# AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz



## W1zzard (May 16, 2017)

AMD's Ryzen 5 1600, a six-core processor with twelve logical cores, turns out to be a cost-effective alternative to the only marginally faster Ryzen 5 1600X. The Ryzen 5 1600 even offers good overclocking potential, going beyond the clock limits of AMD Precision Boost and XFR.

*Show full review*


----------



## kruk (May 16, 2017)

Ouch, that missing 8 MB of L3 cache really seems to kill Ryzen 5 1400 performance .


----------



## notb (May 16, 2017)

I got my i5-7500 yesterday and with almost every graph in this review I was getting happier and happier with that choice (I considered Ryzen 5 1600). 

Yup, 6C/12T is fantastic in productivity / simulation / database stuff. If I wanted to keep the CPU in my main PC for more than 3 years, it would be a clear winner.
That said, I guess I can wait for my queries few more minutes, but the extra single-core potential of i5 should help in the future (not to mention the IGP).

Honestly, it's not going as people hoped. Ryzen 5 are not clocked higher than Ryzen 7 (and don't OC higher), so they don't have any low-thread / gaming advantage. Basically, you're buying the same cores in different quantity.
There's another side of this story, obviously: Ryzen 9 clocks are much higher that we though, so maybe Ryzen 9 will get some traction in workstations.


----------



## meirb111 (May 16, 2017)

the 1600 is tempting  but  still there is the compatibility issue with amd's Instruction set today its a weak avx2 yesterday it was sse4a ,for example i have phenom ii 955 that has the sse4a only (no sse4.1 )and so in x265 encoding it sucks because it only uses sse2 it doesn't use sse4a i have half the speed of an i5 750 that i could have bought at the time. some how programmers use intel Instruction set often than amd's.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 16, 2017)

Seems like a great CPU, sure it suffers in some areas, but then it also shines in others. Paired with a nice B350 mobo and you can't go too far wrong.

And credit to Wiz for the review, very thorough and no doubt very time consuming.


----------



## etayorius (May 16, 2017)

Good review. Power Consumption seems to be just a tad bit higher than the 7700k, but this is a 6 Core 12 Threads. Very nice. OC is pretty much useless in these chips.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 16, 2017)

notb said:


> I got my i5-7500 yesterday and with almost every graph in this review I was getting happier and happier with that choice (I considered Ryzen 5 1600).
> 
> Yup, 6C/12T is fantastic in productivity / simulation / database stuff. If I wanted to keep the CPU in my main PC for more than 3 years, it would be a clear winner.
> That said, I guess I can wait for my queries few more minutes, but the extra single-core potential of i5 should help in the future (not to mention the IGP).
> ...


You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd


----------



## Mathragh (May 16, 2017)

Excellent review regarding abundance of competing chips, amount of benchmarks and no-nonsense use of language.
Especially the inclusion of multiple programs for the measurement of power consumption is appreciated and something other reviewers should seriously consider doing as well.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 16, 2017)

I wonder how it stacks up to 5820K/6800K though


----------



## Dethroy (May 16, 2017)

Great review @W1zzard 

Small errors I noticed... No offense.

Introduction:


> This is where the Ryzen 5 1600 is different. You get all the features of the 1600X, including unlocked base-clock multiplier, but only lose out on lower clock speeds and *lack of XFR* (extended frequency range), a feature that automatically overclocks the processor beyond the max turbo frequency depending on the efficiency of the cooling.


All Ryzen SKUs offer XFR. It's just that non-X SKUs extend their precision boosts by another 50 MHz, whereas SKUs denoted with an X offer another 100 MHz beyond their precision boosts.


Conclusion:


> XFR adds another *200 MHz* to the Precision Boost clock on the 1600X. On the 1600 non-X, this is usually a bonus 50 MHz over Precision Boost frequency, if your cooling is up to it, which it usually is.


 100, not 200. And it kinda contradicts what was said in the introduction.


----------



## bug (May 16, 2017)

I'm not convinced this is compelling enough to consider over a 7600k for example, but at the same time I wouldn't consider the lack of an IGP a con. To me, it's a plus, I always disable it.


----------



## qubit (May 16, 2017)

Ok, so the gaming performance deficit is pretty much like its bigger brothers and there are still those memory compatibility problems. However, given the pricing, ongoing memory improvements, Intel's reaction to Ryzen and the potential performance of Ryzen v2 at equalling or besting Intel, I'm confident that AMD is once again providing decent competition to Intel after 12 long years and I'm looking forward to Ryzen v2 now.



> On popular demand from comments over the past several AMD Ryzen reviews, we are introducing game-tests at 720p (1280 x 720 pixels) resolution. All games from our CPU test suite are put through 720p, a low resolution that, in theory, highlights CPU performance because games are extremely CPU-limited at this resolution. Of course, nobody buys a PC with a $200+ processor to game at 720p (something a cheap $60 Celeron will do just fine), but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will likely never reach that mark at higher resolutions either. So these numbers could interest high refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors. Our 720p tests hence serve as synthetic tests in that they are not real-world (720p isn't a real-world PC-gaming resolution anymore) even though the game tests themselves are not synthetic (they're real games, not 3D benchmarks).


Really appreciate this W1z and thanks for listening to your members on this important point.  Together with your real-world resolution tests, this now gives a complete picture of processor gaming performance.

