According to this https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625.html the graph on the 1st page shows a 1600X is faster using 1-2 cores, then the 2600 is better at 3-4 cores, then they're about even beyond 4. Keep in mind there is no 3.5 cores, it's just that the curve connects the discrete points. I'm thinking if I OC a 1600X to 3.8 or so that it equals or beats a 2600.
Last page (pp. 9) shows a number of graphs. In the first graph, for FPS, the 1600X w/an OC can outperform a 2600 @ stock but also shows the 2600 OC to 4.2 and the 1600X to 4.0. I've read the 2600 performs better for gaming, probably due to better utilization of memory. But I would think, silicon lotto being an equal unknown, that the 1600X should OC higher than a 2600.
A manual overclock on the 1600X should potentially match a 2600 relying on XFR2 and PBO, right? It sounds like the 2600 will somehow OC higher than the 1600X. I suppose it's because of being binned w/a different process, and at 12nm. Or is 4.2 on the 2600 a total crapshoot?
Just wondering. I'm about to 'win' a 1600X but since prices dropped on the 2600 in the last few days I'd rather get a 2600.
Thanks,
Mac
Last page (pp. 9) shows a number of graphs. In the first graph, for FPS, the 1600X w/an OC can outperform a 2600 @ stock but also shows the 2600 OC to 4.2 and the 1600X to 4.0. I've read the 2600 performs better for gaming, probably due to better utilization of memory. But I would think, silicon lotto being an equal unknown, that the 1600X should OC higher than a 2600.
A manual overclock on the 1600X should potentially match a 2600 relying on XFR2 and PBO, right? It sounds like the 2600 will somehow OC higher than the 1600X. I suppose it's because of being binned w/a different process, and at 12nm. Or is 4.2 on the 2600 a total crapshoot?
Just wondering. I'm about to 'win' a 1600X but since prices dropped on the 2600 in the last few days I'd rather get a 2600.
Thanks,
Mac
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram