AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Miracle_007

Prominent
May 30, 2017
6
0
510
0


Ive got news for you. Realists never expected AMD, a company with 8% of R&D budget of Intel to somehow blow past them in tech. Its remarkable that a company with a minuscule budget compared to Intel could even come as close (and even surpass in some cases) as they did.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

AMD's Ryzen is crushing similarly priced Intel chips in productivity-oriented benchmarks and keeping up quite well with Intel's chips in most games, beating Intel in more heavily threaded titles. That's great. AMD's ThreadRipper forced Intel to increase the core count at each price point, which is also great. Everyone is getting a heck of a lot more bang per buck.

If Ryzen was as horrible as you make it sound like you think it is, Intel would have continued to ignore AMD and launched Skylake-X with the same core counts and prices as its predecessors.
 

msroadkill612

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2009
112
1
18,685
0
A logic check please?

Sure, the X suffixed cpuS premiums have been reviewed as a big yawn performance/value wise ATM, but isnt it early days for a "enhanced auto OC toolbox" that is bound to need, and get, a lot of finessing over the years, via bios/drivers...

I note that amd have put in a lot of work on the concept, in the form of zillions of monitors scattered around Ryzen, for feedback of relevant OC factors to the controller.

The simple notion that, if i can improve cooling, it will auto overclock, has appeal to the "lazy" or "life is too short for OCing" folk like me.

A whimsically, I could fire up an over the top air compressor for chip cooling while gaming & noisy anyhoo, and settle for slower and calmer for other tasks.

In short, maybe the few dollars more isnt such a dud, long term?
 

msroadkill612

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2009
112
1
18,685
0
PS, further on AMD auto overclocking, its indicative how fine the OC increments are. Done right, over time, your CPU could just keep getting better via precise processor tuning for your environment and needs.

Its food for thought if you value time.
 

Kaind7

Prominent
Jun 3, 2017
2
0
510
0
I've got one paired with a ga ax370 gaming 5 [bios F5 and F6f] (best suitable for overclocking with much better quality vrms) and a pair of corsair lpx ddr4@3000[working at 2933 only enabling xmp profile].Its a beast and I reach exactly the same level of performance than te 1600x when both are overclocked. I found no benefits over the 1600 unless you left them at stock settings in that case 1600x will add more frequencies thanks to it's extended xfr. Otherwise it has nosense to buy a 1600x over an 1600 [plus you ought to buy a cpu-cooler].
Talking about intel, in my opinion in this generation it's a waste of money. For gaming with no other things wasting cpu's resources (ie streaming) you could buy an i5, and it will give you some more fps (or not) i would buy instead a r5 4 cores 8 threads which seems to be more future proof. I sincerely believe that in the next gen intel will do 6cores/6 threads i5s and 6/8cores i7s leaving this gen ones obsolete (there are many things pointing this direction like the new hyperthreaded pentiums which are practically the same than this generation i3s).
Please forgive my english because it´s not my native language.
 

Kaind7

Prominent
Jun 3, 2017
2
0
510
0
Great review, BTW I would like to see a comparision with the intel x99 processors (5820k etc)
 

SR TEE

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
41
3
10,545
1
I love what this review shows for AMD R5 1600. If I was in the market for a new CPU and seeing how AMD's updates are improving and more modern DX12 titles are favoring AMD's architecture and the extra threads then for future purposes I'd go with the R5 1600 because factoring in the motherboard cost and having a decent H/F included compared to Intel it's a much better all around deal. The biggest thing I see is Intel tends to change their sockets every 2 CPU generations so when Intel releases their new CPU line up I don't see them using a 1151 socket so to upgrade I'm more than sure you'd have to buy a new motherboard so the upgrade path for the socket 1151 is coming to an end very possibly.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

I wouldn't hold my breath too long about AMD carrying the AM4 socket for very long with the number of foreseeable future changes which may require a new socket:
- Thunderbolt
- PCIe 4.0
- DDR5
- more chipset bandwidth to better support chipset-based IOs such as USB3.x-gen2 ports and NVMe drives

Also, for an upgrade to be worth it, it usually has to provide some significant performance benefits. How much of a faster CPU than the 1800X can realistically be crammed in the AM4 socket before dual-channel DDR4 becomes a major bottleneck?

While being forced to buy new motherboards with Intel every other year may be annoying, being stuck with 3+ years old obsolete IOs on AMD's side due to AMD not updating its chipsets to keep up with updated standards isn't any better.
 

mitch074

Distinguished


I'm not so sure a new socket would be needed to support Thunderbolt or newer revisions for USB (keep the socket, change the chipset); as for DDR5, we aren't there yet (DDR4 being barely supported as of now). Moreover, 8 cores are probably the max for this socket - we will probably see the AM4 platform use 4-6 sockets for CPU, and add a GPU. Cheap machines, and all that. We still can expect a 20-25% raise in frequency for RAM and CPU clock speeds on these sockets, so we're good for a couple years still.

