# AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 3.6 GHz



## W1zzard (Apr 19, 2018)

Priced at an affordable $230, AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X is targeted at a larger market than the Ryzen 7 2700X. The processor still comes with 6 cores and 12 threads, matching the best Intel has to offer. In our testing, we see the new processor neck-to-neck with the Ryzen 7 1700X and beating the Intel Core i5-8600K.

*Show full review*


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 19, 2018)

That XFR2 is actually amazing. Get proper cooling and forget about oveclocking, the CPU does it for you.


----------



## phill (Apr 19, 2018)

If I was going to buy a 6 core CPU, this would be it....  Amazing show from AMD...


----------



## windwhirl (Apr 19, 2018)

Well, this pretty much settles it for me. I think I'll be getting a Ryzen 2600X this year. 

Good job, AMD.


----------



## dicktracy (Apr 19, 2018)

8400 is better


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 19, 2018)

Can we assume that CFL (also Ryzen) was tested with the latest patches ~ firmware & others covering spectre+meltdown, including the ones from MS this April?


----------



## sutyi (Apr 19, 2018)

dicktracy said:


> 8400 is better



Depends on use case really. 

Also if you are running it with a Stock Cooler and DDR4-2400 or 2666 on B360 propably not all always.

Having a semi decent 120mm tower cooler and Z370 + DDR4-3000/3200 under said i5-8400 helps it a lot if, cause otherwise it wont be running near the turbo clocks due to temps. Also having MCE capability might boost it even further in some cases.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 19, 2018)

sutyi said:


> Depends on use case really.
> 
> Also if you are running it with a Stock Cooler and DDR4-2400 or 2666 on B360 propably not all always.
> 
> Having a semi decent 120mm tower cooler and Z370 + DDR4-3000/3200 under said i5-8400 helps it a lot if, cause otherwise it wont be running near the turbo clocks due to temps. Also having MCE capability might boost it even further in some cases.



Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 19, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.


That's not true, there's a reason Intel doesn't give us turbo boost speeds anymore (only max single core turbo) & cooling has a lot do with it.


----------



## sutyi (Apr 19, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.



Having it running on an open benchtable on top of your desk or inside a case with limited fresh air and rendering video for an hour is not really the same. Having longer all-core loads it definitely does reduce boost clocks in order to keep temps managable on the stock cooler.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 19, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> That's not true, there's a reason Intel doesn't give us turbo boost speeds anymore (only max single core turbo) & cooling has a lot do with it.



Yes they don't officially marketing them, but there are multipliers different count of active cores in cpu microcode. Which can be read with intel XTU, like Steve have done in techspot.



sutyi said:


> Having it running on an open benchtable on top of your desk or inside a case with limited fresh air and rendering video for an hour is not really the same. Having longer all-core loads it definitely does reduce boost clocks in order to keep temps managable on the stock cooler.



Yeah you might be right with the stock cooler, Steve used Gammaxx 200t on those tests. But vrm power throttling was not the problem with i5 8400, like it was with i7 8700 non-k.


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2018)

After watching quite a bit of coverage on YouTube and looking at many graphs comparing FPS numbers that compare the Ryzen 5 2600X to the Intel Core i7 8700K I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Yes, there's no doubt that Intel will win in the crazy high god-like FPS (frames per second) arena but for those of us who are having to settle for 1080p @ 60Hz because we're trying to build a decent system on a budget (I myself have a $1400 USD budget) there's not going to be much difference between going with Intel as versus going with an AMD Ryzen 2600X (or at least the difference is going to be so small that it's not even worth mentioning).


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Apr 19, 2018)

this is great, im eyeing a 2600/2600X for my next build


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 19, 2018)

trparky said:


> After watching quite a bit of coverage on YouTube and looking at many graphs comparing FPS numbers that compare the Ryzen 5 2600X to the Intel Core i7 8700K I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Yes, there's no doubt that Intel will win in the crazy high god-like FPS (frames per second) arena but for those of us who are having to settle for 1080p @ 60Hz because we're trying to build a decent system on a budget (I myself have a $1400 USD budget) there's not going to be much difference between going with Intel as versus going with an AMD Ryzen 2600X (or at least the difference is going to be so small that it's not even worth mentioning).