Oh btw, I do sometimes game at really low resolutions for a short while for that retro arcade game feel on my monitor. Push the signal through to an old CRT TV through the aerial socket via a lo-res modulator complete with crappy mono sound through the TV's single speaker and the feel is complete, but with a cool modern take on it.


----------



## _Flare (May 16, 2017)

This should be the correct clocks ... explains a lot


----------



## 50eurouser (May 16, 2017)

Intel <K> models are being tested with MCT (Multi-Core Turbo) on or off ? It bins turbo on max on all cores all time if enabled.


----------



## Dethroy (May 16, 2017)

_Flare said:


> This should be the correct clocks ... explains a lot


AFAIK the 1700's All-Core Boost is 3,15 GHz.


----------



## Dave65 (May 16, 2017)

Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?


----------



## Dethroy (May 16, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?


Depends on what software you use. And if the software makes proper use of multiple cores, I'd suggest you to look at the R7 1700/1700X instead, since the 1600 is not that big of an upgrade even under favorable conditions.


----------



## notb (May 16, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really)


Could you point the part of my comment which mentions gaming? 

And what's wrong with 720p anyway? I used to play at 1600x900 and I still use that LCD.
In many demanding games a modern entry-level gaming GPUs (1050Ti, RX560 etc) hover around ~40 fps in 1080p. It means that 2-3 years from now 720p could become a challenge (without sacrificing other settings). Quite a lot of people game and will keep gaming at 720p for years to come.

As this is a review of $250 CPU, people will most likely pair it with similarly priced GPUs (rarely something faster than a 1060 / RX580).


NdMk2o1o said:


> when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd


That depends on the task, but as I've said: in multi-thread problems Ryzen is a clear choice. But CPUs have properties other than performance and for me the whole package is not that great.


----------



## bug (May 16, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?


If the review didn't answer that, nothing will.


----------



## notb (May 16, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?



That depends on your workflow. In ideal conditions you could see a 20-30% improvement.
If you feel limited by 6700K in live editing (it can't keep up), then 30% could not be enough. I'd go for Ryzen 7 for more headroom. 6K is around the corner.
But moving to general rendering/encoding - does it really matter to you if a job completes in e.g. 40 minutes instead of an hour?
I'm not talking about "awesomeness" factor - just sensible evaluation of needs.
Also, if your video editing software utilizes the GPU (e.g. Adobe Premiere Pro), the actual gain from replacing the CPU could be really small.

I'm doing a lot of signal processing and simulations. Signal processing is done live (e.g. financial series analysis / automatic trading), but the tasks are mainly single-threaded anyway.
Simulations benefit greatly from extra cores, but I only have around 30-40 hours of them a week. Earning ~10 hours of idle time (as the PC runs almost 24/7) is not that tempting, honestly.


----------



## Jism (May 17, 2017)

Is it me or is that 3.8GHz OC relatively low? Since most Ryzen hit 4.0 up to 4.1GHz.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 17, 2017)

Jism said:


> Is it me or is that 3.8GHz OC relatively low? Since most Ryzen hit 4.0 up to 4.1GHz.


A lot of ryzens cant hit 4.0 without super high voltage. At 1.35V, 3.8-3.9 seems to be the most common with good cooling.


----------



## W1zzard (May 17, 2017)

Jism said:


> Is it me or is that 3.8GHz OC relatively low? Since most Ryzen hit 4.0 up to 4.1GHz.


On the tested CPU, even reaching 3850 stable isn't even happening with 1.45 V, I tried.


----------



## Mussels (May 17, 2017)

seeing <2% loss for 4K gaming, with 50% more cores.... i might just go ryzen for my next build.

Probably wait for mITX boards to hit the market and do some silly ITX build with an 8C/16T setup with my GTX1080 for the tiny lulz


----------



## dick_cheney (May 17, 2017)

Mussels said:


> seeing <2% loss for 4K gaming, with 50% more cores.... i might just go ryzen for my next build.
> 
> Probably wait for mITX boards to hit the market and do some silly ITX build with an 8C/16T setup with my GTX1080 for the tiny lulz




^^This, so far only the biostar board is out and def waiting just a bit longer for the platform to mature so I can build a tiny workstation!


----------



## damric (May 17, 2017)

Thanks W1zzard. This is the best CPU review I have seen in a long time. I especially love that you made all of the resolution graphs for minimum and average FPS. I just wish there was a _performance per dollar_ graph, but I can see how compiling one would be quite a chore. It would be epic if you could pull it off and make one though


----------



## Enterprise24 (May 17, 2017)

Thanks for great work W1zzard. I like your comment on 720p "CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will likely never reach that mark at higher resolutions either. So these numbers could interest high refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors."


----------



## sweet (May 17, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?



It's a good replacement, video rendering/editing loves the threads. But as you going to change the whole system I would say jumping to an 8-core is better and more worth it.


----------



## Lionheart (May 17, 2017)

The best CPU to get IMHO


----------



## sweet (May 17, 2017)

meirb111 said:


> the 1600 is tempting  but  still there is the compatibility issue with amd's Instruction set today its a weak avx2 yesterday it was sse4a ,for example i have phenom ii 955 that has the sse4a only (no sse4.1 )and so in x265 encoding it sucks because it only uses sse2 it doesn't use sse4a i have half the speed of an i5 750 that i could have bought at the time. some how programmers use intel Instruction set often than amd's.



That's the problem of yesterday, not for Ryzen. And I hope that it's your "Shift" button that makes your sentence look like that...


----------



## jigar2speed (May 17, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?



I would suggest you go for 1800 or 1700X if you are mostly doing Video rendering and editing.


----------



## Caring1 (May 17, 2017)

So far the only point I disagree on in this review is the statement that AMD should have gone for a square CPU Cooler mount layout, so air can be blown out the rear of the case.
In my opinion they went with the best option and angled it so it blows the heated air out the top of the case, as many modern cases allow for top mount fans.


----------



## techy1 (May 17, 2017)

as first (main?) con: "Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips"
from what data you concluded that?

from 720p? yes (thx for this special test, next time - 800x640 or lower - if the only point is to show one special weakness - then there is no limit how low one should go to emphasize his point)
from 1080p? how much? 4.4% vs similarly priced i5 - I guess it is a YES again
higher resolutions? you are kidding me

should really this negligible difference be the main point of this review?


----------



## meirb111 (May 17, 2017)

sweet said:


> That's the problem of yesterday, not for Ryzen. And I hope that it's your "Shift" button that makes your sentence look like that...



learn to read i have already used the word yesterday in my post so what was your point?


----------



## bug (May 17, 2017)

Mussels said:


> seeing <2% loss for 4K gaming, with 50% more cores.... i might just go ryzen for my next build.
> 
> Probably wait for mITX boards to hit the market and do some silly ITX build with an 8C/16T setup with my GTX1080 for the tiny lulz


From what I can see, there are other differences in area that may matter at home.
Intel wins: MP3 encoding, Photoshop, Word, Powerpoint, Octane, Kraken, WebXPRT
AMD wins: H264/H265 encoding, Excel
So I think it depends on what you actually do.

I've intentionally left out results that were rather close or about 3D rendering that you don't typically do at home. If you, more cores is a must, you don't need a review to tell you that


----------



## dirtyferret (May 17, 2017)

I'm not impressed, low IPC and I've yet to see a real world test showing the need for six cores.  Eventually there will be a need for six plus cores but the market will have better options.  I also find the Intel offerings over priced with little performance gains over the years.  Hopefully the next generation from Intel and AMD create a better price - performance market.


----------



## notb (May 17, 2017)

bug said:


> From what I can see, there are other differences in area that may matter at home.
> Intel wins: MP3 encoding, Photoshop, Word, Powerpoint, Octane, Kraken, WebXPRT
> AMD wins: H264/H265 encoding, Excel
> So I think it depends on what you actually do.
> ...



Speaking about Excel, it's mostly about the actual tasks performed. Excel spreadsheet jobs are beautifully parallel, but VBA is single-threaded. A mix of VBA and spreadsheet calculations might still prefer low-core but faster CPUs.

Also, I think people still don't understand why Intel wins in software like Photoshop. They keep saying that "it simply needs optimization" - that once 8-core CPUs get some traction, software companies will improve multi-thread performance.
In many cases this simply will not happen...


----------



## bug (May 17, 2017)

notb said:


> Speaking about Excel, it's mostly about the actual tasks performed. Excel spreadsheet jobs are beautifully parallel, but VBA is single-threaded. A mix of VBA and spreadsheet calculations might still prefer low-core but faster CPUs.
> 
> Also, I think people still don't understand why Intel wins in software like Photoshop. They keep saying that "it simply needs optimization" - that once 8-core CPUs get some traction, software companies will improve multi-thread performance.
> In many cases this simply will not happen...


I write software for a living. Believe me, I know all the reasons software isn't infinitely parallelizeable, like many people seem to think it is/should be.


----------



## W1zzard (May 17, 2017)

bug said:


> I write software for a living. Believe me, I know all the reasons software isn't infinitely parallelizeable, like many people seem to think it is/should be.


+1


----------



## stinzza (May 18, 2017)

ryzen is beutiful.. some infant stress.. ow course there will be beginner stress i7 7700k clock 5ghz(from4 something tu turbo at 4.5).. singel threaad today but now since 8 core is in.. and that threaded.......

not english owcourse.. rememer hwat you understand is the most inportant  hehe


----------



## stinzza (May 18, 2017)

or is this a long tale? cores and threds


----------



## notb (May 18, 2017)

bug said:


> I write software for a living. Believe me, I know all the reasons software isn't infinitely parallelizeable, like many people seem to think it is/should be.


I wasn't talking about you precisely.
I guess there are more of us here that do some sort of programming, but that doesn't imply a great knowledge (even practical) of numerical algorithms. I know people that work in game industry, but hardly understand some basic concepts of computer science (both mathematical and purely technical). This is where high-level programming and "clicking" interfaces have taken us.  (again, I don't know you - this is a general observation).

The issue is simply that computer geeks suddenly jumped on the multi-thread train - that it's the future, that software makers should optimize more and so on. But it seems that most people really don't understand the idea and the limitations.


----------



## bug (May 18, 2017)

notb said:


> I wasn't talking about you precisely.
> I guess there are more of us here that do some sort of programming, but that doesn't imply a great knowledge (even practical) of numerical algorithms. I know people that work in game industry, but hardly understand some basic concepts of computer science (both mathematical and purely technical). This is where high-level programming and "clicking" interfaces have taken us.  (again, I don't know you - this is a general observation).
> 
> The issue is simply that computer geeks suddenly jumped on the multi-thread train - that it's the future, that software makers should optimize more and so on. But it seems that most people really don't understand the idea and the limitations.


