AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

[rasmusdf]

Nice review - will be interesting to see how the next "Best CPUs" list will reflect on this.

Good consideration on effect of old/new games.

 

[Linkspike]

I have the 1600 and i have seen how it core speed rize until 3700Mhz in two cores at the same time. Is striking that it doesnt appears in the specifications of de cpu

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...

I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.

Me and some fellow redditors just scourged for weeks over all the pre-release and leaked material trying to understand the meaning of the X, and the first hypothesis was towards XFR, but it wasn't explicit in any of the material that we had available. It was clear that X models have XFR, but nowhere it was said that non-X models didn't have it. Still I find it weird for you to point it out as an unknown this late in an article when the 1700 clearly supports XFR and was launched about 3 months ago...

Here, have a look at my watermarked reviewers guide.
.
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR1.jpg

http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR2.jpg

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It just implies that is not available in non-X processors by saying that it is available in X's and isn't available in all the lineup. As we still has to see the full lineup, maybe some R3 won't have it... Or maybe the Ryzen APUs?. It's not explicit or categorical. We had the same slides, by the way.

http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR3.jpg

It may just be confusing marketing, but much of the information points to XFR on X-SKUs only.

 

[$hawn]

How there's come no Intel vs AMD power comparisons like you guys used to have in your articles before?
Is it because Intel loses the efficiency battle this time around, and Intel pays you to not add it to your review?

 

[10tacle]

^^Always a complainer in the house. Google is your friend and you might want to do more research out there than just making broad baseless accusations. And based on these results, I'd say Toms had nothing to hide whatsoever in Intel vs. AMD power consumption for whatever reason of the omission:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/18.html

 

[thebytemaster]

^^ Of course, you conveniently leave out a pretty important point when defending toms.
Those are AMD's 6-core and 8-core processors vs inte's 4-core processors. If you look at the performance per watt, it's an absolute massacre.

 

[Sakkura]

How there's come no Intel vs AMD power comparisons like you guys used to have in your articles before?
Is it because Intel loses the efficiency battle this time around, and Intel pays you to not add it to your review?

They have power consumption comparisons in their earlier Ryzen reviews, it's probably just getting a bit unnecessary to test.

 

[10tacle]

^^ Of course, you conveniently leave out a pretty important point when defending toms.
Those are AMD's 6-core and 8-core processors vs inte's 4-core processors. If you look at the performance per watt, it's an absolute massacre.

And you conveniently forget that these 6-core chips are marketed against Intel's 4-core 7-series. So it's irrelevant.

 

[thebytemaster]

^^ Of course, you conveniently leave out a pretty important point when defending toms.
Those are AMD's 6-core and 8-core processors vs inte's 4-core processors. If you look at the performance per watt, it's an absolute massacre.

And you conveniently forget that these 6-core chips are marketed against Intel's 4-core 7-series. So it's irrelevant.

Yes? So? Better perf/watt is better perf/watt.
I don't see how the 6-cores being marketed against intel's 4-cores changes this?

 

[10tacle]

Yes? So? Better perf/watt is better perf/watt. I don't see how the 6-cores being marketed against intel's 4-cores changes this?

From a technical standpoint you are correct. But when you are looking at buying an overclocking chip, power consumption per core is not even on the radar (good for laptops of course). Also keep in mind that Intel has not released a new 6 or 8 core chip yet for Kaby Lake (or Skylake). The last release were the 6-series Broadwell-E's in 5th generation platform which were power hogs without question. So we'll have to see what Intel trots out later this summer to compare.

Toms just can't win apparently. And again, it doesn't take much effort to go find another Ryzen review, like one of the X-series, and then find a review from last year of Intel's 6-core i7 6950X:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/10

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/2

Oh and while you are in complain mode, you may want to go over to Guru3D and tell them they are hiding something to for Intel bias since they too didn't report per core watt consumption/performance:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_1600_review,7.html

 

[none12345]

I personaly dont care about power consumption(within reason).

With bulldozer every review was hammering how bad buldozer was on power usage. And its deserved, its performance/watt is a lot worse then intel. Since that was the case, one would think there would be a high priority to test ryzen to see if AMD fixed it. Yet curiously its missing from most reviews. AMD not only fixed it, but they currently have the lead on performance/watt. It would seem that if AMD loses on power its a HUGE deal, and if they win, all of a sudden no one cares. That just seems a bit fishy to me, this isnt about toms, this is all reviewers for some reason.

I dont think there is some huge conspirecy theory, i just would like to see the data, so we can compare ryzen to bulldozer, ryzen to core, intel core to amd core, etc.

 

[JocPro]

Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...

I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.

Me and some fellow redditors just scourged for weeks over all the pre-release and leaked material trying to understand the meaning of the X, and the first hypothesis was towards XFR, but it wasn't explicit in any of the material that we had available. It was clear that X models have XFR, but nowhere it was said that non-X models didn't have it. Still I find it weird for you to point it out as an unknown this late in an article when the 1700 clearly supports XFR and was launched about 3 months ago...

Here, have a look at my watermarked reviewers guide.
.
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR1.jpg

http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR2.jpg

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It just implies that is not available in non-X processors by saying that it is available in X's and isn't available in all the lineup. As we still has to see the full lineup, maybe some R3 won't have it... Or maybe the Ryzen APUs?. It's not explicit or categorical. We had the same slides, by the way.

http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR3.jpg

Still the same, it doesn't say "" = Standard Desktop CPU WITHOUT XFR, you are just proving my point

I know it's just semantics, but we really went through all the material available, so it wasn't a surprise that non-x had limited XFR instead of full XFR...

 

[Chester Rico]

Dues Ex? :3

 

[PaulAlcorn]

SNIP


Still the same, it doesn't say "" = Standard Desktop CPU WITHOUT XFR, you are just proving my point

I know it's just semantics, but we really went through all the material available, so it wasn't a surprise that non-x had limited XFR instead of full XFR...

That's a good point. I'll reach out for clarification.

 

[ravenshrike]

Did you calculate the cost of the cooler for the 7600k as well as the fact that to significantly overclock it or its memory you need to get the top end chipsets to do so?

 

[ravenshrike]

To put this issue in perspective to get the cheapest possible setup to OC at the speeds seen is ~ 60 bucks cheaper on AMD than on Ryzen. If you're willing to sacrifice 100 MHz on the 1600 you can get away without buying aftermarket thermal paste and that goes to ~ a 65-70 dollar difference.

 

[iPanda]

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a very finnicky game as far as benchmarking. I would not really trust it for intel vs amd; it just isn't uniform across the whole game. (specific parts unusually favor one over the other, while most other games have a fairly linear benchmark).

 

[ravenshrike]

Make that "on AMD than on Intel".

 

[T0ned0g666]

I bought the Ryzen 5 1600 and I must tell you that it's all that and a truckload of chips. The overclocking features are quick and easy and STABLE! But I'd have to say that even for a novice, the chip right out of the box performs better than expected.

 

[papality]

I think it's about time to start testing BF1 in multiplayer, no? Considering nobody's buying a 1080 to play Avanti Savoia, they're doing it to play 64 player Conquest. I realize other concerns spring up that make it difficult to isolate performance relative to specific components when doing this, but I'd have to think anything MP at all would be better than no MP test.

 

[InvalidError]

I think it's about time to start testing BF1 in multiplayer, no? I'd have to think anything MP at all would be better than no MP test.

You cannot draw any conclusions with any sort of reasonable confidence from non-repeatable tests. You have no way of knowing if dips on one run were caused by an extra explosion or any event being within line of sight of your draw distance compared to other runs. Every little difference between runs can add up to massive discrepancies.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

With all the various pages you have for each graph, I would like to humbly request one more graph be added.

A nice line graph that shows total CPU load during your bench runs. This would be helpful in gauging how much leftover horsepower there is for the CPU to work on other tasks, such as recording, streaming, etc.

I ended up on the Tom's UK site earlier today which has the same article and commented there, not realizing. Is there a reason that comments on articles are being separated by region?

 

[Supahos]

Just glad to see a ryzen review that wasn't full of over the top superlatives for either chip. This boardered on tech journalism might have actually been so. Present the facts, pet readers decide. Stick 1060/580 tests on here and I'd call it complete. Even a 1070 would be sufficient to make it fully fleshed out. Look forward to the multi tasking while gaming runs coming up soon. Good job on this one Paul. I know I was very critical of the process during the best CPUs list , this addresses some of the concerns.

 

[cryoburner]

The value of an unlocked multiplier becomes clear during this benchmark...

...At the end of the day, all of these processors facilitate a smooth experience in Middle-earth, and their performance is quite similar.

So the clear value of an unlocked multiplier is that their performance remains quite similar? : P

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a very finnicky game as far as benchmarking. I would not really trust it for intel vs amd; it just isn't uniform across the whole game. (specific parts unusually favor one over the other, while most other games have a fairly linear benchmark).

I kind of agree, but at least Toms includes some graphs that might indicate that to anyone who looks, unlike many other reviews that just toss out a set of frame rate numbers. You can clearly see where the game's built-in benchmark switches to the Geothermal Valley section of the test, which is where the AMD processors fall behind in terms of minimum and average frame rates. Up until that point, the performance of all the processors is very close. Even the Intel chips show some significant stutters during that last section. It might have been nice if they had made better note of the weird performance affecting that section in their review though.

 

[Dinky_Di]

Interesting that the price of the i5 7600k is listed here as $240. Find me one that comes with the tested Noctua NH-U12S that you tested with for that price.