AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

[Dinky_Di]

Interesting that you have the 7600k listed at $240. Could you tell us where you were able to purchase the 7600k + tested Noctua NH-U12S for $240? Thats a ripper of a deal!

 

[zodiacfml]

Stock speeds, huge value in the AMD but an overclocked Kaby Lake is just a monster. No wonder Intel is using cheap interface material for the IHS.

 

[MonDZi]

I wouldn't take the game performance/price ratio graph too seriously, when 3/10 tested games are AMD partnered games which get really special support and optimization for their architecture. They are not in any means representative of the whole game spectrum, so any wider conclusions to performance/price ratio from this small sample set are skewed. You would have to add 3 games that are similarly optimized for Intel. Also, for how many games was Ryzen patch released? I know about 2, the article makes it sound like it's common practice now. As a developer I know releasing these kind of patches is really not a priority and can be even technically impossible/very demanding.

 

[Olle P]

I wouldn't take the game performance/price ratio graph too seriously, when 3/10 tested games are AMD partnered games which get really special support and optimization for their architecture. They are not in any means representative of the whole game spectrum, ... You would have to add 3 games that are similarly optimized for Intel...

I think you got it a bit wrong.
* 10/10 tested games were released long before Ryzen.
* Those three with AMD as partner are optimized for the Radeon graphics not used, not optimized for Ryzen.
* If anything, all of the games are optimized for Intel CPUs. (The other "partner" than AMD is Nvidia, you know. Intel hasn't needed to team up with game developers.)
* If NEW games, released within the last 3-4 months, were included the results from those would generally favour Ryzen.

As a side note: Using powerful graphics cards to "remove the GPU bottleneck" might not be a viable option in the near future. Well programmed new games, like Sniper Elite 4, makes good use of all computing power available. With a low end CPU and high end GPU it just re-direct some workload from the CPU to the GPU to keep the game running smooth.

 

[AMD Police]

just trash CPU thats all

 

[Miracle_007]

Sure would be nice to see "normal workload" bench. All the reviews I've seen have been extremes. Either a freshly installed OS with no background tasks or some content creator trying to game on 4k while streaming on Twitch. Haven't seen much in between.

How about a benchmark that has:

1. Popular FPS AND RTS titles (racing games are FPS as far as Im concerned)
2. Chrome with 8-10 mostly flash based tabs open (CNN, ESPN, Amazon, Newegg, CBSSports, Yahoo, CNBC etc) open with 2-4 of those tabs being Youtube with 1 actual youtube video playing. (Come up with a battery of websites and make it the same for each run to standardize the benches)
3. Steam, Origin, Wargaming, antivirus running in background
4. Adobe PDF with a couple tabs open
5. Perhaps Outlook or so other email reader open as well.
6. Teamspeak or Discord OPEN and IN USE

A benchmark using a freshly installed OS with nothing else running tells us nothing. I want to see how these cpus REALLY perform.

 

[InvalidError]

A benchmark using a freshly installed OS with nothing else running tells us nothing. I want to see how these cpus REALLY perform.

And benchmarks with a bunch of random stuff running in the background would only be representative of a small subset of people, which is of equally limited usefulness. Many top competitive gamers have separate systems dedicated to handling all the other stuff to eliminate the chance that unnecessary background stuff might interfere with game play.

Few people would intentionally leave intensive background tasks running (like web browsers loaded with a bunch of flash-intensive web sites - I have blocked flash, scripts and animated GIF/PNG on my browsers) if they want to achieve smooth game play.

 

[Miracle_007]

A benchmark using a freshly installed OS with nothing else running tells us nothing. I want to see how these cpus REALLY perform.

And benchmarks with a bunch of random stuff running in the background would only be representative of a small subset of people, which is of equally limited usefulness. Many top competitive gamers have separate systems dedicated to handling all the other stuff to eliminate the chance that unnecessary background stuff might interfere with game play.

Few people would intentionally leave intensive background tasks running (like web browsers loaded with a bunch of flash-intensive web sites - I have blocked flash, scripts and animated GIF/PNG on my browsers) if they want to achieve smooth game play.

Most gamers are casual and dont have multiple machines. Most folks that game aren't professionals with sponsors or have resources to build a machine just for gaming. Most gamers I know game instead of watching TV or some other recreational hobby, not as professionals. So in that case, since the vast majority fall into this group, their computer will be used for possibly mostly gaming( recreationals), but still not exclusively for gaming (professionals). So the freshly imaged gaming rig thats never touched other than for gaming is unrealistic for most gamers. The rig MUST be able to do other things besides run games. So why not benchmark for the vast majority?

 

[AgentLozen]

If your software is important to you and you need it to run the best it can, it's best to only focus on that task.

It would be interesting to see how a CPU holds up when you encode a 2 hour blu ray movie while simultaneously playing three browser based flash games and typing up a report in Word and watching a few shows on YouTube. However, I think most people don't multitask heavily when they're running an important encoding job or playing an important game. Like Overwatch.