Tbh, multicore should and will be explored more. Better tools to take advantage of it can and will be developed. But multicore isn't a silver bullet for all problems, the same way nothing invented before multicore was. Software engineering will always be a matter of finding an acceptable balance given ever changing circumstances. It's part of why I love doing it


----------



## r9 (May 19, 2017)

notb said:


> I got my i5-7500 yesterday and with almost every graph in this review I was getting happier and happier with that choice (I considered Ryzen 5 1600).
> 
> Yup, 6C/12T is fantastic in productivity / simulation / database stuff. If I wanted to keep the CPU in my main PC for more than 3 years, it would be a clear winner.
> That said, I guess I can wait for my queries few more minutes, but the extra single-core potential of i5 should help in the future (not to mention the IGP).
> ...




You upgraded with future proofing in mind and this is what you came up with, great logic.
1600 loses to 7500 by 4% in gaming, tested on games that are not even in slightest optimized for Ryzen.
Couple of games that got patched saw up to 30% FPS increase, what does that tell you about future releases. 
Not to mention was tested with NVIDIA GPU that a lot of times its own unoptimized driver is the cause for low FPS.


----------



## drade (May 19, 2017)

notb said:


> I got my i5-7500 yesterday and with almost every graph in this review I was getting happier and happier with that choice (I considered Ryzen 5 1600). .


----------



## dirtyferret (May 19, 2017)

r9 said:


> You upgraded with future proofing in mind and this is what you came up with, great logic.
> 1600 loses to 7500 by 4% in gaming, tested on games that are not even in slightest optimized for Ryzen.
> Couple of games that got patched saw up to 30% FPS increase, what does that tell you about future releases.
> Not to mention was tested with NVIDIA GPU that a lot of times its own unoptimized driver is the cause for low FPS.



future proofing = suckers response

otherwise the phenom X4 would have finally showed promise after a few years, it didn't - sucked even worse
otherwise the phenom IIx6 would have beaten intel i5 in games after a few years - never did and routinely lost to higher clocked phenom II x4
otherwise the FX-8 would have beaten intel i5 in games after a few years, it didn't and would routinely lose out to higher clocked FX-6 and FX-4 processors

I'm not knocking the the ryzen CPU, it's a good CPU and the best AMD has created since the phenom II but to say it's future proof is laughable.  By the time you actually need six cores, the market will have much better offerings from both Intel and AMD.  And when that time comes the Ryzen 1600 will be painfully slow compared to the market (think intel Q6600 and phenom II to more modern i5s)


----------



## r9 (May 19, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> future proofing = suckers response
> 
> otherwise the phenom X4 would have finally showed promise after a few years, it didn't sucked even worse
> otherwise the phenom IIx6 would have beaten intel i5 in games after a few years - never did and routinely lost to higher clocked phenom II x4
> ...



Missing the point.
The point is 1600 matches the 7500 on unoptimized software, nothing to do with core count.
Unlike Fx series no optimization in the would have helped, they were just slow cpus with fake cores.
This time around you have proof what optimization can bring for Ryzen, just look at Dota and AoS updates.
And its not like you are paying for those extra cores, you are getting them for free.
You can always run something in parallel with the game.
Even 7700k at gaming a lot of times hits close to 90% while Ryzen is not even half of that.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2017)

r9 said:


> Missing the point.
> The point is 1600 matches the 7500 on unoptimized software, nothing to do with core count.
> Unlike Fx series no optimization in the would have helped, they were just slow cpus with fake cores.
> This time around you have proof what optimization can bring for Ryzen, just look at Dota and AoS updates.
> ...


I think it's you who's missing the point.
If you buy a CPU today, you buy it to run software that exists today. By the time software will be "optimized" in any significant amount, all CPUs you can buy today will be obsolete.


----------



## dirtyferret (May 19, 2017)

bug said:


> I think it's you who's missing the point.
> If you buy a CPU today, you buy it to run software that exists today. By the time software will be "optimized" in any significant amount, all CPUs you can buy today will be obsolete.



+1


----------



## notb (May 19, 2017)

r9 said:


> You upgraded with future proofing in mind and this is what you came up with, great logic.
> 1600 loses to 7500 by 4% in gaming, tested on games that are not even in slightest optimized for Ryzen.
> Couple of games that got patched saw up to 30% FPS increase, what does that tell you about future releases.


That's actually very simple. 
For the next 2-3 years I'll be totally fine with 7500's performance for all my needs.
After this period, I'll get a new PC. Thing is though: I'll be able to keep the 7500 for a HTPC, a home server, a tiny calculation rig or whatever.
As a result this CPU will serve me basically until it dies. And because this is a tried and tested architecture, I expect it to last 6-7 years.

That is "future proofing" in a real world. You know... I've actually though this through, unlike many people here who overuse this term in Ryzen topics. 

And the PC I'm using at the moment (since mid 2010! ) is still working perfectly, but too slow and old for my needs ( e.g. the mobo doesn't want to cooperate with Windows 10), so it's going to my grandfather.
I'd love to keep it as a HTPC/backup, but it's mATX and way too big to be kept in a living room.



r9 said:


> Not to mention was tested with NVIDIA GPU that a lot of times its own unoptimized driver is the cause for low FPS.


I don't really care about this, to be honest. I know i5-7500 + GTX1060 can handle games I want to play, I don't have to think about optimizations and so on.
But the fact that NVIDIA cards might work better with Intel CPUs is another advantage of the i5 ("might", because this hasn't been proven yet, AFAIK).
While the choice between Intel and AMD CPUs was real, I knew from the start that NVIDIA is the only option in the GPU department (because of CUDA).



drade said:


> [My teeth hurt, I want that medicine]


_Alternative text put instead of the image. Sorry for editing._
Care to write something instead?


