21 months ago
I was just curious Ive heard mixed results
Depends what they are used for. Gaming wise the 8600K will rule. Extra threads on the 1600x will beat out the 8600k with productivity work.
The i5-8600K would lead on the most productivity applications as well. ;)
Thx for answer!
Interesting... synthetic benchmarks must not show the whole picture as it showed 1600x a little ahead.
Thanks for the info.
If you see under the productivity benchmarks, the i5-8600K should perform faster on the most tests.
This was the main reason, why i posted the link to the benchmarks. ;)
This is what I've heard thx!
Get the 1600X for having a future proof platform to build at.
Or even better, wait for the new Ryzen 2000 series CPUs. ;)
No problem ;)
Yeah, I agree with Mark. As of this reply, the ryzen 2 cpus launch this week, I believe.
Hard to beat the 8600k running at a smooth 5Ghz on all 6 cores. Both good options but I do love my 8600k. Have fun
Hard to compare as they do not share equal implementation costs. In a stock-clock-vs-stock-clock setup, the 8600K is going to be ~$60 more to implement. There's no real point overclocking the 1600X, so if we compare it to an overclocked 8600K, the implementation cost of the 8600K can be upwards of ~$100 more than the 1600X. Stock vs Stock, they trade blows depending on workload, with the 8600K leading in real-time workloads like gaming. When we overclock the 8600K, it will match or beat the 1600X in almost all workloads.
The cost to implement a stock clocked 8600K is closer to that of implementing a Ryzen 7 1700, while the cost to implement an overclocked 8600K is more in the realm of implementing a 1700X. In either comparison, the 8600K holds the lead for real-time workload performance and lightly threaded workload performance, while the Ryzen 7 pulls ahead in heavily threaded workloads.