# AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

The Ryzen 5 1600X is AMD's flagship Ryzen 5 processor model. It comes at an affordable $250, with a base clock of 3.6 GHz. Thanks to AMD XFR, it will boost up to 4.1 GHz, which helps gain single-threaded performance over Intel's offerings. It looks like Core i5-7600K is in trouble.

*Show full review*


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Apr 11, 2017)

Great review, nice one  @W1zzard


----------



## Tallencor (Apr 11, 2017)

Thanks for a speedy upload. But as someone who uses my pc for mostly gaming it looks like Intel is still the winner.


----------



## Kissamies (Apr 11, 2017)

I'm having more and more that "damn, why I had to buy a LGA1151 platform", since AMD did an amazing job on these..


----------



## HD64G (Apr 11, 2017)

1600X is the best CPU for its price for both multitasking, productivity, streaming and gaming by far imho. Thanks for the review @W1zzard ! Did I oversaw that or you don't mention RAM frequency you acheived for Ryzen setup?


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

HD64G said:


> Did I oversaw that or you don't mention RAM frequency you acheived for Ryzen setup?


Whoops, adding that to the test setup pages on both reviews


----------



## Hugis (Apr 11, 2017)

first pages of both reviews say ryzen 7 not 5 in the intro charts (*Ryzen 7 1600X* & *Ryzen 7 1500X)

great reviews btw wizz 

*


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 11, 2017)

Still happy with my i5 6500 for now...
If the gaming performance improves over time with patches or such , who knows I might go with an AMD CPU next time, it's good value for the money thats for sure.


----------



## crow1001 (Apr 11, 2017)

RIP  i5


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 11, 2017)

Just wondering if there is a reason the 7700K was left out in the Power Consumption when it was in everything else.


----------



## arnold_al_qadr (Apr 11, 2017)

AM4 consists of 1,331 pins (missed opportunity to add 6 more ground pins).

yeah, 1337, lol ..


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 11, 2017)

HD64G said:


> 1600X is the best CPU for its price for both multitasking, productivity, streaming and gaming by far imho. Thanks for the review @W1zzard ! Did I oversaw that or you don't mention RAM frequency you acheived for Ryzen setup?



How about vanilla 1600, it's cheaper with same core count. But yeah I agree Ryzen 5 1600/1600X is the best cpu for both.


----------



## renz496 (Apr 11, 2017)

just curious how well this CPU against intel offering when both were OCed to the limit?


----------



## zmeul (Apr 11, 2017)

> We are happy to report that these greater features on paper, do also translate into performance that beats the Core i5-7600K *at everything*.


wonder wtf TPU is smoking


----------



## saikiasunny (Apr 11, 2017)

So with that performance, every gaming+work PC under 1000$ should be with AMD Ryzen. Or am I missing something?


----------



## raptori (Apr 11, 2017)

Good review , but Why B350 against top line Maximus Z series ?


----------



## Manu_PT (Apr 11, 2017)

Good review. Will stick to intel. Gaming results are really disapiinting. Open world games with up to 80% differences on mininum fps. Meh


----------



## Fluffmeister (Apr 11, 2017)

Seems to be a pretty compelling option, especially as I game at 1440p, might even save a few extra quid and go for the 1600 and overclock it...


----------



## techtard (Apr 11, 2017)

Nice work on the review as always. I now have the upgrade itch and the only cure might be the Ryzen 1600.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

raptori said:


> Good review , but Why B350 against top line Maximus Z series ?


AMD provided the motherboards, which came with a BIOS using the new Agesa version. Tests on the X370 motherboards which have the 1001 Agesa only will yield incorrect performance numbers


----------



## Technomancer (Apr 11, 2017)

Don't know why people are complaining about gaming performance. I think these parts are absolutely fine from gaming and productivity perspective. I mean who buys a $250 CPU and then pairs it with top range Monitor/Graphics card? Most of the people are going to use this CPU with a mid/enthusiast class Monitor/Graphics card anyway. Sure you won't get top gaming performance, but you will gain more from productivity and value perspective.


----------



## techtard (Apr 11, 2017)

On the internet, either you're the best, or you're the worst. It's like all these guys complaining about the gaming FPS went to the Ricky Bobby school of philosophy.  "If you're not first, you're last!"