----------



## r9 (May 19, 2017)

bug said:


> I think it's you who's missing the point.
> If you buy a CPU today, you buy it to run software that exists today. By the time software will be "optimized" in any significant amount, all CPUs you can buy today will be obsolete.


Being 4% behind doesn't mean that it can't run the current software.
Try running something parallel while gaming on both i5 7500 and R5 1600 and let me know how it goes.
The point is doesn't take a lot to optimize for Ryzen.
AoS patch was done in two weeks more or less with Dota.
Those 4% can swing only in Ryzen direction due to multithreading or code optimization.


----------



## r9 (May 19, 2017)

Streaming i5 6600k vs 1600x.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (May 20, 2017)

In this review:


> running Ryzen at memory speeds of 2133 or 2400 MHz only, with a significant performance penalty


In *AMD Ryzen Memory Analysis: 20 Apps & 17 Games, up to 4K*


> We are happy to report that you can save some money by choosing a slower DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2666 memory, at least until DDR4-3200 or higher memory becomes more affordable. You lose practically no performance to slower memory on the Ryzen platform, when averaged across our CPU tests. The fastest memory configuration in our bench, DDR4-3200 CL14, is about 3.1 percent faster than the slowest DDR4-2133 configuration. In specific tests, the differences in performance can be larger than the average. WinRAR handles a 1.5 GB compression job 5 seconds faster on DDR4-3200 than DDR4-2133, for example.



Okay, what did I miss?


----------



## Dave65 (May 20, 2017)

Thanks guys, went with the 1700x..


----------



## Footman (May 21, 2017)

_Flare said:


> This should be the correct clocks ... explains a lot


Looks like the 1600X is the Ryzen to choose if you don't want to mess with overclocking, the boost to 4.1ghz is interesting and the 2 missing cores between the 1800x and 1600x are unlikely to mean much for gamers....


----------



## Footman (May 21, 2017)

Jism said:


> Is it me or is that 3.8GHz OC relatively low? Since most Ryzen hit 4.0 up to 4.1GHz.


I hit a wall with my 1700 at 4.0ghz. I was prime stable at 1.3875vcore, which I thought was great, but try as I might I was not able to move higher than 4.0ghz! I may buy a 1600x to play with as it will boost to 4.1ghz, however I am still unsure if this boost is just on a single core or all cores....


----------



## Dave65 (May 21, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Thanks guys, went with the 1700x..



I got the 1700 not the 1700x
So far so good 4ghz @ 1.34375..
had it to 4.2 but it took 1.43 to do it so I backed it back to 4 and am happy with that..


----------



## bug (May 21, 2017)

Footman said:


> I hit a wall with my 1700 at 4.0ghz. I was prime stable at 1.3875vcore, which I thought was great, but try as I might I was not able to move higher than 4.0ghz! I may buy a 1600x to play with as it will boost to 4.1ghz, however I am still unsure if this boost is just on a single core or all cores....


Considering the boost frequency is for only 1-2 cores active, I wouldn't bet on XFR working for all cores. Even if it does, XFR is more like the frequency of modern mobile chips: nice to write on a paper, but unsustainable past a minute or so. It's nice to have it, if your workflow happens to be bursty, but I wouldn't make a buying decision based on it.


----------



## Footman (May 21, 2017)

bug said:


> Considering the boost frequency is for only 1-2 cores active, I wouldn't bet on XFR working for all cores. Even if it does, XFR is more like the frequency of modern mobile chips: nice to write on a paper, but unsustainable past a minute or so. It's nice to have it, if your workflow happens to be bursty, but I wouldn't make a buying decision based on it.


You are correct, I won't base any purchase on possibilities, however if I consider single core performance of potentially 4.1ghz and multiple core performance of the 1600x at 3.6ghz then this CPU is looking good for people who don't overclock. Over clocking performance on all cores is likely to be around 3.9-4.0ghz, much like the rest of the 6 and 8 core ryzens...


----------



## bug (May 21, 2017)

Footman said:


> You are correct, I won't base any purchase on possibilities, however if I consider single core performance of potentially 4.1ghz and multiple core performance of the 1600x at 3.6ghz then this CPU is looking good for people who don't overclock. Over clocking performance on all cores is likely to be around 3.9-4.0ghz, much like the rest of the 6 and 8 core ryzens...


True.
One thing to note a 4.0GHz overclock over the base 3.6Ghz is an 11% improvement. Not really worth it outside benchmarks. Especially if it wreaks havoc with the power consumption.
Personally, and this just what I do, if I can't get at least 20%, I don't overclock at all. And even then, there has to be some program involved that I feel I'm waiting for. Formatting a document in 4 seconds instead of 5 is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Super XP (May 23, 2017)

One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC whether it be for Gaming or not. Near future games will get crippled by CPUs such as the i5-7500 for example. More cores will ultimately win in the end.


----------



## bug (May 23, 2017)

Super XP said:


> One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC whether it be for Gaming or not. Near future games will get crippled by CPUs such as the i5-7500 for example. More cores will ultimately win in the end.


It may be sure for you, but someone who actually writes software, I'll say that's at least 50% wishful thinking.


----------



## Super XP (May 23, 2017)

bug said:


> It may be sure for you, but someone who actually writes software, I'll say that's at least 50% wishful thinking.



Multi Core is already here. Newer games will benefit more and more.
This was 2010. 
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Tests/More-Cores-More-FPS-794274/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/36gg5y/yes_games_do_use_8_cores/

The future is Multi Cores. Whether you Game or not.


----------



## bug (May 23, 2017)

Super XP said:


> Multi Core is already here. Newer games will benefit more and more.
> This was 2010.
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Tests/More-Cores-More-FPS-794274/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/36gg5y/yes_games_do_use_8_cores/
> ...


Are you a high school kid or something?


----------



## Mussels (May 23, 2017)

its not wishful thinking to get a CPU that matches todays needs perfectly (within 2% of the top dog in 4K gaming), with double (or more) the core/thread count.

no matter how you look at it, that simply cant be the poor choice - 2% loss at worst, with the possible benefits scaling up depending on how many cores you grab with ryzen.

-2% through +100% is kind of a good bet.


----------



## bug (May 23, 2017)

Mussels said:


> its not wishful thinking to get a CPU that matches todays needs perfectly (within 2% of the top dog in 4K gaming), with double (or more) the core/thread count.
> 
> no matter how you look at it, that simply cant be the poor choice - 2% loss at worst, with the possible benefits scaling up depending on how many cores you grab with ryzen.
> 
> -2% through +100% is kind of a good bet.


True, but that's not what he said. He said:


> One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC



I don't have a crystal ball, but judging by the rate of code adopting multithreading, by the time 8 cores standard, first generation Ryzen will be thing of the past.
By all means, get a Ryzen if that's what you want/need. If you're lucky, it will last you as long as an i5-2500k. But future proof "for sure"? That's a little out there.


----------



## Super XP (May 23, 2017)

bug said:


> Are you a high school kid or something?


Your comment tells that you are the high school kid.
FYI
Ryzen (12-16 Threads) and any 6+ Core Intel CPUs future proofs your PC. Whether you agree with this or not.


----------



## Mussels (May 23, 2017)

some of us have been around since the very early single core days, adoption of more cores is incredibly slow. Right now we're at the cusp where new games use 4+ threads, while old games use 1-2 threads.

Ryzen is perfect for the next few years because its got the single core performance for all existing titles, with the multi threaded performance for future titles.
Oh and its cheaper. Spending less for the best of both worlds? Thats future proofing.


----------



## bug (May 23, 2017)

Super XP said:


> Your comment tells that you are the high school kid.
> FYI
> Ryzen (12-16 Threads) and any 6+ Core Intel CPUs future proofs your PC. Whether you agree with this or not.



Presenting various statements as facts with little to no justification makes it very hard for me to continue this conversation.



Mussels said:


> some of us have been around since the very early single core days, adoption of more cores is incredibly slow. Right now we're at the cusp where new games use 4+ threads, while old games use 1-2 threads.
> 
> Ryzen is perfect for the next few years because its got the single core performance for all existing titles, with the multi threaded performance for future titles.
> Oh and its cheaper. Spending less for the best of both worlds? Thats future proofing.



I'm not disagreeing with what you say. But in my case, I'm looking at my CPU load at work and rarely are all 8 cores used. At home I have 4 cores and outside of games, they also rarely see action at the same time. For my uses, I'm future proofed with only 4 cores.


----------



## Caring1 (May 23, 2017)

Mussels said:


> some of us have been around since the very early single core days.....


I remember getting excited about the speed boost from a 66MHz CPU going to 100MHz lol


----------



## bug (May 23, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> I remember getting excited about the speed boost from a 66MHz CPU going to 100MHz lol


I remember hitting the Turbo button to make the computer blaze at 16MHz. Top that


----------



## Footman (May 23, 2017)

bug said:


> I remember hitting the Turbo button to make the computer blaze at 16MHz. Top that


Errr, what's a computer??? I remember when my abacus had only 11 columns....


----------



## Mussels (May 24, 2017)

bug said:


> I'm not disagreeing with what you say. But in my case, I'm looking at my CPU load at work and rarely are all 8 cores used. At home I have 4 cores and outside of games, they also rarely see action at the same time. For my uses, I'm future proofed with only 4 cores.



What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.


----------



## bug (May 24, 2017)

Mussels said:


> What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.


If software doesn't get rewritten within the next two years to make 4/8 cores inadequate, I'm pretty future proof.


----------



## notb (May 24, 2017)

Mussels said:


> What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.



But how much of the "future" would you like to be proofed for?

If some software isn't using 4 cores today, it means it'll have to be significantly rewritten. And it's not just that a coder will have to change the algorithm to something using more cores. It's more likely that someone will have to sit down with a pencil and invent the algorithm...
Some improvements could be just around a corner, some will take years and some will never happen.

I'm with you on the general idea, that most of the software will move towards multi-thread performance. This is fairly obvious.

And here is your choice today:
1) you can buy a "future-proof" CPU, but it might just be that this future is very far away or not happening at all.
2) you can buy a "present-proof" CPU that works well with software that you use today and will most likely use for next 2-3 years.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 24, 2017)

notb said:


> But how much of the "future" would you like to be proofed for?
> 
> If some software isn't using 4 cores today, it means it'll have to be significantly rewritten. And it's not just that a coder will have to change the algorithm to something using more cores. It's more likely that someone will have to sit down with a pencil and invent the algorithm...
> Some improvements could be just around a corner, some will take years and some will never happen.
> ...


Ryzen works very well with single threaded games/apps, it shines in 4+ core games and apps and will continue to do so, I don't understand your point (again) 

Do I wish I had bought a measly 4c chip with no htt for the same price as my 6c/12t Ryzen? hell no lol


----------



## notb (May 25, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Ryzen works very well with single threaded games/apps, it shines in 4+ core games and apps and will continue to do so, I don't understand your point (again)


Have I said that Ryzen is not a good choice for today? No. It's a very capable CPU and every of it's 6 or 8 cores are as good as those in all but the fastest Intel CPUs. Yet, obviously, Ryzen has more of them. This makes Ryzen a very good CPU, indeed. If one can live with it's drawbacks (or rather: properties compared to Intel's products), it's a very good choice.

I'm simply mocking the "future-proof" nonsense. 



NdMk2o1o said:


> Do I wish I had bought a measly 4c chip with no htt for the same price as my 6c/12t Ryzen? hell no lol


If this is about my i5-7500, then I though my reasons were fairly obvious.
Performance-wise Ryzen 5 1600 is a better choice. This is an easy, quantitative comparison.
But for me everything other than performance is more-or-less won by Intel.

And as for being "future-proof" I do believe an Intel i5 will serve me much longer than a Ryzen.
So here it is and after few days I can tell you 2 things:
1) I like the performance and I'm sure it'll be fine for years,
2) I didn't spend a minute on RAM compatibility issues. 

What has to be added: this is the most expensive desktop CPU I've ever bought (by a decent margin). I was usually buying from low-end, high performance/price models (so I should have bought a fast Pentium or an i3).


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 25, 2017)

notb said:


> Have I said that Ryzen is not a good choice for today? No. It's a very capable CPU and every of it's 6 or 8 cores are as good as those in all but the fastest Intel CPUs. Yet, obviously, Ryzen has more of them. This makes Ryzen a very good CPU, indeed. If one can live with it's drawbacks (or rather: properties compared to Intel's products), it's a very good choice.
> 
> I'm simply mocking the "future-proof" nonsense.
> 
> ...



Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance  is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user  multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too.... 

i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.


----------



## notb (May 25, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance  is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user  multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too....
> 
> i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.



Seriously, is CPU just performance, price and power draw to you? What about other features? What about the whole platform?

3 letters for you: *IGP* (which in my case makes Intel cheaper - among other advantages).
But also the simple fact that Ryzen is the first generation and I try not to buy first-gen products. A huge difference in performance could persuade me, but not what I've seen in leaks and reviews. This might not mean much to you, but is huge for me - even more so with Ryzen platform that has already shown some early stage issues. Not everything can be fixed via firmware. 
Another 3 things from a longer list of pro-Intel reasons:
- Ryzen doesn't support RAID 5 (honestly, why?!),
- I really like Optane and so far we haven't seen any leaks of competing technologies being developed,
- I was building an mITX PC and the lone Biostar mobo is really unconvincing. I didn't want to wait another N months for other offering (especially since specs of "ITX chipsets" haven't been confirmed yet).


----------



## Jorge Nascimento (May 29, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd



To complete what you said about the other comment, and to add my own experience, I have a Ryzen 5 1600 with a Gigabyte gaming 5 AB350, and a pair of gskill flareX @ 3200 CL 14, And a RX480 nitro OC+ 8gb Spahhire that i flashed to 580.

Right now i have my AMD running @ 4.0 and the memories @3200mhz CL15 (cannot get stable with CL14).
And right now and from all the comparisons i did i can only find some a very small percentage of I5-7600K that perform better then mine, even most stock clocked i7 7700K tend to perform more less the same as my Ryzen.

Last time i had an AMD was a K7, since then i have always used intel, but i cant be more happy about the change.
About that comment, I say the same to the other guy, whatever helps you sleep at night.


----------



## pleaseno (May 30, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance  is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user  multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too....
> 
> i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.



The power draw is better than Intels´in every case. But dont ask me why tpu would claim that as a"con". I dont remember ever reading a review where it said "this quadcore draws more power than the dualcore here, therefore we have to take it as a con". This is just either stupid or intentionaly false, for reasons i can only assume.


----------



## bug (May 30, 2017)

pleaseno said:


> The power draw is better than Intels´in every case. But dont ask me why tpu would claim that as a"con". I dont remember ever reading a review where it said "this quadcore draws more power than the dualcore here, therefore we have to take it as a con". This is just either stupid or intentionaly false, for reasons i can only assume.


It's called performance-per-watt


----------



## pleaseno (May 30, 2017)

bug said:


> It's called performance-per-watt



Pah, i ll call it banane per horse, TAKE THAT


Edit: yes, thats what i mean. Either take absolute power consumption as a con AND banana/horse as a plus, or take none of them.


----------



## bug (May 30, 2017)

pleaseno said:


> Pah, i ll call it banane per horse, TAKE THAT
> 
> 
> Edit: yes, thats what i mean. Either take absolute power consumption as a con AND banana/horse as a plus, or take none of them.


I suppose you have a problem with gas mileage, too. Because why measure that when engines clearly come in various cylinder configurations?


----------



## pleaseno (May 30, 2017)

bug said:


> I suppose you have a problem with gas mileage, too. Because why measure that when engines clearly come in various cylinder configurations?



