AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz

[NdMk2o1o]

But how much of the "future" would you like to be proofed for?

If some software isn't using 4 cores today, it means it'll have to be significantly rewritten. And it's not just that a coder will have to change the algorithm to something using more cores. It's more likely that someone will have to sit down with a pencil and invent the algorithm...
Some improvements could be just around a corner, some will take years and some will never happen.

I'm with you on the general idea, that most of the software will move towards multi-thread performance. This is fairly obvious.

And here is your choice today:
1) you can buy a "future-proof" CPU, but it might just be that this future is very far away or not happening at all.
2) you can buy a "present-proof" CPU that works well with software that you use today and will most likely use for next 2-3 years.

Ryzen works very well with single threaded games/apps, it shines in 4+ core games and apps and will continue to do so, I don't understand your point (again)

Do I wish I had bought a measly 4c chip with no htt for the same price as my 6c/12t Ryzen? hell no lol

 

[notb]

Ryzen works very well with single threaded games/apps, it shines in 4+ core games and apps and will continue to do so, I don't understand your point (again)

Have I said that Ryzen is not a good choice for today? No. It's a very capable CPU and every of it's 6 or 8 cores are as good as those in all but the fastest Intel CPUs. Yet, obviously, Ryzen has more of them. This makes Ryzen a very good CPU, indeed. If one can live with it's drawbacks (or rather: properties compared to Intel's products), it's a very good choice.

I'm simply mocking the "future-proof" nonsense.

Do I wish I had bought a measly 4c chip with no htt for the same price as my 6c/12t Ryzen? hell no lol

If this is about my i5-7500, then I though my reasons were fairly obvious.
Performance-wise Ryzen 5 1600 is a better choice. This is an easy, quantitative comparison.
But for me everything other than performance is more-or-less won by Intel.

And as for being "future-proof" I do believe an Intel i5 will serve me much longer than a Ryzen.
So here it is and after few days I can tell you 2 things:
1) I like the performance and I'm sure it'll be fine for years,
2) I didn't spend a minute on RAM compatibility issues.

What has to be added: this is the most expensive desktop CPU I've ever bought (by a decent margin). I was usually buying from low-end, high performance/price models (so I should have bought a fast Pentium or an i3).

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Have I said that Ryzen is not a good choice for today? No. It's a very capable CPU and every of it's 6 or 8 cores are as good as those in all but the fastest Intel CPUs. Yet, obviously, Ryzen has more of them. This makes Ryzen a very good CPU, indeed. If one can live with it's drawbacks (or rather: properties compared to Intel's products), it's a very good choice.

I'm simply mocking the "future-proof" nonsense.


If this is about my i5-7500, then I though my reasons were fairly obvious.
Performance-wise Ryzen 5 1600 is a better choice. This is an easy, quantitative comparison.
But for me everything other than performance is more-or-less won by Intel.

And as for being "future-proof" I do believe an Intel i5 will serve me much longer than a Ryzen.
So here it is and after few days I can tell you 2 things:
1) I like the performance and I'm sure it'll be fine for years,
2) I didn't spend a minute on RAM compatibility issues.

What has to be added: this is the most expensive desktop CPU I've ever bought (by a decent margin). I was usually buying from low-end, high performance/price models (so I should have bought a fast Pentium or an i3).

Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too....

i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.

 

[notb]

Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too....

i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.

Seriously, is CPU just performance, price and power draw to you? What about other features? What about the whole platform?

3 letters for you: IGP (which in my case makes Intel cheaper - among other advantages).
But also the simple fact that Ryzen is the first generation and I try not to buy first-gen products. A huge difference in performance could persuade me, but not what I've seen in leaks and reviews. This might not mean much to you, but is huge for me - even more so with Ryzen platform that has already shown some early stage issues. Not everything can be fixed via firmware.
Another 3 things from a longer list of pro-Intel reasons:
- Ryzen doesn't support RAID 5 (honestly, why?!),
- I really like Optane and so far we haven't seen any leaks of competing technologies being developed,
- I was building an mITX PC and the lone Biostar mobo is really unconvincing. I didn't want to wait another N months for other offering (especially since specs of "ITX chipsets" haven't been confirmed yet).

 

[Jorge Nascimento]

You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd

To complete what you said about the other comment, and to add my own experience, I have a Ryzen 5 1600 with a Gigabyte gaming 5 AB350, and a pair of gskill flareX @ 3200 CL 14, And a RX480 nitro OC+ 8gb Spahhire that i flashed to 580.

Right now i have my AMD running @ 4.0 and the memories @3200mhz CL15 (cannot get stable with CL14).
And right now and from all the comparisons i did i can only find some a very small percentage of I5-7600K that perform better then mine, even most stock clocked i7 7700K tend to perform more less the same as my Ryzen.

Last time i had an AMD was a K7, since then i have always used intel, but i cant be more happy about the change.
About that comment, I say the same to the other guy, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[pleaseno]

Performance-wise Ryzen 1600 is a better choice but everything other than performance is won by Intel??? price? nope.... power draw, ok I'll give that one to you if you live in Ethiopia where such a thing would make any difference to a real world user multi tasking? nope... IPC? nope... Brand? you can have that one too....

i "believe" an Intel i5 will serve me longer than a Ryzen for no other reason than that is the brand I preferred and chose so I can't really say otherwise. P.S what speed RAM do you have? anything between 2133-3000mhz doesnt have an issue with Ryzen and even more so now they have released several microcode updates, but I'm just curious.

The power draw is better than Intels´in every case. But dont ask me why tpu would claim that as a"con". I dont remember ever reading a review where it said "this quadcore draws more power than the dualcore here, therefore we have to take it as a con". This is just either stupid or intentionaly false, for reasons i can only assume.

 

[bug]

The power draw is better than Intels´in every case. But dont ask me why tpu would claim that as a"con". I dont remember ever reading a review where it said "this quadcore draws more power than the dualcore here, therefore we have to take it as a con". This is just either stupid or intentionaly false, for reasons i can only assume.

It's called performance-per-watt

 

[pleaseno]

It's called performance-per-watt

Pah, i ll call it banane per horse, TAKE THAT


Edit: yes, thats what i mean. Either take absolute power consumption as a con AND banana/horse as a plus, or take none of them.

 

[bug]

Pah, i ll call it banane per horse, TAKE THAT


Edit: yes, thats what i mean. Either take absolute power consumption as a con AND banana/horse as a plus, or take none of them.

I suppose you have a problem with gas mileage, too. Because why measure that when engines clearly come in various cylinder configurations?

 

[pleaseno]

I suppose you have a problem with gas mileage, too. Because why measure that when engines clearly come in various cylinder configurations?

Yes, you CAN assume that the same car with less cylinders will have a lower gas mileage. But we are talking about cars who have 2 seats vs 4 seats. If you have to pick 4 ppl up, the latter will spare you a second ride. That will definitely result in lower gas mileage (absolute and per ratio), especially if the cars are very similar or identical otherwise.


Lets say the 1600 is always 100%. Then you have:

wPrime : 7500: 67% 7600k: 76%
score wprime: 7500 : 200% 7600k: 180% (time pass)

I picked wPrime, since it had the worst power gap for the Ryzen. In any other working case,it does better.
Even in gaming, where there is much to optimize yet, Ryzen is only 10% "higher" in consumption:

7500: 90% 7600k: 91%

Sooo, if i can do the job in half the time while spending just 1/3 more power, how is that considered a con?

Not to mention the fact, that i dont see more power consumption being dubbed as an disadvantage as long as it comes with a surplus in other fields in Intel reviews.

 

[bug]

Yes, you CAN assume that the same car with less cylinders will have a lower gas mileage. But we are talking about cars who have 2 seats vs 4 seats. If you have to pick 4 ppl up, the latter will spare you a second ride. That will definitely result in lower gas mileage (absolute and per ratio), especially if the cars are very similar or identical otherwise.


Lets say the 1600 is always 100%. Then you have:

wPrime : 7500: 67% 7600k: 76%
score wprime: 7500 : 200% 7600k: 180% (time pass)

I picked wPrime, since it had the worst power gap for the Ryzen. In any other working case,it does better.
Even in gaming, where there is much to optimize yet, Ryzen is only 10% "higher" in consumption:

7500: 90% 7600k: 91%

Sooo, if i can do the job in half the time while spending just 1/3 more power, how is that considered a con?