There's also cooling & the associated costs with a *high end cooler*, that don't get a mention in Ryzen reviews. That's because generally the bundled cooling gets the job done, in case of Intel you need that on all K parts & even in some other models if you want the chip to turbo longer.


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> There's also cooling & the associated costs with a *high end cooler*, that don't get a mention in Ryzen reviews. That's because generally the bundled cooling gets the job done, in case of Intel you need that on all K parts & even in some other models if you want the chip to turbo longer.


That's very true.


----------



## Batou1986 (Apr 19, 2018)

@W1zzard in your review you state 





> The underlying reason is that Ryzen has very clever Boost algorithms that automagically increase clock frequencies beyond rated stock frequencies. Out of the box, the 2600X will boost to 4.2 GHz when just a single core is active, which is higher than what we managed with manual overclocking.


But then go on to suggest


> For the Ryzen 5 2600X specifically, I'm not sure if buying a X470 motherboard is the best approach since these boards are currently overpriced, and there really isn't much of a difference to X370.



Is it possible we could get a test between the two platforms comparing the performance of the Boost since X470 supports "XFR2 Enhanced" and "Precision boost overdrive" where the X370 does not.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Apr 19, 2018)

In the blurb on the website homepage it says 





> In our testing, we see the new processor neck-to-neck with the Ryzen 7 1700X and beating the Intel Core i7-8600K.


I think you mean i5 8600k?


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 19, 2018)

It beats the 8600k?  where at?  lol

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/14.html  according to your own benches at 1440p gaming, the 8600k beats everything in almost every game...


----------



## Foobario (Apr 20, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Can we assume that CFL (also Ryzen) was tested with the latest patches ~ firmware & others covering spectre+meltdown, including the ones from MS this April?


I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.

Other sites that confirmed the firmware updates were made to Intel BIOS show the 2700X on par with the 8700K in gaming.

I guess those that don't plan on updating their BIOS can view this as an accurate review.

Then again, maybe Anandtech won the silicon lottery big time in their Ryzen samples and applying the Meltdown fixes have no impact on gaming just like Intel is telling everyone.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 20, 2018)

I'll be dropping a 2600 (non x) straight into my B350 motherboard to replace my 1600 (non x) 3.9Ghz 24/7 vs 4.1-4.2Ghz plus a small IPC increase and improved latency and memory compatibility for a decent upgrade, even just a 200-300Mhz OC on Ryzen seems to make such a big difference, god help Intel next year with Ryzen 2



Foobario said:


> I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.



Yup, with Spectre fix, 8700k is on par with 2700k


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 20, 2018)

bubbleawsome said:


> In the blurb on the website homepage it says
> I think you mean i5 8600k?


fixed



Foobario said:


> I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.


sure was. from page 1 "This review uses our updated test suite for processors in 2018, which includes the latest BIOS updates with microcode fixes for recent security issues, Windows 10 Fall Creators Update with all updates, and new software tests and games, which are all using the latest versions as well."


----------



## HammerOn1024 (Apr 20, 2018)

dicktracy said:


> 8400 is better


Sure if you have the cash. That's not the point here.


----------



## dirtyferret (Apr 20, 2018)

If they had put RGB on it then it would beat Intel easy in IPC.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 20, 2018)

Best VFM CPU again from AMD since the Ryzen 1600 came out. Especially after we now know for sure that one can upgrade on the same mobo for 4-5 years with any new cpu from AMD...