----------



## dozenfury (Apr 11, 2017)

A great review and info.  Only question is why the article leads with, "In our testing the Intel Core i5-7600K looks defeated.".  The 1600X from the benchmarks was a fair amount slower than the $10 cheaper 7600K in nearly every test that was done in the review.  Just about the only exception where the 1600X was faster was Blender.  Not saying that in any biased way, just saying that objectively the numbers don't really support the 7600K being defeated at all.  The niche exception where the 1600X was faster in the tests was just very heavy multi-thread/core apps like Blender, but games/compression/media/etc. which are probably the much more common use still shows the 7600K ahead.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 11, 2017)

dozenfury said:


> A great review and info.  Only question is why the article leads with, "In our testing the Intel Core i5-7600K looks defeated.".  The 1600X from the benchmarks was a fair amount slower than the $10 cheaper 7600K in nearly every test that was done in the review.  Just about the only exception where the 1600X was faster was Blender.  Not saying that in any biased way, just saying that objectively the numbers don't really support the 7600K being defeated at all.  The niche exception where the 1600X was faster in the tests was just very heavy multi-thread/core apps like Blender, but games/compression/media/etc. which are probably the much more common use still shows the 7600K ahead.



Most of the "productivity" tests are still super single (dual if lucky) threaded. Devs still can't figure out how to remove thumbs from ass. Even the encoding ones are badly threaded. Winblows isn't helping. But the differences don't matter, really. You're not buying it to only do these workloads. The 7600K will be maxed out a lot while the R5 is waiting for something to do. You could actually multitask (even if it's just simple stuff).

And if you have real work to do (like a real encoder, not this BS), then it's going to pound the i5 and still beat the i7 (1600 anyway).

Without software optimization and higher clocks, it's more of an all around CPU that's cheap.


----------



## Nima (Apr 11, 2017)

Wow! negative result from overclocking! it's the first time I see performance diminishes after overclocking. this CPUs are basically overclocked to their limit by AMD.


----------



## tvamos (Apr 11, 2017)

It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must... https://i.redd.it/3a8lgbc0lxqy.png
Other than that, nice reviews.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 11, 2017)

Rise of the Tomb Raider and Sniper Elite 4 have ridiculously good minimum frame rates on Ryzen 5 ... It would be glorious to see L3 cache usage graphs in some cpu profiler while running these games


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

Nima said:


> Wow! negative result from overclocking! it's the first time I see performance diminishes after overclocking. this CPUs are basically overclocked to their limit by AMD.


the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter



tvamos said:


> It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must...


Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios


----------



## tvamos (Apr 11, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios


Yes, I understand, but still, such a difference is something to look at. Maybe next NVidia drivers will do ryzen justice.


----------



## Nima (Apr 11, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios



Oops! still less than 5% gain with overclocking which mean this CPU is near it's limit at stock clock.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 11, 2017)

tvamos said:


> It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must... https://i.redd.it/3a8lgbc0lxqy.png
> Other than that, nice reviews.



Nvidia has garbage dx12 drivers. Vega testing is going to be very interesting.


----------



## hat (Apr 11, 2017)

Nima said:


> Oops! still less than 5% gain with overclocking which mean this CPU is near it's limit at stock clock.


AMD has a history of doing that. The high end chips are often close to the limit already. If you buy a low end chip, you can probably overclock to what the high end chip can reach... but if you have the high end chip already, you're not going very far.

Still, the 1600x looks like a pretty good chip for the money, especially in heavily multithreaded tasks.


----------



## Axaion (Apr 11, 2017)

I have to question why it seems to have much higher minimum fps in battlefield 1 at 1440p, compared to 1080p.

Something is not quite right here


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

Axaion said:


> I have to question why it seems to have much higher minimum fps in battlefield 1 at 1440p, compared to 1080p.
> 
> Something is not quite right here


Could be some disk caching effect (1920x1080 is the first run). That's why I mentioned that I don't 100% trust those results yet


----------



## tomy91 (Apr 11, 2017)

I came here for the "Performance per Watt" and "Performance per Dollar" charts but they're not here. Also most of tests seems handpicked to favor Intel and they're not using Windows 10 Creators Update that finally has some Ryzen optimizations. Plus the Core i7-7700K somehow is missing from power consumption tests (guess why). Welcome to "IntelPowerup"!