Not to mention the fact, that i dont see more power consumption being dubbed as an disadvantage as long as it comes with a surplus in other fields in Intel reviews.

First of all, no review does an integral of power over time, which what you're talking about (and you're not wrong in that regard).
Second, you missed that Ryzen also uses more power in games where it also loses/ties in performance. Games aren't "properly threaded" either (according to the general opinion), which brings us to...
Third, the car in your analogy rarely runs with all seats occupied, because that's how software works today.

So yes, you can look at a CPU from different points of view (what a surprise!), but moaning about a metric that's been used for ages doesn't put you in a great position.

 

[W1zzard]

no review does an integral of power over time

I take one measurement each second and then average over a reasonable timeframe to catch power draw changes due to temperature increase / clock variation etc

 

[bug]

I take one measurement each second and then average over a reasonable timeframe to catch power draw changes due to temperature increase / clock variation etc

I meant no one does a computation of the total power burned to complete a given task. It would take a lot more than a measurement each second to compute that. I'm even asking you to do that, numbers can be inferred using the avg power draw and time to complete a task anyway.

Because what the other guy is saying, is ok, CPU A uses 10W on average, CPU B uses 11W. But if CPU A gets the job done in 20s, while CPU B that gets the job done in 15s*, CPU B actually uses less power.

*numbers pulled out of my rear

 

[pleaseno]

I didnt miss the games part. I wrote:

"Even in gaming, where there is much to optimize yet, Ryzen is only 10% "higher" in consumption:

7500: 90% 7600k: 91%"

And it should be at least slightly better in the future.

I m sry, but it doesnt sum up. Power consumption judgement cant be done from only one point of view (and usually isnt done so). Looking at others reviews just here, i dont see the same thing to be an issue , for example:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-5960X_5930K_5820K_Comparison/7.html
or here, where the higher power draw even doesnt come hand in hand with the similar advantage(s) as with the 1600:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/21.html

If the power draw is bad, it should really count as a con, but if it is only marginally higher or only higher when it is delivering more, then it is a different story.
And i think that goes also for gaming, because i have people in my clan, who have stuttering voicechat clients plainly because their rig isnt sufficient and people/especially if regular gamers often have more things running then just the game. So, even there, the higher pwer (more cores running) has a good reason to exist.
Also sry for poor text formatting

 

[pleaseno]

Offtopic: what do i do with this achievement

 

[Madhusudan]

Best CPU review. In details and clear. Great work.

The whole Ryzen ecosystem much more stable now

 

[Super XP]

Best CPU review. In details and clear. Great work.

The whole Ryzen ecosystem much more stable now

It's only going to get better. Now that Threadripper is in the mix.

 

[gr33nbits]

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?

Yes it will and software developers are starting to use more and more cores on their apps so yes go for it, I own one that got 6 days ago and it's just awesome couldn't be more happy AMD .

 

[gr33nbits]

You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd

You just troll ryzen threads repeating yourself, what's disappointing about a 3% drop in fps compared to i5 (5% if you rock 720p in which case you have no right to bitch about anything really) when its also heaps better in productivity, but hey whatever helps you justify your own purchases and keep hating on amd

Omg you are so right i don't even believe someone comes to a Ryzen 5 1600 review saying that is happy with an i5 buy, it's just for the laughs for sure, it's trolling i don't believe he got an i5 when he could had got the best value for the money when it comes to cpu's, i got this Ryzen 5 1600 6 days ago and wouldn't trade it for none of the i7's on the market, even more the i5 a 4core/4thread cpu for 2017 when you know software developers will start using all the threads they can...

 

[Super XP]

AMD's Ryzen CPU's are Largely overdue and finally out. AMD is back to being the BEST Prices Performance once again.

Give AMD credit, they battle both Nvidia and Intel in this PC Market. Thumbs Up.

 

[gr33nbits]

AMD's Ryzen CPU's are Largely overdue and finally out. AMD is back to being the BEST Prices Performance once again.

Give AMD credit, they battle both Nvidia and Intel in this PC Market. Thumbs Up.

+1