Edit: As a reviewer, how would you decide on which random multitasking work to use for your benchmarks? The stuff I use my computer for is probably different from what you use yours for. A single benchmark would disappoint one of us.

 

[Miracle_007]

If your software is important to you and you need it to run the best it can, it's best to only focus on that task.

It would be interesting to see how a CPU holds up when you encode a 2 hour blu ray movie while simultaneously playing three browser based flash games and typing up a report in Word and watching a few shows on YouTube. However, I think most people don't multitask heavily when they're running an important encoding job or playing an important game. Like Overwatch.

Who doesnt have a browser open or teamspeak/discord open while gaming? I agree streaming and encoding is extreme, but so is reimaging your cpu between every game. Its just not realistic in either case. In reality there is a middle ground.

 

[Miracle_007]

If your software is important to you and you need it to run the best it can, it's best to only focus on that task.

It would be interesting to see how a CPU holds up when you encode a 2 hour blu ray movie while simultaneously playing three browser based flash games and typing up a report in Word and watching a few shows on YouTube. However, I think most people don't multitask heavily when they're running an important encoding job or playing an important game. Like Overwatch.

Edit: As a reviewer, how would you decide on which random multitasking work to use for your benchmarks? The stuff I use my computer for is probably different from what you use yours for. A single benchmark would disappoint one of us.

I agree it would be hard to reach an consensus, but how about a few simple polls. Do you multitask while gaming? Do you use browser while gaming? If so which one? Do you use chat while gaming? If so which one? Do you use Steam/Origin to run your games? It would take some time, but I honestly believe a battery of background apps could at least be accepted by, if not agreed upon, by most non-professional gamers as reasonable.

 

[InvalidError]

So the freshly imaged gaming rig thats never touched other than for gaming is unrealistic for most gamers. The rig MUST be able to do other things besides run games. So why not benchmark for the vast majority?

For benchmark results to be REPEATABLE, the test environment must be free of as many potential stray variables as possible. It also reduces the number of potential performance and compatibility anomalies that would waste even more review time, as if these weren't already time-consuming enough as they are even when things go well.

As for the casuals, most casuals wouldn't leave known CPU hogs open in the background while gaming if they want to achieve something resembling the smoothest frame rates their system is capable of. Most stuff left open in the background uses less than 1% of CPU time and shouldn't make much of a difference. Also, for benchmarking purposes, these systems do have logging software running to record frame time, CPU usage, temperatures and other parameters which normal people wouldn't be running under normal circumstances. I'd say that offsets a fair chunk of the background stuff an average person may have on its computer.

 

[T0ned0g666]

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.

I'm using the MSI Armor RX580 8gb with B1 and getting around 65-70 FPS, in 64 MP

 

[Miracle_007]

So the freshly imaged gaming rig thats never touched other than for gaming is unrealistic for most gamers. The rig MUST be able to do other things besides run games. So why not benchmark for the vast majority?

For benchmark results to be REPEATABLE, the test environment must be free of as many potential stray variables as possible. It also reduces the number of potential performance and compatibility anomalies that would waste even more review time, as if these weren't already time-consuming enough as they are even when things go well.

As for the casuals, most casuals wouldn't leave known CPU hogs open in the background while gaming if they want to achieve something resembling the smoothest frame rates their system is capable of. Most stuff left open in the background uses less than 1% of CPU time and shouldn't make much of a difference. Also, for benchmarking purposes, these systems do have logging software running to record frame time, CPU usage, temperatures and other parameters which normal people wouldn't be running under normal circumstances. I'd say that offsets a fair chunk of the background stuff an average person may have on its computer.

Ok, lets just agree to disagree because I don't know any gamers personally that dont run some sort of chat TS or Discord while gaming along with music (youtube playlists or similiar). Most use Origin and/or Steam launchers as well. Nothing I've laid out has been extreme from my experience. Imho, very few gamers game with no other "associated" apps running as well. Maybe back 15 years ago gamers just played the game only but nowadays chat, music, few browser tabs are part of a gaming session. Being an engineer, I do understand that the benches need repeatability, but they also need to reflect reality as well and stay away from extreme cases to provide useful information.

 

[redgarl]

The same 1080p BS benchmarks...

1. Nobody with a 1080 GTX play at 1080p
2. Nobody buying a 1600 Rysen will buy a 1080 GTX
3. Rysen 5 makes a perfect match for a RX580 or a 1060 GTX at 1080p

Toms, were are my numbers...?

By the way, love the Intel headline... INTEL IS FIRING BACK... *cough* (bias) *cough*

 

[redgarl]

The gaming benchmarks are totally useless because they represent an extremely low percentage of potential users, in an extremely improbable situation. We are talking to 1% of the potential user base. People owning a 1080 GTX are scarce, and even worst with a 1600 Rysen and a 1080 GTX... and at 1080p... make me laugh... sure...

Benchmarks are there to represent a screenshot of a reality, this is just a joke.

Everybody knows, and you know, that the results are so different in a GPU bottleneck situation which happens with a RX 580 or a 1060 GTX.