Admittedly, Intel went to slice prices last year and got some credit back with the i5-8400 but this one is again the king of the hill for restricted budget systems until Ryzen 2600 is tested and maybe will surpass the X.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 20, 2018)

HD64G said:


> Best VFM CPU again from AMD since the Ryzen 1600 came out. Especially after we now know for sure that one can upgrade on the same mobo for 4-5 years with any new cpu from AMD...
> 
> Admittedly, Intel went to slice prices last year and got some credit back with the i5-8400 but this one is again the king of the hill for restricted budget systems until Ryzen 2600 is tested and maybe will surpass the X.




How? i5-8400 beats it in every game at 1440p across the board? min, avg, and max fps for 90% of games... thats costs $175, you can get the cheapest Intel mobo for $50 for it since it doesnt oc anyway... and some cheap ram, since slow ram doesn't hurt intel as much as it hurts amd rigs.

ugh. im done with this conversation. look ryzen is better in many ways.... but if all you do is game... just sayin...


----------



## HD64G (Apr 20, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> How? i5-8400 beats it in every game at 1440p across the board? min, avg, and max fps for 90% of games... thats costs $175, you can get the cheapest Intel mobo for $50 for it since it doesnt oc anyway... and some cheap ram, since slow ram doesn't hurt intel as much as it hurts amd rigs.
> 
> ugh. im done with this conversation. look ryzen is better in many ways.... but if all you do is game... just sayin...



I prefer upgradeable platforms and more cores opposed to just a few FPS more higher than my monitor max refresh rate. And remember that to get a few more FPS in some games by getting 8400 than 2600X you will need a very expensive GPU, so the budget goes out of the discussion. So, for budget gamers with GPUs gaming on 1070-vega 56 (msrp prices) or lower GPUs there will be no perceptible difference in FPS at all. With this in mind, Ryzen is the best by far due to its platform longetivity and by being better in productivity and almost any multithreaded program.

Saying the above, keep your opinion and allow me to keep mine.


----------



## Snufkin (Apr 23, 2018)

The i5 8400 is really cheap and smokes the competition for gaming, what are AMD up to?


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 23, 2018)

Snufkin said:


> The i5 8400 is really cheap and smokes the competition for gaming, what are AMD up to?



I run the i5-8500. It just came out earlier this month, I was going to get Ryzen, but $55 mobo and $185 cpu that beats all AMD process in min, avg, and matches the max FPS in 95% of games was too hard to pass up. Huge upgrade from my 2500k. If the x470 chipset was cheaper I might have doing 2700, but i got he MSI HM110 mobo for $51 free ship, so meh


----------



## krusha03 (Apr 23, 2018)

Damn you AMD and your awesome XFR2. You took the pleasure of overclocking away from me...


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 23, 2018)

krusha03 said:


> Damn you AMD and your awesome XFR2. You took the pleasure of overclocking away from me...



my i5-8500 sucks hardly any watts at all, your 2700x eats a lot of energy and performs worse in min, avg FPS across the board. while only matching, not exceeding, my chip on max fps. 

I'm saving trees m8 and on a budget to boot


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 23, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> my i5-8500 sucks hardly any watts at all, your 2700x eats a lot of energy and performs worse in min, avg FPS across the board. while only matching, not exceeding, my chip on max fps.
> 
> I'm saving trees m8 and on a budget to boot



Why all the Intel users only see FPS as the ultimate performance metric?
You want to save trees? Go buy a Pentium Gold, lower power consumption, a lot better eficiency, a lot cheaper, still enough for 4K gaming on a 1080Ti.
And then there is the 250W TDP of the 1080Ti...


----------



## trparky (Apr 23, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> Why all the Intel users only see FPS as the ultimate performance metric?


I have no idea. They seem to have some kind of... unhealthy obsession with almost god-like, super-high frames per second numbers. OK sure... if you can afford that kind of hardware to get those numbers then I give you mad props for it but the rest of us plebs can't. When a GTX1080ti costs nearly $1000 USD *for the video card alone* and not only that but add in a good high refresh rate 1440p monitor which costs upwards of $350 USD the cost to get that kind of performance is quite simply outside the budget of most gamers (unless of course they are loaded).

