Minimal Cinebench (~650) shows strong gameplay after upgrading to a 9600k processor.
Minimal Cinebench (~650) shows strong gameplay after upgrading to a 9600k processor.
Hello, last weekend I upgraded from a Ryzen 7 1700X to an i5-9600K. My new graphics card is an Asus Prime Z390-A. Both were purchased used, but the seller claimed they hadn’t been used before. He ended up getting a fresh board and chip, which I accepted at face value. After setting everything up—booting BIOS, updating drivers, refreshing firmware—I started in CoD Warzone. Unfortunately, I struggled to hit 80 FPS with an RTX 2070, settling around 60 FPS at lower settings. I also noticed my CPU usage stayed at 100% during gameplay. When I tried other titles like Rocket League, World of Warcraft, and Apex, there were no problems. I ran Cinebench R15, which gave a disappointing score of 638—far below expectations. Given that CoD is more demanding than the others, I’m concerned my chip might be failing. While testing at full temperature and with no background processes running, I didn’t see any other issues. Any advice or insights? No overclocking or XMP enabled, but I experimented with XMP without success.
Confirm if it's indeed a 9600k. Right now, check if it utilizes all cores—possibly only some are active.
Suggesting warzone likely requires more threads than usual, while the 9600k feels less suitable for gaming and even worse for productivity versus the 1700x benchmark. This might relate to reduced frame rates. I noticed a comparable problem when jumping from an 1800x to a 7700k @5.1ghz—most games ran slower, particularly titles like Siege or Warzone that seem more CPU-heavy.
I assumed this would work and expected fewer than 40 lost frames between the two, but it turned out to be worse than anticipated. Additionally, there was no frame speed increase when changing between 1440p and 1080p, which was unexpected.