The more you review Rysen CPU, the more you lose credibility.

 

[redgarl]

Hey Paul I have a ryzen build that actually is very competitive. However something is definitely wrong with your specs vs. Benchmarks. My specs as followed:
Ryzen 5 1600 clocked at 3.8 cuz
Corsair vengeance lpx 3200 memory clocked at 2666
Corsair rm750 power supply
Asrock x370 fatality k4 gaming
Asus strix rx580 o.c. mode

Benchmarks:
GTA5 68 FRAMES AVERAGE
SHADOWS OF MORDOR 76 FRAMES AVERAGE

Explain how a 1080 fe edition barely beats the rx580

We got 74.5 with GTAV. I have literally every eye-candy option turned on. There are a lot of differences in the platforms there, so I can't give you a single definitive reason why it is only beating it by 9.56%.

I recorded 151.1 in Mordor, which is very close to double your score. I'm not understanding the issue there.

Because, Paul... like I was explaining, you are putting a Ferrari engine inside of a Honda Civic.

AMD work better with AMD also, which is a factor you guys never noticed because you are using that same stupid 1080 GTX all the time at 1080p.

Go on anandtech or hardwarecanucks and take notes.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Who doesnt have a browser open or teamspeak/discord open while gaming?

Me. Probably many people who don't play primarily online multiplayer games.

 

[InvalidError]

Ok, lets just agree to disagree because I don't know any gamers personally that dont run some sort of chat TS or Discord while gaming along with music (youtube playlists or similiar).

And all of these things combined use what? 5% of total CPU time in 0.5-1% increments? Not worth bothering with, even less so when you consider that there are as many different combinations of background tasks as there are people on the planet so whatever mix you might consider fair will be considered non-representative by most other people. If you cannot achieve a general consensus on what a "representative" test is, then the test is not worth bothering with.

 

[JPNpower]

if you look past the author's positive spin, I think the Core i5's are really the way to go for gaming.

For now and, in most cases, not by much.

Throw in any amount of productivity on top of gaming though and the R5-1600 is easily worth the slight gaming hit.

If we start throwing in extras we'd be here all day. Intel has more PCI-E lanes with Z270 for example

 

[AgentLozen]

I play games and edit video. I'm willing to lose 10% of my gaming performance if I can double my encoding speed.

 

[spdragoo]

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.

And they seem to confirm it on www.amd.com:

http://www.amd.com/en/ryzen-5: only the 1500X & 1600X list XFR
http://www.amd.com/en/ryzen-7: only the 1700X & 180)X list XFR

 

[MonDZi]

* Those three with AMD as partner are optimized for the Radeon graphics not used, not optimized for Ryzen.

Ok, maybe Deus Ex and Hitman are focused on graphics optimization, but Ashes of Singularity feels like AMD tech demo, for Radeon and Ryzen. I don't say it should be excluded from benchmarks altogether, but it's not fair to include it performance/price ratio etc.

* If anything, all of the games are optimized for Intel CPUs.

Hardly possible when all "big" consoles have AMD Jaguar CPU inside them. Anyway, I find the idea of optimizing for a specific CPU ridiculous. For an architecture, sure, but Ryzen is still x86, maybe all the optimizations are only multi-threading related? It would be interesting to see if AoS Ryzen patch increases performance on Intel 8-cores or not.

* If NEW games, released within the last 3-4 months, were included the results from those would generally favour Ryzen.

This is a good suggestion to Tom's reviewers, I'll be interested to see this confirmed/debunked.

 

[mitch074]

During the AMD briefings in Austin the company said they have lower IPC than Kaby Lake. Specifically, they said they are 6.8% back.

That was using default RAM clock speeds on the bandwidth-limited by Infinity Fabric 8-core models, and an average on all instruction sets used in current tasks. Deficit nowadays would probably be around 3-4% using the same metrics.

LAME, being several years old (and probably an older 32-bit Windows build) mostly relies upon standard x86 instructions, stopping at i686 instruction set + FPU and making use of early versions of SSE when available; on that task, a 4GHz Ryzen core shows 85% of the performance of a 5GHz Kaby Lake core, which is clocked 20% faster (and, as I said, LAME should take place mostly in cache thus platform scaling limitations shouldn't impact it much) - thus why I'm pretty sure that Ryzen is neck and neck with Kaby on integer, FPU and SSE IPC performance. SSE4.x and AES are another matter, and I strongly suspect that Ryzen's deficit is to be found in tasks making use of these extensions, or maybe in 64-bit mode.

It would be nice to know the build used for some of this software (Handbrake, office etc.) as many of them are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions; the latest version of Handbrake is 64-bit only, but the one used at Tom's is available in both.

 

[Neuspeed]

For a LONG long time I waited for AMD to step it up.. I still own and use the FX-9590. The best AMD could come up with all the hype is "close" performance to Intel. AMD has set their performance bar so low that people are raving out what it's really mediocre performance. Standby for team blue to put out yet another line of processors that will crush AMD as they have done for many years now.