Which CPU should you pick, the Intel i5-9600K, or is it worth paying more for the i7-9700K?
In this detailed comparison you’ll see the differences between them in games and applications,
both at stock and while overclocked to help you decide which to get.
Let’s 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 Z390 ACE motherboard
with 16gb of DDR4-3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14 with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti
to reduce GPU bottlenecks. I’ve 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.
I’ve 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 we’ll 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.
Let’s start out with Cinebench R20. I’ve 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, there’s much less of a difference,
with the 9700K now just 0.9% ahead. In terms of multicore performance there’s 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Although Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the newer R20 just covered, I wanted to also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 haven’t 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.
I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and as a test that works better
with more threads it’s 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 we’re
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 there’s 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.
I’ve 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.
I’ve 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. I’ve 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 it’s
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 there’s 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.
I’ve 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.
There’s less of a temperature difference once both are overclocked though, as there
was a larger clock speed gap between them at stock.
Let’s get into the gaming results next, I’ve tested these games at all setting levels
at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, and just as a reminder I’m also using a 2080 Ti to
reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as I can. We’ll 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 I’ve got the 9700K shown by the blue bars and the 9600K in red. I’ve 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 we’re 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 there’s more of a difference
there, while at highest settings the 9700K was just 3 FPS ahead of the 9600K, or 2.7%
faster.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark, and as this is
a CPU heavy test we’re 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 there’s
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 wasn’t
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 there’s 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 we’re 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
there’s 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.
CS:GO is known to be a game that prefers CPU power, so I’ve 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 there’s 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.
I’ve also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with the built in benchmark. At 1080p we’re 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 we’re presumably more GPU
bound there’s 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 I’m comparing.
Out of all 6 games tested we’re 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
Assassin’s 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 there’s far less of a difference between
the two CPUs as we step the resolution up, the CPU would be even less important at 4K.
That’s stock settings, so what about with both CPUs overclocked? As testing every single
setting level takes a long time I’ve 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.
Assassin’s 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 I’ve seen from many different CPUs in this
particular test. For that reason, this was the only game tested where the 9700K’s 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 CS:GO 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 we’ve got here I don’t
think there’s really going to be a noticeable difference in games. As we’ve 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 isn’t 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. It’s 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 it’s better doesn’t mean
it’s 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, it’s $120 USD cheaper. This
doesn’t 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.
It’s 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. I’ve chosen
this particular test as it was around the middle of applications tested in terms of
results, plus it’s 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 we’ve 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, it’s going to perform slower as a
result, and more so in thread heavy applications compared to gaming due to the lower core count,
so you’ll have to decide if it’s worth paying more for the extra cores. Based on
current prices, the 9700K costs 49% more money than the 9600K, and we’re 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 wasn’t 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 it’s also more likely to last longer too, however it does cost more,
the 9600K definitely offers better value and still performs quite well, so it’s 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
we’ve seen in my other comparisons, Ryzen based CPUs are better bang for buck there
anyway.
Let me know which CPU you’d pick and why down in the comments, the Intel i5-9600K,
or more expensive i7-9700K with two extra cores? I’m really interested to hear which
you’d go for. I’ve got more CPU comparisons on the way, so if you’re new to the channel
you’ll definitely want to get subscribed for those as well as future tech videos like
this one.