AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU Review

[genz]

It's 2017. Anyone still harping on about single thread being gaming king ignores the legion of socket 2011 (Sandy/Ivy) users that still kick Kaby/Broadwell butt in everything today with just 6 cores.

They also ignore the legion of people that were saying the same thing when AMD released the first dual-core. Then when Intel released the C2Quad and the same thing happened (half the games weren't ready yet).

Come on, even consoles are ahead of us now on this. Don't let Intel's $$$ con you into making a decision that is better now and worse later.

 

[JoseTheBestOle]

Tom's is embarassingly Blue.

 

[ravewulf]

Interesting results. I think I'll still go with the R7 1700 and OC a bit for optimal encoding speed with x264.

 

[orifiel]

guru 3d has more application for them that beat even the top intel ones.. hmm

They compare it with i7s because i5s are away to low performers there.. It also wins all i7s at ultra video gaming and a couple of fps better than ryzen 1700

 

[SWKerr]

How about a real world test where you play a game and run a 1080p stream then compare performance? How about 1440p? How about broadening the scope of testing? Nah just ignore the strength of more cores and focus on single thread work and a few games.

Maybe that's your real-world test, but that isn't mine. And am I the only one that can see the workstation benchmarks on page 10? Everyone seems to be ignoring them and then complaining that they aren't there.

Most of the metrics on the Workstation page are for Apps that are weighted to single threaded. If you are focused on older apps and older released games then the review benchmarks may be ok but the whole thing seems to avoid comparisons of what life might be like on newer apps and games. There should really be more of a focus on new DirectX 12 games and multi threaded apps.

 

[uguv]

I'd also like to see the i7-7700/7700K included for comparison, especially since the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1800X are included in the charts.

The German setup was said to use the 7600K while the 7700K is listed in the test setup for the US configuration and then not shown on any charts. Not that that makes any sense to test gaming with the 7700K and workstation apps with the 7600K.

Germany
Intel LGA 1151
Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7500
MSI Z270 Gaming 7



U.S. Intel 1
Intel Core i7-7700K
MSI Z170A Gaming M7
2x G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @2400 and 3200 MT/s

 

[RCFProd]

How about a real world test where you play a game and run a 1080p stream then compare performance? How about 1440p? How about broadening the scope of testing? Nah just ignore the strength of more cores and focus on single thread work and a few games.

So in your opinion everyone who plays games also streams at the same time?

The tests are fair. It is a given that the Intel i5 is going to suffer when you switch the topic to multi-tasking performance.

The thing is that people who seems to prefer Intel more say that benchmarks should be done purely and specifically, whilst people who prefer AMD more say that benchmarks should be done with programs open in the background.

The reviewer is never going to escape without being blamed for bias towards a brand it seems.

 

[FormatC]

I'd also like to see the i7-7700/7700K included for comparison, especially since the Ryzen 7 1700 and 1800X are included in the charts.

The gaming charts from US were also tested with 7600K. This must be a simple typo in the US table.

 

[redgarl]

YAWNNNN...

Your opinion doesn't count Toms...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75094-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-performance-review.html

"As we get to the end of this review, I think my recommendation is pretty clear: while the Ryzen 5 1500X is a good processor the 1600X should be destined for greatness. Its price, performance, efficiency, decent overclocking headroom, situational adaptability and so much more make it one of the best CPU’s released in the last half decade. AMD’s willingness to be transparent about their progress refining Ryzen is just the icing on the cake and goes to show there’s much more to be excited about in the future. Pair one of these 1600X’s up with a $120 B350 motherboard alongside an RX480 or GTX 1060 and you’ll have an absolutely rocking foundation upon which to build a very, very capable budget system."

 

[JamesSneed]

I removed the 7700K from workstation, because my colleague does the same in gaming section. It is a totally other price target.

And:
We used the Creators Update to be fair to AMD, but only I need one day per CPU for one workstation run. This all was a decision, how to use the time optimal. Someone asked about 1440p benchmarks... What is better? Creators Update and fresh content or all CPUs and outdated crap?


The power consumption thing is right, but my mainboard for the FX-8370 with the soldered shunts for measuring was damaged (the 5th in the last two years). So I was not able to measure the power draw on the same way and I had no time to build me the same setup again in this few hours for testing.

You know if you had something like Anandtech's bench where you published a searchable database with these results most of this would be a mute point.

 

[redgarl]

"We will keep an eye on this and when we have to report anything about it we'll update this content. And also in closing on this topic, if you are a little GPU bound or use 2560x1440, this pretty much is a non-issue as perf there is top notch for what the processor needs to deliver. And no, the 1080p performance isn't as big of an issue as some evangelize it to be. "

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_1500x_and_1600x_review,29.html

 

[FormatC]

All results are changing daily. We tested this time with Windows Creators Update and not the old Windows 10, with other mainboards, faster memory and new BIOSes. It is not my style to irritate the readers with merging old and new results in a long, but unusable database.

 

[Lieutenant Tofu]

It's not mentioned in this review, but I find it neat to see that the 6 and 8 core Ryzen parts don't use much more power than the quad core Intel ones, and that power consumption of the 8-core Ryzens is around 60% of Intel's 8-core 6800K! "Really isn't any worse" is a big understatement. It's significantly better.

 

[Lieutenant Tofu]

*6-core 6800K. Even better? show for Ryzen's power consumption.

 

[winwiz]

Nice review. Investigating inter fabric latency and temp. Sensors was very interesting!

 

[th63]

gaming smoothness (R5 1600X) or high FPS ( I7-7700K). which is important to you ?

 

[th63]

get a r5 1600x if you experience stutter while gaming with your i5 or i7.

 

[kcgoat26]

i know he processors work and they are great but, lets get the video cards out ,i like plenty of others are not going to keep waiting

 

[valeman2012]

Where the 69% improvement over Intel Kaby Lake (I did not Realize that Quad Core mostly still beating their 6 core and 12 threads) (First Hand)

 

[gdmaclew]

I'm definitely impressed by the Ryzen 5 CPUs not only from a processing point of view but also from a bang-for-buck perspective.
I'm closing in on a decision to select the R5 1600x to replace my FX-8350.
The Cinebench multi-thread performance of 1245 is double the performance of my 8350 at about the same price point I paid for it 2 years ago.
The single-thread measurement of 161 is over 70% better as well.
If Zen+ means a dual-path Infinity Fabric rather than single path, that would make a difference. Keeping my fingers crossed for the future.

 

[sseyler]

The tables about on-die latency are very confusing. They say "inter-core" or 'inter CCX whete they really mean *intra*-core. (And, of course, they could use "inter-CCX" instead of "cross-CCX".) It feels patronizing to have to point this out, but "inter" doesn't mean "within" or "inside"; it means "between", just as interdisciplinary means "between (multiple) disciplines".

 

[hannibal]

Really interesting to see 4 core Ryzens. Those should be really close in Gaming test compared to 6 and 8 cores. They can be really good bang for the buck.

 

[grozzie]

What a lot of people are missing out on - is! AMD stick to the same form-factor for their CPU's. OK AM4 is a new socket but I don't think it will change soon. Intel seem to pluck numbers out of the air and produce CPU's to match = socket 2011, 2011v3, 1150, 1151, etc, etc....... Plus I think Intel and microredacted are in collusion - remember LIM technology when Intel and Microredacted shafted Lotus. If you want a competitive price for a CPU and not let Intel dictate the market then maybe we should give AMD another go.

 

[Dante F B Colo]

must wait benchmarks with properly optimized applications for ryzen to really if it's better or worse

 

[terr281]

I'm the "mid range gaming system builder" for myself, my family, and my friends. Per these (and other sites) results, I hope that AMD can, FINALLY, push their idea of multi-core over single core performance into real-life gaming workloads.

My first self-built system was a Core 2 Duo e6750 (a time when 2 cores was enough), a new system had an AMD Phenom 945, then it was upgraded to an FX 8320 (this was ~3-4 years ago). I remember the headlines in that era that are much like these... "software must be written to operate on multi-cores over single or dual cores in the future." Today, we are still in an era when most games can only use 4 cores at most.

A hardware developer cannot force software developers, with their multi-year development cycles, to write software in a particular way. This is why, with the Ryzen 7 launch review issues (software rewrites, Windows code changes needed, etc.), and with my 5.5 year old system board (originally from my 945) dying recently, I went with an Intel i5 7500 with a Nvidia 1060 GPU for a new system.

Maybe in 2-3 more years (when, yes... Intel has released yet another different socket on their system boards), we'll be at a point when multi-core is the path to take for mid-range gaming builds when one is looking for performance AND power efficiency. (Especially for "casual" gamers that can get by with built-in graphics in most cases. Systems that usually sit idle, never powered off, functioning as heaters in the winter time and anti-air conditioners in the summer.)

As a long time AMD user, I'm glad they are back in the game. However, until they get developers on-board (especially for all of the games that people already have in their Steam libraries, all older games...), Intel is the way to go.