# AMD Ryzen 5 2600 3.4 GHz



## W1zzard (May 8, 2018)

The Ryzen 5 2600 is AMD's most affordable 12 nm processor you can buy, and fills the shoes of the popular Ryzen 5 1600. Thanks to its twelve threads, it will breeze through multi-threaded workloads, and its gaming performance has been improved a lot too, beating last generation's Ryzen 7 1800X flagship.

*Show full review*


----------



## ne6togadno (May 8, 2018)

isnt it more useful to show difference between cpus performance in 4k with sli (1080ti or 1080 whatever you have available) then to demonstrate the obvious fact that 4k is gpu limited.
this will be useful for those that are aiming for max fps @4k and are looking for cpu to help squeeze max out of their sli setup.
ofc note that fps count for 4k cant be compared to fps coutn for 720p - 1440p should be added for those that fail to see "sli" in the table titles.


----------



## ps000000 (May 8, 2018)

Same 9.0 score with i5 8500


----------



## dj-electric (May 8, 2018)

W1zz, you might wanna mention in the table that 2600+ are 'Zen+'. It might help understand stuff better


----------



## HD64G (May 8, 2018)

Pretty impressive to get a cpu faster than 1600X in all tasks with the power usage of 1600 with minor updates in cache and evolved manufacturing procedure. This time AMD nailed it indeed. Ryzen 1600 was a shock for the market but 2600 is THE bargain without sacrifising performance while maintaining low temps and wattage. A great product all-round. I would buy it for sure to build a PC for general purpose usage (including gaming as it drives any GPU up to GTX1080 without losing performance at all compared to Intel CPUs).


----------



## GoldenX (May 8, 2018)

Now the wait for Zen2 starts.
So overclocking can help somewhat on a non X, good to know.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (May 9, 2018)

The boost profile is kinda weird, I thought it's gonna follow Ryzen 7 2700 pattern but instead it's much better

Since TDP is the same it makes me think that the boost profile is kinda buggy on the 2700, maybe it should fall drastically only when exceeding 12 threads


----------



## biffzinker (May 9, 2018)

Since Intel's i5 six core without SMT is such a hit, why not a six core Ryzen without SMT?


----------



## Caring1 (May 9, 2018)

XiGMAKiD said:


> The boost profile is kinda weird, I thought it's gonna follow Ryzen 7 2700 pattern but instead it's much better
> 
> Since TDP is the same it makes me think that the boost profile is kinda buggy on the 2700, maybe it should fall drastically only when exceeding 12 threads


I was thinking maybe the chip is faulty, although his explanation in the review does make sense.
I do query where it states the 2700 drops by 1GHz across all 16 threads under load though, when the base line shows just over 3200GHz and up to 4.1GHz, that's just under 900MHz the way I see it.


----------



## r9 (May 12, 2018)

biffzinker said:


> Since Intel's i5 six core without SMT is such a hit, why not a six core Ryzen without SMT?


It will be cheaper and as fast because smt and ht is loads of crap.
Disabling the smt doesn't make the cpu cheaper to produce.
So that would end AMD with selling the same cpu for cheaper.
And they only do that if they want to cover a price segment that they are not competitive in.


----------



## cronus75 (Dec 10, 2018)

So the thing is, it's important for Ryzen 5 2600 to stay below a specific temp for boost clocks. What was the cooler solution for the AMD setup for this test? Not specified at system config. Is Wraith cooler enough for these sustained XFR2.0 boost clocks?


----------