If you look at the Steam Hardware Survey most gamers are still playing at 1080p but not only that but are still at 60Hz. Why? Because the hardware is quite simply too damn expensive for most people to buy into right now.


----------



## windwhirl (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> I have no idea. They seem to have some kind of... unhealthy obsession with almost god-like, super-high frames per second numbers. OK sure... if you can afford that kind of hardware to get those numbers then I give you mad props for it but the rest of us plebs can't. When a GTX1080ti costs nearly $1000 USD *for the video card alone* and not only that but add in a good high refresh rate 1440p monitor which costs upwards of $350 USD the cost to get that kind of performance is quite simply outside the budget of most gamers (unless of course they are loaded).
> 
> If you look at the Steam Hardware Survey most gamers are still playing at 1080p but not only that but are still at 60Hz. Why? Because the hardware is quite simply too damn expensive for most people to buy into right now.



Indeed, where I live, jumping from 1080p 60 Hz to 1080p 120/144 Hz means a 150% price increase (which pretty much means such a monitor costs more money than some people make in a month). At the very least, you get something other than TN at that point (IPS or VA), but it's still expensive.

I'd rather get a 1440p 60 Hz display than a 1080p 144 Hz one, considering I have an RX 580, not a Vega or a high end Pascal card. Besides, I'd get a bigger workspace when I'm not playing games.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> I have no idea. They seem to have some kind of... unhealthy obsession with almost god-like, super-high frames per second numbers. OK sure... if you can afford that kind of hardware to get those numbers then I give you mad props for it but the rest of us plebs can't. When a GTX1080ti costs nearly $1000 USD *for the video card alone* and not only that but add in a good high refresh rate 1440p monitor which costs upwards of $350 USD the cost to get that kind of performance is quite simply outside the budget of most gamers (unless of course they are loaded).
> 
> If you look at the Steam Hardware Survey most gamers are still playing at 1080p but not only that but are still at 60Hz. Why? Because the hardware is quite simply too damn expensive for most people to buy into right now.



? My 1080 ti was $740 free ship no tax, 3 fan variant. I bought it 4 weeks ago right when the mining craze was starting to die. sure I got lucky on a "in-stock item" but overall prices are normal now.

Also, all I do is game, so its all I look at, makes logical sense. If I streamed and gamed, I would say def I would pay extra for the 2700x.  Also I don't game at 4k, so pentium gold is less performance gaming at 1440p than i5-8500, not by much but a littile on min and avg frames, max fps prob still the same.

if i did a workstation, would i focus on on the FPS of games? nope... I would say a lot of here on this website are gamers mostly, prob a solid 40% are doing stuff for a living in PC world and look at stuff differently, no need for name calling one another, its just a simple usage scenario difference we have. take care


----------



## trparky (Apr 24, 2018)

Core i5-8500? You mean the Core i5-8600K right? Why would you go for a locked chip? The only reason people go Intel is to be able to overclock that sucker like a mofo. Because... you know, we just have to have 5 GHz.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> Core i5-8500? You mean the Core i5-8600K right? Why would you go for a locked chip? The only reason people go Intel is to be able to overclock that sucker like a mofo. Because... you know, we just have to have 5 GHz.



it scores the same in games at 1440p, runs ice cold without delidding, and 0 stability issues will arise. also super quiet and hardly any energy used. a few games score better on 8700k, but even then its not by much. mine is at 4.2 ghz no downclocking btw, and it doesnt even break 55 celsius in games, not delidded, on air. i see no reason for hot temps anymore, or bothering with nonsense i just want to game and enjoy the games


----------



## trparky (Apr 24, 2018)

That's interesting. I could technically go with the Core i7-8700 and an H370 board and get Intel performance at a better price than that of a 8700K.

