a temperature difference once both are overclocked, though, as there was a larger clock, speed gap between them at stock. Lets get into the gaming results. Next Ive tested these games at all setting levels at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions and just as a reminder, Im also using a 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as I can. Well start off with stock results, then check out overclocked performance, afterwards. Shadow of The Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark. In all upcoming gaming graphs, Ive got the 9700K shown by the blue bars and the 9600K in red. Ive also tested all of the default setting presets available, which are shown on the left of the graph.. In this game, the 9700K was ahead at all setting levels with a 10 lead at highest settings at 1080p. At 1440p were more GPU bound, so the CPU starts to make less of a difference.. The lower setting levels tend to also be less GPU bound, so theres more of a difference there, while at highest settings the 9700K was just 3 FPS ahead of the 9600K or 2.7 faster. Assassins. Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark and, as this is a CPU heavy test were seeing big gains with the 9700K.
At max settings. The 9700K was scoring 18.5 higher average FPS when compared to the 9600K and was over 25 ahead at low settings.. At 1440p again, the lower setting presets see a larger increase with the 9700K, as these will typically be more CPU bound, but at higher settings theres much less of a difference. Now. With maximum settings. The 1 low was the same on either CPU with a much smaller 5.6 higher average FPS. With the 9700K., Far Cry. New Dawn was tested with the built in benchmark and at 1080p there wasnt that much of a difference between the two. At ultra settings. The 9700K was scoring just 6 higher average FPS and this seems to drop down with lower settings.. Interestingly, at 1440p theres, now more of a difference between the two as the 9700K is now 9.7 faster at max settings. But this was the only game tested where I actually saw a bigger difference between the two chips at 1440p. Watch. Dogs. 2 is a game that loves CPU power, so were seeing a pretty big difference between the two CPUs in this game. At 1080p there was a 21 higher average frame rate with the 9700K, and similar improvements were seen at the other setting levels too. At 1440p. Theres, less of a difference in average FPS with less than a 5 lead with the 9700K. Now, however, the differences to 1 lows are more pronounced. The 9700K was still 18 ahead in this regard.
At ultra settings. CSGO is known to be a game that prefers CPU power, so Ive tested it with the Ulletical FPS benchmark.. At 1080p, the 9700K was scoring 13 higher average frame rates, though the 1 lows were much closer together with just a 5 difference. At 1440p. Theres a larger difference at the lower setting levels, but at max settings the 9700K was only 4 ahead of the 9600K, with essentially the same 1 low, performance. Ive, also tested out Rainbow. Six Siege, with the built in benchmark. At 1080p, were almost seeing no difference between the two CPUs in terms of average frame rate. The 9700K was just 0.3 faster though it does have a bigger edge in terms of 1 low and more of a difference is also seen at lower settings. At 1440p, where were presumably more GPU bound theres less of a difference in terms of average FPS at most Setting levels at ultra, the 9700K was just 1 faster. Putting this game in last place in terms of differences out of all the games, Im comparing. Out of all 6 games tested were looking at an 11 higher average frame rate with the 9700K at highest setting levels. At 1080p., Some CPU heavy games like Watch Dogs, 2 and Assassins Creed Odyssey saw a massive improvement with the 9700K, while others like Rainbow Six Siege were much more minimal. It really varies by game. At 1440p, as we typically start to become more GPU bound.
The difference between the two CPUs lowers slightly to around a 4.6 improvement with the 9700K, but again it really depends on the specific game and even how it was tested.. This does, however, show that theres far less of a difference between the two CPUs. As we step the resolution up, the CPU would be even less important at 4K. Thats stock settings. So what about with both CPUs overclocked As testing? Every single setting level takes a long time. Ive just picked one setting to test overclocked results at 1080p. In most cases, I picked one level down from maximum, as we saw in many cases. Max was more GPU bound, so there was less of a difference between the CPUs. Assassins. Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark and is a CPU heavy test.. This is why, at stock, the 9700K was scoring 25 higher average frame rate than the 9600K. However, once we overclock both CPUs to the same 5.1GHz across all cores, its lead lowers to 19. Far Cry New Dawn, barely saw a difference with the 9700K once overclocked and the frame rate was actually lower on the 9600K. Something Ive seen from many different CPUs in this particular test.. For that reason, this was the only game tested where the 9700Ks lead actually grew with both overclocked. Shadow of the Tomb Raider only saw the 9700K result improve by 3 FPS once overclocked. Meanwhile, the 9600K had a larger 8 FPS boost, making the 9700K 12 faster at stock, lowering to 8 higher FPS with both CPUs overclocked.