----------



## Axaion (Apr 11, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Could be some disk caching effect (1920x1080 is the first run). That's why I mentioned that I don't 100% trust those results yet


Yeah, well its nice that you did minumum frames at least, it does matter imo


----------



## Totally (Apr 11, 2017)

Where are all the Intel/AMD fans, Ryzen-naysayers that we had pre-launch? The comments section so peaceful and constructive but nowhere near as entertaining reading all the dumb shit they say.


----------



## HTC (Apr 11, 2017)

Haven't been able to find *"my CPU's"* bench yet: the 1600 *non-X*.

Don't really care for that XFR crap (i intend to *un*derclock it: not *ov*erclock it) and i very much like the 6 core / 12 thread only 65W TDP.

@ least that is for sale in my area, unlike the *only board i want* to pair it with


----------



## birdie (Apr 11, 2017)

I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:


> The similarly priced Core i5-7600K is convincingly beaten by the 1600X across the board, and the 1600X even registers wins against the much costlier i7-7700K in some tests.



Let's see (1080p):

7600K wins in:

Anno 2205
BF1
Dishonored 2
Doom
Fallout 4
Far Cry Primal
Hitman
Resident Evil 7

Total War: Warhammer
Watchdogs 2
The Witcher 3
1600X wins in

Civ 4
Styx: Shards of Darkness
More or less a draw in

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Sniper Elite 4
Shadow Warrior 2
I see nothing that indicates that the Core i5-7600K is _"convincingly beaten_" by the 1600X.

If anything this review reeks of a hint of fanboyism. Also, I've failed to notice the tests which pitch these two CPUs against each other at the same frequency with SMT disabled while measuring their TDP.

I'm not a fan of either company but I want to see an unbiased review and this one slightly favours AMD CPUs despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm glad that AMD has released competitive CPUs, but we need to understand their inherent shortcomings before praising them too much. I still firmly believe that Zen 1.0 is a good testbed for a new CPU architecture, but only in Zen 2.0 AMD can claim unabated superiority.

Right now we're pitching a six core CPU with SMT (!) against a four core Intel part and we are made believe that AMD has suddenly become competitive. Yes and no.

AMD Zen CPUs are competitive in price performance metrics, but the true performance crown still belongs to Intel. Intel just for this very moment doesn't want to rearrange their CPUs range. Nothing can stop Intel from releasing Skylake-X parts which will destroy AMD.


----------



## CounterSpell (Apr 11, 2017)

we need a performance per dollar chart !!!!


----------



## Altern8 (Apr 11, 2017)

birdie said:


> I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:
> 
> 
> Let's see (1080p):
> ...



First post ever, here on TPU. Loyal reader since the dawn of TPU... From Norway, so not the best english

So, talking about fanboyism? I rest my case... I'm totally neutral any aspect, but this made me finally register. 

Anyway, I see that the worst critisim over AMD has ended, and we consumers now finally can have many things to choose from, just given the money we want to spend. Not sure if that was correct written, but however; us consumers, now we finnaly have competition at least between two! Shoulnd't we then smile?


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 11, 2017)

birdie said:


> I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:
> 
> 
> Let's see (1080p):
> ...


I have to agree with you there, INTEL has constantly provided minor IPC improvements with each new CPU they released in past 6+ years while AMD on the other hand has sat IDLE with nothing relevant for consumers or business sector. But finally AMD has caught up with Haswell level IPC. But they are about to be hit with Skylake-X in HEDT with better IPC and frequency then Ryzen counterpart. Even at stock RYZEN provides almost no headroom for overclock (unless you consider 100Mhz worthwhile). Only way to improve performance on RYZEN is thought BIOS, Patches, Microcode, worth around like Power Plans etc.

But AMD  has beaten INTEL in a price war for sure and consumers have more options then ever.