Edit
On second thought, there's not that much difference in price.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> That's interesting. I could technically go with the Core i7-8700 and an H370 board and get Intel performance at a better price than that of a 8700K.
> 
> Edit
> On second thought, there's not that much difference in price.



yep exactly, I was considering doing the same thing. but I found the i5-8500 on sale for $185 and a mobo on sale for $51 both free shipping.  hard to beat that price


----------



## trparky (Apr 24, 2018)

But I keep coming back to the question... Do I need hyperthreading? To be honest, I'm not sure. I mean it's a definite nice thing to have but is it really worth it? Or do I just chuck Intel to the curb and go with the Ryzen 2600X?

Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. I'm going to build this system tomorrow and I'm still no close to knowing what processor I want. AMD or Intel, the price difference between a Core i5-8600K and a Ryzen 2600X equipped system is so damn close in price that it's not even funny.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> But I keep coming back to the question... Do I need hyperthreading?



I mean if all you do is game, probably no. Your current system looks decent, I would wait it out a bit longer before I upgrade, wait for 8 core i5 Intel at $200, should be this winter or Fall, as Intel I am sure will respond hard and fast to AMD.

I only upgraded now because my laptop died on me, never again will buy a gaming laptop. ever. lol lesson learned


----------



## trparky (Apr 24, 2018)

Yeah well I'm building the system tomorrow, I sort of can't wait until Intel comes out with the eight core chips.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 24, 2018)

trparky said:


> Yeah well I'm building the system tomorrow, I sort of can't wait until Intel comes out with the eight core chips.



Nice mate, what are you rolling? a 2700?


----------



## trparky (Apr 24, 2018)

I've got an older 3570K@4.4Ghz. Still runs great but my father wants the system.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 25, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> How? i5-8400 beats it in every game at 1440p across the board? min, avg, and max fps for 90% of games... thats costs $175, you can get the cheapest Intel mobo for $50 for it since it doesnt oc anyway... and some cheap ram, since slow ram doesn't hurt intel as much as it hurts amd rigs.
> 
> ugh. im done with this conversation. look ryzen is better in many ways.... but if all you do is game... just sayin...


If all you do is game, buy a console and be done with it.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> I run the i5-8500. It just came out earlier this month, I was going to get Ryzen, but $55 mobo and $185 cpu that beats all AMD process in min, avg, and matches the max FPS in 95% of games was too hard to pass up. Huge upgrade from my 2500k. If the x470 chipset was cheaper I might have doing 2700, but i got he MSI HM110 mobo for $51 free ship, so meh



I hope you meant to say h310, Coffee lake cpus won't work on H110 chipset motherboards. Or they might work if you get modded bios for them and do a pin mod to your cpu, but those modded bioses are usually done only for some highest end z170/z270 motherboards.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 25, 2018)

Caring1 said:


> If all you do is game, buy a console and be done with it.



no thanks, I prefer my 165hz gsync monitor 1440p. its more immersive than console gaming.



jabbadap said:


> I hope you meant to say h310, Coffee lake cpus won't work on H110 chipset motherboards. Or they might work if you get modded bios for them and do a pin mod to your cpu, but those modded bioses are usually done only for some highest end z170/z270 motherboards.



yeah I got the number wrong was all, cheers. oddly enough, my ram did allow me to OC it manually even thought it adverts only 2666 max on this board.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> no thanks, I prefer my 165hz gsync monitor 1440p. its more immersive than console gaming.
> 
> yeah I got the number wrong was all, cheers. oddly enough, my ram did allow me to OC it manually even thought it adverts only 2666 max on this board.



Glad to hear that. How is that H310 though, haven't seen any reviews of those. Any power throttle or other problems with i5, all clocks working as should?


----------



## Joss (May 13, 2020)

@W1zzard 
There's a typo in "A Closer Look" page. Where it says 





> The Ryzen 7 2700X comes in a big cubical box characteristic of Ryzen


 it should be Ryzen 5 2600X.


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2020)

Joss said:


> @W1zzard
> There's a typo in "A Closer Look" page. Where it says  it should be Ryzen 5 2600X.


Fixed, thanks!


----------