Watch Dogs 2 saw big improvements with the 9700K, with both CPUs at stock. It was almost 28 ahead of the 9600K in average frame rate, but once both are overclocked, this lowers to a 17 lead.. This is still quite a large difference. The extra cores really seem to help this game, but in terms of gains from overclocking, the 9600K does gain more ground here. In CSGO. The frame rates are already pretty insane regardless of CPU. However, at stock the 9700K was 15 ahead of the 9600K, but when we overclock both of them to the same clock speed, the 9700K is now just 8.5 ahead of the 9600K. Rainbow. Six Siege only saw minor changes.. The 9600K was able to hit the average frame rate of the stock 9700K once overclocked, but in both cases the 9700K was still only around 2 ahead, though the 9700K had a slightly higher 1 low compared to the differences seen in the averages.. These are the differences between these games at stock shown by the purple bars and when overclocked shown by the red bars.. Basically, in these 6 games at stock, the 9700K is 14.8 faster than the 9600K, but if we overclock both to the same 5.1GHz speed, the 9600K catches up a bit meaning. The 9700K is now 11 faster. When it comes down to it. When paired with a good GPU like weve got here, I dont think theres really going to be a noticeable difference in games.
As weve. Seen, though, it does of course depend on the specific game.. Some seem to really make use of more than 6 cores and see a larger advantage with the 9700K, while with other games, it hardly made a difference.. This is only a small number of games. The purpose isnt to definitively say how much faster the 9700K is, but to show how it can differ. In both gaming and other application workloads. The 9700K was almost always ahead of the 9600K as expected. Its got two more cores. More cache and higher clock speeds at stock, though I was able to overclock both to the same speed., Just because its better doesnt mean its the best option, though we need to factor in prices. At the time of recording. The 9600K goes for 245 USD on Newegg, while the 9700K is 120 more at 365 USD.. These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p averaged out over all 6 games tested.. Basically, this just shows that the 9600K is better in terms of value. Its 120 USD cheaper., This doesnt factor in additional costs such as motherboard or cooling, but given these are costs, both CPU would need, as neither include cooling. I think this is a fair comparison.. These are the dollar per frame values when we factor in overclocking., The gap between them gets bigger as overclocking. The 9600K allows it to improve more than the 9700K, which already has a higher clock, speed out of the box.
, Its not all about gaming, though, as we saw earlier, many applications benefit more from the extra cores the 9700K has more so when compared to gaming.. These are the cost per frame values while exporting a 4K video file to 1080p, with Handbrake. Ive chosen. This particular test, as it was around the middle of applications tested in terms of results, plus its a very real and common workload. Compared to the gaming results. The cost per frame values are closer together here. The extra two cores with the 9700K help make up the difference.. It might not look like that. Much has changed, but once overclocked, the 9700K is 15 more expensive compared to the 9600K in terms of cost per frame. In this workload, this is compared to the 8 more it cost based on the stock results.. This is because, like weve seen throughout the whole video, the 9600K has better overclock potential, though you will need to factor in decent cooling if you want to get either of these chips to 5GHz or above.. Although the 9600K is better in a pure value, sense, its going to perform slower as a result and more so in thread, heavy applications compared to gaming due to the lower core count. So youll have to decide if its worth paying more for the extra cores. Based on current prices, the 9700K costs 49 more money than the 9600K and were only really seeing a similar boost to performance in multicore workloads like Blender at stock.
, While 6 cores is fine. At the moment for most games, some games tested here are clearly seeing a benefit from 8 cores and it wasnt long ago that 4 cores was plenty for gaming.. As this trend of higher core count CPUs continues. Games will also continue to eventually take advantage of these resources, so I would expect to see the 9700K performing even better than the 9600K in a year or two from now with modern games.. If you only care about the best gaming performance today, the 9700K will give you that and due to the extra cores, its also more likely to last longer too. However, it does cost more. The 9600K definitely offers better value and still performs quite well, so its going to come down to your needs and budget. Otherwise, outside of gaming for multicore workloads such as 3D rendering and the like. The extra cores can be a big advantage, although, as weve seen in my other comparisons, Ryzen based CPUs are better bang for buck there anyway., Let me know which CPU youd pick and why down in the comments the Intel, i5, 9600K or more expensive, i7 9700K, with Two extra cores Im really interested to hear which youd go. For. Ive got more CPU comparisons on the way. So, if youre new to the channel youll definitely want to get subscribed for those, as well as future tech.