AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz

[damric]

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]

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]

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]

The best CPU to get IMHO

 

[sweet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

or is this a long tale? cores and threds

 

[notb]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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).

[My teeth hurt, I want that medicine]

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