The TR4 socket, the one hosting Threadripper, will probably be the platform of choice for the DIY crowd - with a price to match. You can't create more PCIe lanes nor RAM channels using limited connectors, especially since all these data buses are already serialized hi-speed ones.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Changing the chipset does you no good when the CPU-chipset link (PCIe 3.0 x4) is only capable of 32Gbps and you want to add a 40Gbps interface. The same 32Gbps isn't much for USB3.x-gen2 either as that is only three ports worth. Ryzen itself only supports four gen1 ports. Upgrading the chipset link to PCIe 4.0 would alleviate that but then you'd need a new motherboard to get those anyway. Ideally though, those high speed interfaces would be built directly into the CPU to avoid bottlenecking the chipset link.

If you are going to change the chipset every time you upgrade to a new generation CPU to keep up with its new capabilities, then this isn't really much different from having a new socket for each new CPU generation apart from being stuck with the old socket's limitations.
 

msroadkill612

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2009
112
1
18,685
0


Are you mad? It wont have intel inside :(

Good to see folks taking a holistic and jaundiced view of a PC buy decision.

The 6 cores do seem to have most bases covered for most, and an excellent price.

Its ying and yang. 2 cores more than most need on most commercial software arguably, but occasionally useful, and nice futureproofing. Even so, as u say, a drop in new cpu is very likely doable later on the same mobo.

Aptly summarized I thought, was ~ "Ryzen is ~10% slower at games and ~100% faster at work"
 

spdragoo

Splendid
Herald


Intel would run into the same problem, then, since their Thunderbolt 3 connectors also rely on a PCIe 3.0 x4 link...except that Intel's controller doesnt' just rely on the PCIe lanes, but also has dedicated DisplayPort lines to provide the needed bandwidth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Thunderbolt_3

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf

So, if AMD wanted to add in the future a board to support Thunderbolt 3 ports, wouldn't they just need to update the chipset with a dedicated DisplayPort controller?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Only if you are ok with Thunderbolt tying up as much as 100% of the chipset's bandwidth when used for data, which is generally not a good idea, which is why Ryzen integrates four USB3.x-gen1 ports directly in the CPU instead of the chipset.
 

mitch074

Distinguished


That's what AMD did with the AM2/2+/3 socket, and almost did with AM3+: newer CPUs could still run on older sockets with the socket's limitations taken into account. But that was at a time when only the CPU was plugged in the socket, and thus there were no pins dedicated to the GPU. The CPU was connected to the southbridge using HyperTransport link(s), which were AFAIK much faster than PCI-e links of the time, and the PCI-e controller was on the southbridge. However, HyperTransport developments stopped in 2008 - had it continued, the throughput between the CPU and the chipset would have been so big that you could have continued to improve the chipset without strangling the CPU.

I dunno why they stopped working on HyperTransport; maybe IBM and Nvidia weren't interested in it anymore...
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Hypertransport is still there today, it merely got renamed to Infinity Fabric.
 

mitch074

Distinguished


Indeed, but it's been extended/dedicated for (multiple) Memory controller to RAM communication; it's probably unusable with other peripheral communication.
Anyway, with the tendency being toward getting not CPus, but SoC, from both Intel and AMD, the best we can hope for is to keep the same socket for a couple CPU generations.
 

SR TEE

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
41
3
10,545
1


I wouldn't say mad, just giving my opinion from what I've encountered. I'm not saying ALL, but some people do more than just gaming and when I look at AMD's 6 and 8 core CPUs, the TDPs they run at, the platform price and the optimization they been doing compared to Intel's new X299 line up looks a lot better to me personally. Now on the other hand at the moment the I7 7700K OCed to around 5.0Ghz tends to give the best gaming performance on most benchmarks. I can't say that it would give the smoothest experience because I never tested the two platforms head to head, but a lot of people say that AMD gives them a very smooth gaming experience with the bonus of the extra cores for productivity work. I'm not a fan boy of either company, I just like to buy what's going to be the best value for my own purposes and not everyone uses their PC for the same things. Some people are exclusive gamers, some people are into productivity, some people are casual users and some people want a good all around experience.

I feel both companies have their good and not so good aspects about their products, but I'm glad to see AMD actually released CPUs that can directly compete with Intel for dollar to performance value because competition is great for the market.
 

Neuspeed

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2007
81
0
18,640
1
As a current AMD system owner, I'm very disappointed Ryzen is only able to close in to performance with Intel, as far as gaming goes. My next CPU will be Intel. No more budget / mediocre performance and sacrifices for me.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Unless you have a 100+Hz monitor, the gaming performance difference between Intel and AMD is immaterial as AMD easily exceeds 80FPS in most games and you cannot see performance much beyond what your monitor can display. With many games still getting performance updates for AMD and AMD possibly having more firmware updates in the future, whatever relevant gaps are still there may not be done shrinking either.

I don't get why you are "very disappointed" that AMD closed the gap with Intel. AMD promised 40-50% better performance than Bulldozer and Ryzen delivered exactly that in most cases, no surprises there. The only way to be "very disappointed" would be if you expected Ryzen to be far more than what AMD ever claimed it was going to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS