Core i7-9700F vs Ryzen 5 2600

CPU

GPU

Core i7-9700F

8 Cores8 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.7 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Ryzen 5 2600

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-9700F

8 / 8

13,165

+0.2%

13,145

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700F

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 66.1 PassMark/$ ($323 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 2600.

Ryzen 5 2600

2018

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $124 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $323 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.1 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $323 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-9700F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,145 vs 13,165).

Core i7-9700F

2019

Ryzen 5 2600

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $124 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $323 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.1 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $323 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-9700F.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 66.1 PassMark/$ ($323 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 2600.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,145 vs 13,165).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700F better than Ryzen 5 2600?

Yes. Core i7-9700F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 17.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 17.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700F is the better fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i7-9700F is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 5 2600 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i7-9700F is 62.3% more expensive on MSRP at $323 MSRP versus $199 MSRP, and it gives you a 17.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 5 2600 is also 62.1% better value on MSRP (66.1 vs 40.8 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible AM4 + DDR4 setup, Ryzen 5 2600 can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i7-9700F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2018) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 5 2600 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
1080p
low	190 FPS	183 FPS
medium	154 FPS	157 FPS
high	126 FPS	127 FPS
ultra	103 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	154 FPS	152 FPS
medium	121 FPS	125 FPS
high	98 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	86 FPS	68 FPS
medium	73 FPS	60 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i7-9700F Open Ryzen 5 2600

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
1080p
low	329 FPS	263 FPS
medium	329 FPS	227 FPS
high	329 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	305 FPS	162 FPS
1440p
low	329 FPS	236 FPS
medium	329 FPS	206 FPS
high	316 FPS	183 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	151 FPS
4K
low	329 FPS	186 FPS
medium	276 FPS	165 FPS
high	255 FPS	146 FPS
ultra	221 FPS	111 FPS

Open Core i7-9700F Open Ryzen 5 2600

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
1080p
low	329 FPS	329 FPS
medium	329 FPS	329 FPS
high	329 FPS	329 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	329 FPS
1440p
low	329 FPS	329 FPS
medium	329 FPS	329 FPS
high	329 FPS	322 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	268 FPS
4K
low	329 FPS	304 FPS
medium	329 FPS	248 FPS
high	329 FPS	215 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	167 FPS

Open Core i7-9700F Open Ryzen 5 2600

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
1080p
low	329 FPS	329 FPS
medium	329 FPS	329 FPS
high	329 FPS	329 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	329 FPS
1440p
low	329 FPS	329 FPS
medium	329 FPS	329 FPS
high	329 FPS	329 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	329 FPS
4K
low	329 FPS	329 FPS
medium	329 FPS	329 FPS
high	329 FPS	329 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	310 FPS

Open Core i7-9700F Open Ryzen 5 2600

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700F and Ryzen 5 2600

Core i7-9700F

The Core i7-9700F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 13,165 points. Launch price was $323.

Ryzen 5 2600

The Ryzen 5 2600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 19 April 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,145 points. Launch price was $199.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700F packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Ryzen 5 2600 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i7-9700F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.7 GHz on the Core i7-9700F versus 3.9 GHz on the Ryzen 5 2600 — a 18.6% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700F (base: 3 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i7-9700F uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 2600 uses Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) (12 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700F scores 13,165 against the Ryzen 5 2600's 13,145 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i7-9700F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 2600.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.7 GHz+21%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz	3.4 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	3 MB+1100%
Process	14 nm	12 nm-14%
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018)
PassMark	13,165	13,145
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	6,344
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,163
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	4,893

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700F uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 5 2600 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
Socket	LGA1151	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	—	64 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core i7-9700F) / Yes (Ryzen 5 2600). Primary use case: Ryzen 5 2600 targets General Productivity. Direct competitor: Ryzen 5 2600 rivals Core i5-9400.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Ryzen 5 2600
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	Yes
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	Yes
Target Use	—	General Productivity

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700F launched at $323 MSRP, while the Ryzen 5 2600 debuted at $199. On MSRP ($323 vs $199), the Ryzen 5 2600 is $124 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700F delivers 40.8 pts/$ vs 66.1 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 2600 — making the Ryzen 5 2600 the 47.4% better value option.