----------



## Iceni (Apr 11, 2017)

Anno 2205                         - 1 FPS

BF1                                     - 5.7 FPS

Dishonored 2                     - 8.5 FPS

Doom                                 - 0.8 FPS

Fallout 4                             - 15.6 FPS

Far Cry Primal                    - 7.6 FPS

Hitman                              - 11.9 FPS

Resident Evil 7                  - 1.5 FPS

Total War: Warhammer   - 13.6 FPS

Watchdogs 2                    - 7.8 FPS

The Witcher 3                   - 2.8 FPS


I think we must be looking at different charts @birdie . 

The only games where intel wins are Total war, Fallout 4, and Hitman. The rest been under 10fps. That only shows that in selected titles the intel 7600K is a better chip. For absolutely everything else it is as close as damnit, or better, Whist been cheaper, and been on a platform that has yet to see the first generation of tweaks. AMD has come away with an absolute blinder of a chip.


----------



## Frick (Apr 11, 2017)

Yeeessss this is the one to get. Man I wish I had money, my poor Pentium G3220 is really struggling at times.


----------



## happy medium (Apr 11, 2017)

here we go again testing games with a gpu bottleneck. Total BS.
Wonder why we don't have a 7600k overclocked in the charts vs a 1600 overcocked?

95% of 7600k's overclock past 4.6 .
95% of 1600's overclock to less than 4.0

Results after overclocking the 7600k @ 4.6? the 7600k wins 95% of all the benchmarks for the same price.
or buy a 6700k for $300 and overclock it to 4.7 and it will beat a $500 1800x @ 4.0 in 99% of games that ARE NOT GPU LIMITED.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 11, 2017)

happy medium said:


> here we go again testing games with a gpu bottleneck. Total BS.
> Wonder why we don't have a 7600k overclocked in the charts vs a 1600 overcocked?
> 
> 95% of 7600k's overclock past 4.6 .
> ...



You realize that for Intel you are forced to buy highest chipset motherboard to even OC which shoot up entry cost.


----------



## Frick (Apr 11, 2017)

Also there's more to life than gaming. If your sole purpose is gaming, go Intel and overclock. Every other case, go AMD.


----------



## tacosRcool (Apr 11, 2017)

It's an awesome chip for the price and people just need to lay off all the hate.


----------



## Joss (Apr 11, 2017)

AnandTech review (where they used both Nvidia and AMD cards) showed very interesting results (as @tvamos showed in post #26)
I'm eager for the upcoming TPU review with Vega.


----------



## hat (Apr 11, 2017)

Frick said:


> Also there's more to life than gaming. If your sole purpose is gaming, go Intel and overclock. Every other case, go AMD.


Of course, you could always go x99... for much more money.


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Apr 11, 2017)

AMD limited the OC of ryzen to leave room for later ryzen2 launches.


----------



## Joss (Apr 11, 2017)

Dbiggs9 said:


> AMD limited the OC of ryzen to leave room for later ryzen2 launches.


And on what do you base your conclusion ?


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2017)

Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz.  Why even bother with the x models?  Even better value with the R5 1600.  B350 motherboards are pretty cheap.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Apr 12, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz.  Why even bother with the x models?  Even better value with the R5 1600.  B350 motherboards are pretty cheap.



Agreed, the X chips really aren't worth the cash, especially with all the chips being unlocked. The true gems seem to be the 1600 and 1700.


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Apr 12, 2017)

Joss said:


> And on what do you base your conclusion ?


Economics same reason Intel gave you little icp from sandy-skylake


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 12, 2017)

To me the OC capabilities are bad just because the design is new.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 12, 2017)

Thanks for including minimum FPS. Next time please include it within one page (neighboring the regular "average" graphs), for better overview. 



> High power draw


Very relative, it's only a small tad more in idle and other tasks (mostly 10 W), which is kinda irrelevant. I think you overstated it, "higher" sounds better than "high" here. 



> Overclocking barely worth it


Yet, your own overclocked benchmark results prove that it's worth it. 6s less encoding time. Someone who encodes a lot will save a lot of time in the long run. 

I think with higher voltages the overclock would be a bit higher - I would've liked to see different overclocking results based on different voltages (taking 1.45V as the realistic maximum, I'd say) - missed the chance here.


----------



## Iceni (Apr 12, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz. Why even bother with the x models?



You'd go with the X model only if you want the single core turbo over 4Ghz. The 1600X and 1800X are both capable of 4.1Ghz single core. But if you over-clock them you loose that feature.

In essence you have a choice to make with Ryzen. 3.9-4Ghz always on on all cores, or stock speeds with a higher single core turbo. If you want the constant over-clock then the non x models are the chips to look at. If you don't plan on overclocking and want a decent all rounder then you take the X model.

It depends on how you want the machine to function. If you want the cores for multitasking and multithreading, and still want to game then the X model is very favourable as a stock part.

If all you want to do is play games then the question isn't what chip to pick. It's how much do you want to invest.  The i5 7600K is still the overall better gaming chip if that is all you do. But in order to make it that you are now forced to overclock it. Since at stock speeds AMD have a competitor. How big that overclock is is totally dependant on the investment in that chip. To gain the advantage you will need to be pushing 4.8+ and have the cooling solution to deal with that even potentially delid. With that in mind you may be spending $1-200 more just for bragging rights. And should have really got the 7700K instead of investing in over-clocks.

Amd on the other hand are hitting the market with a line up that are poor overclockers. That can still hit framerates that are right on top of intel. The second generation chipset for these CPU's is going to be where the money is. It'll solve most of the issues, and still be an am4 socket.  It might even have features that unlock overclocking to regular levels +10-20%. If that is the case then intel will need a hard response to that chipset.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 12, 2017)

Technomancer said:


> Don't know why people are complaining about gaming performance. I think these parts are absolutely fine from gaming and productivity perspective. I mean who buys a $250 CPU and then pairs it with top range Monitor/Graphics card? Most of the people are going to use this CPU with a mid/enthusiast class Monitor/Graphics card anyway. Sure you won't get top gaming performance, but you will gain more from productivity and value perspective.


It seems like if it can't beat the 7700K in every gaming benchmark then it sucks. Lots and lots and lots of people though have been gaming with CPU's that are much slower and never even realized their experience was suffering soooo bad. 



Kanan said:


> Thanks for including minimum FPS. Next time please include it within one page (neighboring the regular "average" graphs), for better overview.



Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.

Still an excellent review W1zzard. Not complaining.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 12, 2017)

hat said:


> AMD has a history of doing that. The high end chips are often close to the limit already. If you buy a low end chip, you can probably overclock to what the high end chip can reach... but if you have the high end chip already, you're not going very far.
> 
> Still, the 1600x looks like a pretty good chip for the money, especially in heavily multithreaded tasks.


Yes. Buy the 1600. It'll overclock "_better_".


----------



## Relayer (Apr 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> To me the OC capabilities are bad just because the design is new.


Let's not forget it's a different process than Intel. Last I heard Intel still had the best fabs and process in the industry. Nothing AMD can do about that though.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 12, 2017)

Relayer said:


> Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.


Yeah absolutely, that's why everyone was asking for it and that's why he has included them in this review. /s No they are not worthless, they are important for competitive gamers especially, they can't afford it, not even for one split second.

And stop your multiposting, learn to Multi-Quote instead.


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> You realize that for Intel you are forced to buy highest chipset motherboard to even OC which shoot up entry cost.



You realize that a 7600k, Asus  z170 motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~$500 overclocks past 4.6
A 1600X with a decent Asus motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~ $500  overclocks to 3.9

The 7600k @ 4.6+ wins in EVERY benchmark for the same price and will destroy it in gaming.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 12, 2017)

There is no need for a "decent" expensive motherboard, the CPU is a SoC.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2017)

happy medium said:


> You realize that a 7600k, Asus  z170 motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~$500 overclocks past 4.6
> A 1600X with a decent Asus motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~ $500  overclocks to 3.9
> 
> The 7600k @ 4.6+ wins in EVERY benchmark for the same price and will destroy it in gaming.



*Intel*
239.99 = 7600K (no HSF)
135.99 = Asus Prime (You need a Z or X board)
30 = HSF (Just to get the system up and running. More if you want to OC)
*405.98*

*AMD*
249.99 = 1600X (HSF inc)
89.99 = Asus Prime (B350 does just fine, This review uses MSI one)
*339.98
*319.98 = If you go with the 1600 get same OC if your hell bent on OC in the first place.
*
Since the cores wont be pegged at max you can stream to your friends while gaming and telling them how you PWND them instead of using your phone or worse having to buy another 4c/4t system to do so.



*UPDATED:*
Forgot the HSF for the 7600K since it doesnt come with one


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> *Intel*
> 239.99 = 7600K
> 135.99 = Asus Prime (You need a Z or X board)
> *375.98*
> ...


You can get the same quality Z170 board as a B350 for $89
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627 600567584 600567554&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

So for the same price i'd go for a 7600k overclocked vs a 1600 any day.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2017)

happy medium said:


> You can get the same quality Z170 board as a B350 for $89
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627 600567584 600567554&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
> 
> So for the same price i'd go for a 7600k overclocked vs a 1600 any day.



*Just FYI that review* is using a *$169.99* Asrock Z270 Gaming K6 for the 7600K and a *$89.99* Asus Prime B350 for 1600X. They were able to clock it to 4.1Ghz, not bad for a $89 board.

Don't forget the 7600K doesnt come with a stock cooler so factor that in as well. $30 just to get it up and running more if you want to OC.


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> *Just FYI that review* is using a *$169.99* Asrock Z270 Gaming K6 for the 7600K and a *$89.99* Asus Prime B350 for 1600X they were able to clock it to 4.1Ghz, not bad for a $89 board.


ANd for your information, the $89 board I linked will overclock a 7600k to 4.6 .
So what is your point?


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2017)

happy medium said:


> ANd for your information, the $89 board I linked will overclock a 7600k to 4.6 .
> So what is your point?



You were try'n to compare prices but forgot essentials. Now your buying last gen parts to save money. That's good but still short.


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> You were try'n to compare prices but forgot essentials. Now your buying last gen parts to save money. That's good but still short.


but yet the $89 Z170 boards have more features than the 89$ AM4 boards
and the Z270 are basically the same as a Z170.
Again I ask , whats your point?


My point is, its the same price for a faster Z170 board , 7600k and ram vs a 1600x, board and ram
I understand that the 1600x will encode a movie 50 seconds faster but who cares?


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

cares?


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 12, 2017)

happy medium said:


> but yet the $89 Z170 boards have more features than the 89$ AM4 boards
> and the Z270 are basically the same as a Z170.
> Again I ask , whats your point?
> 
> ...



Apparently the reviewers your linking to



			
				TechSpot said:
			
		

> *A fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K*
> Priced at $250, the six-core 1600X is an exceptional buy and a fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K, which offers only four cores for the same price. Granted, they're exceptionally good cores that can be pushed quite far and may even look to be the better choice right now in most games.
> 
> That said, the 1600X offered more consistent performance in Battlefield 1 and of course still pushed well over 120fps. It also made out better in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and provided similar performance in Hitman. Even in games such as Mafia III and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided where the 1600X trailed the 7600K, the margins weren't that great.
> ...


----------



## happy medium (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Apparently the reviewers your linking to



*alternative?  Yes I agree.
Better> NO!*


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 12, 2017)

Relayer said:


> Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.


99th percentile


----------



## Relayer (Apr 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Yeah absolutely, that's why everyone was asking for it and that's why he has included them in this review. /s No they are not worthless, they are important for competitive gamers especially, they can't afford it, not even for one split second.
> 
> And stop your multiposting, learn to Multi-Quote instead.


Even if I were to take your position seriously, it depends on where the mins occur on whether it matters in the least.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 12, 2017)

Relayer said:


> Even if I were to take your position seriously, it depends on where the mins occur on whether it matters in the least.


Even if I'd care what a troll like you says, it would still be wrong in the end. Did you learn multi-quoting by now? Hey don't bother you're blacklisted now anyway. Life's too short.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Even if I'd care what a troll like you says, it would still be wrong in the end. Did you learn multi-quoting by now? Hey don't bother you're blacklisted now anyway. Life's too short.


Too bad you have to get personal, name calling etc.. I'm sure I won't miss you.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 12, 2017)

Will be grabbing the 1600 and an RX 580 when they drop


----------



## symmetrical (Apr 12, 2017)

Surprised how most reviews never mention that Ryzen 5 comes with a CPU cooler. That's still a good $20-$40 you save from not having to buy a cooler with the Intel chips. And if I were to pick, it would be the 1600 and overclock it.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 12, 2017)

symmetrical said:


> Surprised how most reviews never mention that Ryzen 5 comes with a CPU cooler. That's still a good $20-$40 you save from not having to buy a cooler with the Intel chips. And if I were to pick, it would be the 1600 and overclock it.



Oh does it come with cooler, not at least here where I live. Quote from article:


> The Ryzen 5 1600X retail package lacks stock cooling solutions, and so, the PIB (processor in a box) packaging is pretty spartan. You only get the processor, a case-badge, and some literature.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Apr 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> *Intel*
> 239.99 = 7600K (no HSF)
> 135.99 = Asus Prime (You need a Z or X board)
> 30 = HSF (Just to get the system up and running. More if you want to OC)
> ...



1600X doesn't come with HSF, either.  1600 does, but you'd probably want a beefier cooling solution if you're going to overclock.

Z270 boards hover around $110 on the low end, and most should get a decent chip close to its air-cooled limit on a budget tower cooler.  That makes a 7600K solution $380, a 1600X cost $370, and 1600 shake out at $340.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 12, 2017)

People looking at resolution should also take into account their GPUs.
With slower GPUs you apparently will be more GPU limited.


----------



## EntropyZ (Apr 12, 2017)

Just ordered Ryzen 5 1600 and AsRock AB350M Pro4. Things are looking up. I just remembered my post where I wrote I just wanted to say I told you so. So "I told you so...".

Great review, as soon as software catches up with the AM4 platform Ryzen will be way more relevant then the FX series ever was.

I think it's okay that AMD took 5+ years to make a good CPU. I mean who upgrades their gaming PC every 2-3 years if it was mid to high range at the time of purchase, doesn't make much sense. GPU only upgrades are much more likely to happen, but then again the FX series had troubles with GPU's not really doing their job right. AMD did what they could and more, but they said game developers would start optimizing for the new platform which I hope comes to full fruition in at least 1 or 2 years.

Until then, I will be just another beta tester, it all hinges on the optimizations. If they don't happen, I know a lot people who will be disappointed, after that brag they made about 300+ devs working with them. I really have no idea how they will pull it off, but I'm hoping.

More importantly though, where was this? https://www.techpowerup.com/229090/amds-upcoming-ryzen-chips-to-reportedly-overclock-5-ghz-on-air

So was this just a big rumor? Because the chips won't go past 4.2GHz on air or liquid AIO no matter what. I can see there's some record breaking on LN2, but through conventional means, there's no way right now.


----------



## anubis44 (Apr 12, 2017)

Thanks for the review, W1zzrd. Just a bit of a syntax nitpick. 

The word 'wholesome' in your concluding sentence doesn't mean 'complete', rather, it means 'conducive to moral or general well-being.' Instead, you might want to use the word 'fulsome'. Although 'fulsome' can also mean 'offensive to good taste', it can also mean 'encompassing all aspects; comprehensive:', which is what I think you wanted.


----------



## N3M3515 (Apr 15, 2017)

WOW those civ VI scores......


----------



## Warrgarbl (Apr 18, 2017)

Well, I didn't really expect the Ryzen 5 to perform that well in games. Great job, AMD! Now I just wonder why my Sandy had to die 3/4 years ago... would have loved to buy a Ryzen instead of a Skylake!


----------



## 50eurouser (Apr 18, 2017)

Good review, any chance to forsee the next big-bad@ss VGA cards and the bottleneck Ryzen and intel i5 might give them ; Saying a review with GTX1080(ti) in SLI and i5 7600k / Ryzen 5 1600(X) in 1440p/4K in some new titles to know if these CPU's can drive such high performance card combo and if that 4C/4T intel i5 limitation will be the tombstone of the i5 sku's.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Apr 21, 2017)

What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).

Any Intel Platform - is almost guaranteed to not accommodate a new or significantly revised micro-architecture... beyond the mere "tick".  In order to enjoy a "tock", one MUST purchase a new motherboard (if historical precedent is maintained).