Yes, you CAN assume that the same car with less cylinders will have a lower gas mileage. But we are talking about cars who have 2 seats vs 4 seats. If you have to pick 4 ppl up, the latter will spare you a second ride. That will definitely result in lower gas mileage (absolute and per ratio), especially if the cars are very similar or identical otherwise.


Lets say the 1600 is always 100%. Then you have:

wPrime :  7500: 67%    7600k: 76% 
score wprime: 7500 : 200%   7600k: 180% (time pass)

I picked wPrime, since it had the worst power gap for the Ryzen. In any other working case,it does better. 
Even in gaming, where there is much to optimize yet, Ryzen is only 10% "higher" in consumption:

7500: 90%    7600k: 91%

Sooo, if i can do the job in half the time while spending just 1/3 more power, how is that considered a con?

Not to mention the fact, that i dont see more power consumption being dubbed as an disadvantage as long as it comes with a surplus in other fields in Intel reviews.


----------



## bug (May 30, 2017)

pleaseno said:


> Yes, you CAN assume that the same car with less cylinders will have a lower gas mileage. But we are talking about cars who have 2 seats vs 4 seats. If you have to pick 4 ppl up, the latter will spare you a second ride. That will definitely result in lower gas mileage (absolute and per ratio), especially if the cars are very similar or identical otherwise.
> 
> 
> Lets say the 1600 is always 100%. Then you have:
> ...


First of all, no review does an integral of power over time, which what you're talking about (and you're not wrong in that regard).
Second, you missed that Ryzen also uses more power in games where it also loses/ties in performance. Games aren't "properly threaded" either (according to the general opinion), which brings us to...
Third, the car in your analogy rarely runs with all seats occupied, because that's how software works today.

So yes, you can look at a CPU from different points of view (what a surprise!), but moaning about a metric that's been used for ages doesn't put you in a great position.


----------



## W1zzard (May 30, 2017)

bug said:


> no review does an integral of power over time


I take one measurement each second and then average over a reasonable timeframe to catch power draw changes due to temperature increase / clock variation etc


----------



## bug (May 30, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I take one measurement each second and then average over a reasonable timeframe to catch power draw changes due to temperature increase / clock variation etc


I meant no one does a computation of the total power burned to complete a given task. It would take a lot more than a measurement each second to compute that. I'm even asking you to do that, numbers can be inferred using the avg power draw and time to complete a task anyway.

Because what the other guy is saying, is ok, CPU A uses 10W on average, CPU B uses 11W. But if CPU A gets the job done in 20s, while CPU B that gets the job done in 15s*, CPU B actually uses less power. 

*numbers pulled out of my rear


----------



## pleaseno (May 30, 2017)

I didnt miss the games part. I wrote:

"Even in gaming, where there is *much to optimize yet*, Ryzen is only 10% "higher" in consumption:

7500: 90% 7600k: 91%"

And it should be at least slightly better in the future.

I m sry, but it doesnt sum up. Power consumption judgement cant be  done from only one point of view (and usually isnt done so). Looking at others reviews just here, i dont see the same thing to be an issue , for example:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-5960X_5930K_5820K_Comparison/7.html
or here, where the higher power draw even doesnt come hand in hand with the similar advantage(s) as with the 1600:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/21.html

If the power draw is bad, it should really count as a con, but if it is only marginally higher or only higher when it is delivering more, then it is a different story.
And i think that goes also for gaming, because i have people in my clan, who have stuttering voicechat clients plainly because their rig isnt sufficient and people/especially if regular gamers often have more things running then just the game. So, even there, the higher pwer (more cores running) has a good reason to exist.
Also sry for poor text formatting


----------



## pleaseno (May 30, 2017)

Offtopic: what do i do with this achievement


----------



## Madhusudan (Jul 8, 2017)

Best CPU review. In details and clear. Great work.

The whole Ryzen ecosystem much more stable now


----------



## Super XP (Jul 9, 2017)

Madhusudan said:


> Best CPU review. In details and clear. Great work.
> 
> The whole Ryzen ecosystem much more stable now


It's only going to get better. Now that Threadripper is in the mix.


----------



## gr33nbits (Jul 30, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Hey guys, would this be a good replacement for a z170/6700k?
> I do a lot of video rendering and editing, would it be worth the upgrade?


Yes it will and software developers are starting to use more and more cores on their apps so yes go for it, I own one that got 6 days ago and it's just awesome couldn't be more happy AMD .


----------



## gr33nbits (Jul 30, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd





NdMk2o1o said:


> You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd



Omg you are so right i don't even believe someone comes to a Ryzen 5 1600 review saying that is happy with an i5 buy, it's just for the laughs for sure, it's trolling i don't believe he got an i5 when he could had got the best value for the money when it comes to cpu's, i got this Ryzen 5 1600 6 days ago and wouldn't trade it for none of the i7's on the market, even more the i5 a 4core/4thread cpu for 2017 when you know software developers will start using all the threads they can...


----------



## Super XP (Jul 30, 2017)

AMD's Ryzen CPU's are Largely overdue and finally out. AMD is back to being the BEST Prices Performance once again. 

Give AMD credit, they battle both Nvidia and Intel in this PC Market. Thumbs Up.


----------



## gr33nbits (Jul 30, 2017)

Super XP said:


> AMD's Ryzen CPU's are Largely overdue and finally out. AMD is back to being the BEST Prices Performance once again.
> 
> Give AMD credit, they battle both Nvidia and Intel in this PC Market. Thumbs Up.


+1


----------

