Intel Core i5-9600 vs Intel Core i7-8809G Comparison

The Intel Core i5-9600 and Intel Core i7-8809G are both 65W Intel parts, but the benchmark data separates them clearly. The i5-9600 wins every single head-to-head benchmark, with a consistent performance advantage of roughly 13% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. The i7-8809G is not a faster processor; it is a mobile-focused part that trades raw CPU throughput for integrated graphics capability. For any task that prioritizes CPU compute, the i5-9600 is the definitive choice. The i7-8809G only makes sense if the integrated Radeon RX Vega M GH graphics are the primary requirement, as the i5-9600’s UHD 630 is a far less capable integrated solution.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-9600 is the superior CPU in this comparison. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the i5-9600 wins by a margin of 13.3% to 13.4%. In multi-core workloads, this is driven by its six physical cores versus the i7-8809G’s four cores. In single-core tests, the i5-9600’s higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, compared to 4.20 GHz, provides the edge. The i7-8809G, despite having eight threads through Hyper-Threading, cannot overcome the raw core-count deficit.

The i7-8809G is a niche product. It is a mobile segment processor with a BGA 2270 socket, meaning it is soldered to a board and not a drop-in upgrade for a desktop system. Its only redeeming feature is the integrated Radeon RX Vega M GH graphics, which is a significant step up from the UHD 630 found in the i5-9600. However, for a pure CPU performance perspective, the i7-8809G loses every benchmark. The i5-9600 is the pick for anyone building a desktop system who needs the best possible CPU performance at this 65W level. The i7-8809G is only for users who need a compact, all-in-one package with strong integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-9600 wins in every CPU-bound task. Its six cores and six threads, combined with a 4.50 GHz boost clock, deliver superior performance in both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded applications. The data shows a 13.3% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, a 13.3% lead in R20 multi-core, and a 13.3% lead in R23 multi-core. For single-core performance, the margins are similar: 12.7% in R15, 13.4% in R20, and 13.3% in R23. The i5-9600 is the clear winner for rendering, compiling, and any workload that scales with core count or clock speed.

The Intel Core i7-8809G wins in one specific scenario: graphics. It is the only one of the two with a Radeon RX Vega M GH integrated GPU. This is not a benchmark in the provided data, but it is a hardware fact that defines its purpose. The i5-9600 is limited to UHD 630 integrated graphics. For users who need to run modern games or GPU-accelerated applications without a discrete graphics card, the i7-8809G is the only viable option. It is also a mobile part, making it suitable for compact laptops or mini-PCs, though this comes at the cost of being permanently attached to the motherboard.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, but they belong to different architectural families. The i5-9600 is based on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, while the i7-8809G is based on Kaby Lake, under the Kaby Lake G codename. This architectural split explains the performance gap. The i5-9600 has six cores and six threads, whereas the i7-8809G has four cores and eight threads. The i5-9600’s two additional physical cores are the primary reason for its multi-core lead.

The cache configurations also differ. The i5-9600 has a larger L3 cache of 9 MB (shared), compared to the i7-8809G’s 8 MB (shared). Both have identical L1 and L2 caches at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively. The i5-9600 supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i7-8809G’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the data. The i5-9600 also has a PCIe Gen 3 connection with 16 lanes from the CPU, whereas the i7-8809G’s PCIe configuration is not listed. The i5-9600 is a desktop part with an Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-8809G is a mobile part soldered to an Intel BGA 2270 socket.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-9600. It wins every multi-core benchmark: 820 vs 724 in Cinebench R15, 3419 vs 3017 in R20, and 8141 vs 7185 in R23, each by a margin of 13.3%.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-8809G faster in single-core tests?

A: No. The i5-9600 wins all single-core tests as well, with scores of 115 vs 102 in R15, 482 vs 425 in R20, and 1149 vs 1014 in R23. The deltas range from 12.7% to 13.4%.

Q: What is the main advantage of the i7-8809G?

A: Its integrated graphics. The i7-8809G features a Radeon RX Vega M GH, while the i5-9600 only has UHD 630. This makes the i7-8809G more capable for graphics-heavy tasks without a discrete GPU.

Q: Are these processors interchangeable in the same system?

A: No. The i5-9600 uses an Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-8809G uses an Intel BGA 2270. The i7-8809G is a mobile part that is soldered to the board, while the i5-9600 is a desktop part designed for socket installation.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The i5-9600 has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which is higher than the i7-8809G’s 4.20 GHz. This contributes to its single-core performance advantage.

Q: What is the production status of these chips?

A: The i5-9600 is End-of-life, while the i7-8809G is listed as Active. The i5-9600 was released in October 2018, while the i7-8809G was released in January 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-9600. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-9600 scores 820 against the i7-8809G’s 724, a 13.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 115 vs 102, a 12.7% win for the i5-9600. Moving to Cinebench R20, the i5-9600 scores 3419 vs 3017 in multi-core, again a 13.3% lead, and 482 vs 425 in single-core, a 13.4% lead.

The largest single-core margin is in R20, where the i5-9600 is 13.4% ahead. The largest multi-core margin is also 13.3%, shared across R15, R20, and R23. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 8141 for the i5-9600 and 7185 for the i7-8809G. The R23 single-core test shows 1149 vs 1014, a 13.3% difference. The average benchmark score for the i5-9600 is 2354, while the i7-8809G’s average is 2307. This puts the i5-9600 at a 2% overall average score advantage, despite its clean sweep in the head-to-head Cinebench tests. The i7-8809G does have additional Geekbench scores (4590 multi-core, 1401 single-core) that are not present for the i5-9600, but these do not affect the head-to-head comparison.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key specifications where the two processors differ.

| Specification | Intel Core i5-9600 | Intel Core i7-8809G |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel BGA 2270 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Kaby Lake |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Kaby Lake G |

| Generation | Core i5 (Coffee Lake Refresh) | Core i7 (Kaby Lake-G) |

| L3 Cache | 9 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Not specified |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | Not specified |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Not specified |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 | Radeon RX Vega M GH |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2018-10-18 | 2018-01-31 |

The base clock is identical at 3.10 GHz for both. Both processors share the same 65W TDP, 14 nm process node, and lack ECC memory support. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i5-9600 has a larger L3 cache and a higher boost clock. The i7-8809G has more threads (8 vs 6) but fewer physical cores. The i5-9600 is a desktop part with a standard socket, while the i7-8809G is a mobile part with a BGA socket. The integrated graphics are the most significant functional difference, with the i7-8809G featuring the Radeon RX Vega M GH. The i5-9600 also carries a part number (SR3X2), while the i7-8809G’s part number is not listed in the data.