• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Leaked Benchmarks Analyzed, Faster Than Intel’s Fastest 6 Core

IceScreamer said:
I really don't know what to say then, IF (it's getting boring saying this) all these leaks are valid my god AMD, terrific job.
Click to expand...
Yes but I'm Still waiting for reviews ,hype is hype after all.
 
NdMk2o1o said:
Agreed but we're both shooting in the dark, who's to say the original "leaks" weren't as fake as the day as long.... ;) 11 days..... hopefully we do get some concrete leaks before then, I really can't stand the hype and anticipation for much longer either way :cry:
Click to expand...

I'm not patient enough for this lol and some of the original leaks were amd themselves so I would hope they held their product in a good light...
 
dorsetknob said:
Put your tin hat on and consider
Intel is holding back because they command the market and so far have not needed to release anything that they have held in reserve
Now AMD comes along threatens to give intel a (Small but significant kicking )
If Intel has been milking the consumer they will soon release their withheld advanced Tech !!
Click to expand...

No they won't, they will have to go back to the drawing board to counter AMD IF Ryzen proves to be what is hotly being anticipated by many people, they have milked the core series as far as they can with refinements and clock speed increases as KL shows they look to have reached their peak potential with their current architecture with the 4.5ghz 7700k that can barely hit 5ghz on most chips, I think it will be a few years before we such a jump in performance from intel and hopefully AMD can smack them down in those few years and claw back much needed market share, would love it if we went back to the Athlon vs netburst days when AMD whipped the pants off intel at 2/3's the clock speed.

cdawall said:
I'm not patient enough for this lol and some of the original leaks were amd themselves so I would hope they held their product in a good light...
Click to expand...
Afaik weren't the only "leaks" from AMD the blender test results?
 
Some of my 3570K CPU-Z bench scores for comparison...

i5-3570K @ 3.7 GHz = 1603 ST/6077 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.0 GHz = 1733 ST/6571 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.3 GHz = 1862 ST/7053 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.5 GHz = 1950 ST/7429 MT
i5-3570K @ 5.0 GHz = 2164 ST/8440 MT
 
Last edited:
Most stores already have them in stock , I still can't understand why there is no definitive word on pricing yet. I also have a hunch the motherboards aren't going to be very cheap.
 
Only reason why X99 boards are so bloody expensive is the memory. Ton crap of slots for quad channel setup costs money, also because it needs beefier VRMs. And boards are rather exclusive as there aren't as many models as for mainstream models (as you can already see from Z170 and Z270 series). So, X370 being dual channel, I don't think boards will be that expensive. And it's again not limited to enthusiast level like X99. You can have X370 and stick R3 in it. You can't stick Core i3 into X99. Not that it would make much sense, but it's entirely impossible.
 
RejZoR said:
Only reason why X99 boards are so bloody expensive is the memory. Ton crap of slots for quad channel setup costs money, also because it needs beefier VRMs. And boards are rather exclusive as there aren't as many models as for mainstream models (as you can already see from Z170 and Z270 series). So, X370 being dual channel, I don't think boards will be that expensive. And it's again not limited to enthusiast level like X99. You can have X370 and stick R3 in it. You can't stick Core i3 into X99. Not that it would make much sense, but it's entirely impossible.
Click to expand...

The CPU is also a SOC with USB3.1 included so there shouldn't be much of anything really needed on X370 boards. If they are expensive it is purely profiteering.
 
P4-630 said:
IF.......
Well then I'm willing to trade my i5 with a AMD Ryzen 5 1600X..:p:D
Click to expand...
i'd get a 1700 or a 1700X ... the price is right in the range i intend ... if i was about to get a 6/7700K ... nonetheless that would make me change my mobo too if i go down the red path ... but my old love (when i started posting on TPU) was a Phenom II X6 1035T ...soooo pretty much yep .... (what? that make no sense? to end a sentence with "pretty much yep" ? )
 
IceScreamer said:
I just have one friggin question, how did AMD do it?

IF all these leaks are true that means they caught up with Intel in one sweep.

I mean don't get me wrong, I know Bulldozer was kinda bad, but designing a chip with lesser financial resources, from scratch, on an inferior process node (compared to Intel) is damn impressive. Either that or these results are fake.

Anyway, it's looking to be an impressive chip, not that I plan to buy it or anything but it's refreshing to see competitiveness from AMD on this front.
Click to expand...

AMD was behind on fab stuck at 32 why Intel went 22 16 14. That makes a big difference also. Bulldozer sucked but 32 vs 16 sucks more
 
medi01 said:
Overchoo-choo I smell...

PS
But, why the heck: CHOOOO CHOOO:

t8fK2Po.png
`



PS
Even more excited for this potentially boosting AMD GPU sales quite a bit, given Vega delivers.
Click to expand...