AMD AM4 Platform - is almost guaranteed to, AT LEAST, accommodate Ryzen "II" and quite possibly Ryzen "III" processors.  And, in such cases, only a new processor and BIOS update will be necessary to do so.

This is not an insignificant point of differentiation.


----------



## Jeffredo (May 10, 2017)

Sure wish WoW: Legion was one of the games tested.


----------



## Kanan (May 11, 2017)

Rash-Un-Al said:


> What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).
> 
> Any Intel Platform - is almost guaranteed to not accommodate a new or significantly revised micro-architecture... beyond the mere "tick".  In order to enjoy a "tock", one MUST purchase a new motherboard (if historical precedent is maintained).
> 
> ...


We spoke about that quite a few times here, ~ everyone interested in Ryzen is aware of this. And yeah it's true, AM2+ and AM3 had same capabilities, AMD has a long record for doing ongoing platforms.


----------



## Kastia (Dec 15, 2017)

It's a little after the fact now since this thread is from pre-summer but I put a 1600x in a fatal1ty x370 gaming with some Gskill 16gb 3200 and a very affordable AIO 120 from Cooler Master and this machine is amazing! Sooo happy I opted for the x, my friend's 1600 in a b350 Tomahawk and 16gb of spendy Geil 3200mhz ram can't touch my X. Even with an aggressive OC he can't hit what I do without any clocking. The 1600 is going to shine in prebuilts I think and the X will be found more in custom enthusiast builds. If your a clocker I would reconsider going with a 1600, you'll be happier in the long run if you just spend the extra 20 bucks for the X and a frugal cooling solution. I think the 1600 stock cooler is smaller than the wraith from the r7's but are still pretty good, if your a clocker your going to be buying a new cooler anyway so in the end your not going to save anything with a 1600 and your going to work it way harder to hopefully break even with the X which is still running stock settings. I run 3.7 to 4.1 with stock settings. Of course blue teams clock speeds are going to be higher, for the last decade devs have been focused on the low core/thread count on Intels. What are you going to do in another year or so when vulcan and a superior dx12 build step into the spotlight? Lets look at the opposite possibility. So what if Intel can get a competitive multicore to market (they almost have but 2 or 3 thousand dollars), probably they already had it and chose to just hold it back and milk their customer base for as much money as they could, wouldn't that kinda irk you intel people a bit? So none of that is true in my 3rd version, If intel can put out a product to compare to Zen, I have to ask you how much will they charge for it? Probably double or a little under double the cost of comparable Ryzen. So everyone has their own opinion and I will probably get some hate if anyone reads this old thread but i have to ask those people... Why is Intel putting AMD in their systems? Why did an iMac just release with Vega ? Face it within a couple years the I series is done in it's current form at least, while am4 users will just drop a new processor in their system IF they need it. I dont think they will. Tbh Ryzen 7 is overkill for gaming and if you render or have more demanding computing needs the X399/Threadripper is amazing deal for what they offer.  People are building R3's for 5 or 6 hundred bucks that run Pubg or Overwatch, etc, just fine in 1080. Thats 5 or 6 hundred complete not just a board, ram and a cpu but all new parts. Just think of the money you could put toward that epic new gpu if you choose to do a red build over blue. I did x370, 1600x and 16gb 3200 and an AIO for under 500. To me thats much better value than 3 to 4 hundred dollars for a quadcore alone with almost just as low of core clocks. Black Friday 1600x were $200, 1600 were $180 and 1700x for $260 or $270. Your going to pay $300 to $350 for a 7700 and still have to de-lid to get decent temps. You will not get a lower price for performance than Zen. I am happy to admit Intels business practices and gouging have turned me into a red fanperson and I have no shame of that.  My final testimonial is sure my buddy's dual quad zambezi (220w? I think and I am aware thats last generation) is clocked to just over 5 ghz and my humble lil 6 core is 2 to 3 times stronger @ 3.6 to 4.1, clock speeds. There is more to life than fps and clock speeds. 
Mad love to all my techie bretheren be you red or blue and I hope you all get your preference of gear and stay safe through the holidays! (Oh and I have a little blue in my Zen if it makes anyone feel better, Intel gigabit lan   ; ) hehehe)


----------