Follow-up for this image:

Alva Jonatan: "LOL, to be perfectly clear, we're all surprised to see the Cinebench scores, and that's at default. Never-before-seen performance at that price range indeed :)"

WCskShm.png
 
Intel still has fab superiority. Samsung's "14nm" is merely a marketing term, so AMD rolling out competitive stuff is helluva impressive, if true (heck, I'd be fine with 60% price for 85% perf):

Cell-SizeComparison.png


dorsetknob said:
If Intel has been milking the consumer they will soon release their withheld advanced Tech !!
Click to expand...

You can't roll out new products "soon", unless you somehow have been developing things you were never releasing to the market. (why on earth?)

nVidia does indeed have an option to do 1080Ti with downscaled Titan, but in CPU world things don't work like that.
 
medi01 said:
Intel still has fab superiority. Samsung's "14nm" is merely a marketing term, so AMD rolling out competitive stuff is helluva impressive, if true (heck, I'd be fine with 60% price for 85% perf):

You can't roll out new products "soon", unless you somehow have been developing things you were never releasing to the market. (why on earth?)

nVidia does indeed have an option to do 1080Ti with downscaled Titan, but in CPU world things don't work like that.
Click to expand...

Intel realised they could sell the "same" processor, slightly altered to fit a different socket and charge allot for it. They noticed they could get away with marginal increases in performance so if they developed anything else better, they chose not to disclose it and "keep a winning formula": why disclose a better product when we can milk this one for all it's worth?

Now that AMD is seriously coming close to them, they may feel the pressure and release "a new CPU tech" that suddenly increases their current best performers by more then just a margin.

This is pure speculation on my part but i would not be surprised if Intel pulled something like that.
 
kruk said:
Ryzen 5 1600x Cinebench multicore (1136 cb): https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5uu91c/ryzen_5_1600x_33ghz_cinebench_r15_benchmark/ and single core (146 cb): http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

As with all leaks, take with a grain of salt ...
Click to expand...

Cinebench is all I care because it seems to accurately reflect CPU performance in rendering.

Having said that, 1600x having 1136 score isn't too bad but not what I am hoping for. I'd love to see the score of 1800x though. I assume it should be close to 1500.
 
From anandtech forums, IPC history:

uuMOToE.jpg
 
I can test my 5820K at same clocks as R5 1600X to get rough idea where it lands in Cinebench.
 
FYFI13 said:
I7 4790k at stock gets about 180 points in single thread benchmark. If Ryzen with XFR can only do 146, then I'm really disappointed.
Click to expand...

Your 4790k has 700mhz on the 1600x assuming a boost speed of 3.7 to your 4.4....
 
RejZoR said:
Only reason why X99 boards are so bloody expensive is the memory. Ton crap of slots for quad channel setup costs money, also because it needs beefier VRMs. And boards are rather exclusive as there aren't as many models as for mainstream models (as you can already see from Z170 and Z270 series). So, X370 being dual channel, I don't think boards will be that expensive. And it's again not limited to enthusiast level like X99. You can have X370 and stick R3 in it. You can't stick Core i3 into X99. Not that it would make much sense, but it's entirely impossible.
Click to expand...
Quad Channel Memory really has little to do with the overall price of the board. Now, price of memory needed, surely, but it's a few bucks for a couple more pieces of plastic and some traces. :)
 
FYFI13 said:
I7 4790k at stock gets about 180 points in single thread benchmark. If Ryzen with XFR can only do 146, then I'm really disappointed.
Click to expand...
You are disappointed ? i7 6950 146 points i76900 153 points 1700 dolar cpu and 1000 dolar cpu and amd r5 6 core performance is disappointed hahaha o man man this fanboys , and amd cpu cost about 260 dolars and you ar disappointed hahhaaa
 
Some people just don't seem to grasp how important single core performance/ipc is....
 
NdMk2o1o said:
Your 4790k has 700mhz on the 1600x assuming a boost speed of 3.7 to your 4.4....
Click to expand...
At 3.7GHz i get 159 points and what makes you think that Ryzen 1600X had disabled XFR? Why would anyone do that?
valyamd said:
You are disappointed ? i7 6950 146 points i76900 153 points 1700 dolar cpu and 1000 dolar cpu and amd r5 6 core performance is disappointed hahaha o man man this fanboys , and amd cpu cost about 260 dolars and you ar disappointed hahhaaa
Click to expand...
What if i put it this way: Ryzen single core performance is lower than i5 6500 (3.6GHz)? If those leaks are correct, overclocked i5 7600k will be running circles around all Ryzens in most ging benchmarks. You seem to completely ignore importance of single thread performance in gaming.

Edit: just now i noticed who's calling me a fanboy: a guy with a nickname "valyamd" and with 150 AMD logos across his TPU profile :D
 
Last edited:
FYFI13 said:
At 3.7GHz i get 159 points and what makes you think that Ryzen 1600X had disabled XFR? Why would anyone do that?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they? To assess stock performance perhaps?..:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top