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

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz

Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
1,681 (0.31/day)
Location
Azalea City
System Name Main
Processor Ryzen 5950x
Motherboard B550 PG Velocita
Cooling Water
Memory Ballistix
Video Card(s) RX 6900XT
Storage T-FORCE CARDEA A440 PRO
Display(s) MAG401QR
Case QUBE 500
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z623
Power Supply LEADEX V 1KW
Mouse Cooler Master MM710
Keyboard Huntsman Elite
Software 11 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://hwbot.org/user/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 :)
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
535 (0.13/day)
System Name Can I run it
Processor delidded i9-10900KF @ 5.1Ghz SVID best case scenario +LLC5+Supercool direct die waterblock
Motherboard ASUS Maximus XII Apex 2801 BIOS
Cooling Main = GTS 360 GTX 240, EK PE 360,XSPC EX 360,2x EK-XRES 100 Revo D5 PWM, 12x T30, AC High Flow Next
Memory 2x16GB TridentZ 3600@4600 16-16-16-36@1.61V+EK Monarch, Separate loop with GTS 120&Freezemod DDC
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 3080 Ti Gaming OC @ 0.762V 1785Mhz core 20.8Gbps mem + Barrow full cover waterblock
Storage Transcend PCIE 220S 1TB (main), WD Blue 3D NAND 250GB for OC testing, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
Display(s) Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 49" 5120x1440 240Hz calibrated by X-Rite i1 Display Pro Plus
Case Thermaltake View 71
Audio Device(s) Q Acoustics M20 HD speakers with Q Acoustics QB12 subwoofer
Power Supply Thermaltake PF3 1200W 80+ Platinum
Mouse Logitech G Pro Wireless
Keyboard Logitech G913 (GL Linear)
Software Windows 11
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."
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
250 (0.06/day)
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.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
4,902 (0.81/day)
Location
Multidimensional
System Name Boomer Master Race
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 8745H
Motherboard MinisForum 870 Slim Board
Cooling Mini PC Cooling
Memory Crucial 32GB 5600Mhz
Video Card(s) Radeon 780M
Storage Kingston 1TB SSD
Display(s) Sony 4K Bravia X85J 43Inch TV 120Hz
Case MinisForum 870 Slim Case
Audio Device(s) Built In Realtek Digital Audio HD
Power Supply 120w External Power Brick
Mouse Logitech G203 Lightsync
Keyboard Atrix RGB Slim Keyboard
VR HMD ( ◔ ʖ̯ ◔ )
Software Windows 11 Pro 64bit
Benchmark Scores Don't do them anymore.
The best CPU to get IMHO :toast:
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
250 (0.06/day)
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...
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
569 (0.12/day)
Processor i5 4670K - @ 4.8GHZ core
Motherboard MSI Z87 G43
Cooling Thermalright Ultra-120 *(Modded to fit on this motherboard)
Memory 16GB 2400MHZ
Video Card(s) HD7970 GHZ edition Sapphire
Storage Samsung 120GB 850 EVO & 4X 2TB HDD (Seagate)
Display(s) 42" Panasonice LED TV @120Hz
Case Corsair 200R
Audio Device(s) Xfi Xtreme Music with Hyper X Core
Power Supply Cooler Master 700 Watts
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.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
14,170 (3.81/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name H7 Flow 2024
Processor AMD 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus X570 Tough Gaming
Cooling Custom liquid
Memory 32 GB DDR4
Video Card(s) Intel ARC A750
Storage Crucial P5 Plus 2TB.
Display(s) AOC 24" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Mouse Lenovo
Keyboard Eweadn Mechanical
Software W11 Pro 64 bit
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.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
299 (0.07/day)
System Name gamingPZ
Processor i7-6700k
Motherboard Asrock Z170M Pro4S
Cooling scythe mugen4
Memory 32GB ddr4 2400mhz crucial ballistix sport lt
Video Card(s) gigabyte GTX 1070 ti
Storage ssd - crucial MX500 1TB
Case silverstone sugo sg10
Power Supply Evga G2 650w
Software win10
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?
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
220 (0.04/day)
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

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
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 ;)
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
4,679 (0.94/day)
Location
in a van down by the river
Processor faster at instructions than yours
Motherboard more nurturing than yours
Cooling frostier than yours
Memory superior scheduling & haphazardly entry than yours
Video Card(s) better rasterization than yours
Storage more ample than yours
Display(s) increased pixels than yours
Case fancier than yours
Audio Device(s) further audible than yours
Power Supply additional amps x volts than yours
Mouse without as much gnawing as yours
Keyboard less clicky than yours
VR HMD not as odd looking as yours
Software extra mushier than yours
Benchmark Scores up yours
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.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.16/day)
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

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
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

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,971 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
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 :)
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
141 (0.02/day)
Location
norway
Processor intel 2500k 4.3ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte ga ds3
Memory 1600mhz
Video Card(s) Gainward 1060 6gb GS
Case same mod for 7 years
Power Supply gamextream 600w
Software win 10 64 ultimate
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
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
141 (0.02/day)
Location
norway
Processor intel 2500k 4.3ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte ga ds3
Memory 1600mhz
Video Card(s) Gainward 1060 6gb GS
Case same mod for 7 years
Power Supply gamextream 600w
Software win 10 64 ultimate
or is this a long tale? cores and threds
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.16/day)
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

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
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 ;)
 
Last edited:

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
3,300 (0.55/day)
System Name Primary|Secondary|Poweredge r410|Dell XPS|SteamDeck
Processor i7 11700k|i7 9700k|2 x E5620 |i5 5500U|Zen 2 4c/8t
Memory 32GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|32GB ECC DDR3|8GB DDR4|16GB LPDDR5
Video Card(s) RX 7800xt|RX 6700xt |On-Board|On-Board|8 RDNA 2 CUs
Storage 2TB m.2|512GB SSD+1TB SSD|2x256GBSSD 2x2TBGB|256GB sata|512GB nvme
Display(s) 50" 4k TV | Dell 27" |22" |3.3"|7"
VR HMD Samsung Odyssey+ | Oculus Quest 2
Software Windows 11 Pro|Windows 10 Pro|Windows 10 Home| Server 2012 r2|Windows 10 Pro
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). :p

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.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
1,849 (0.27/day)
System Name Air Cooled Caselabs BH8
Processor Intel Coffee Lake 8700K @ 4.7
Motherboard MSI Gaming M5
Cooling Noctua D15s, 5x 140mm Noctua Chromax, 1x 120mm Noctua Chromax, 2x 80mm Noctua fans
Memory G. Skill Trident Z RGB series 3200mhz
Video Card(s) ASUS STRIX GTX 1080
Storage Samsung EVO 840 250gb SSD, Samung EVO PRO 256gb SSD, 2 TB WD Black Edition HDD.
Display(s) 24" Asus Gaming ROG 144hz
Case Black Caselabs BH8
Power Supply 850w EVGA SuperNOVA G2 Gold PSU with individually sleeved black cables
Mouse Logitech Wireless G403
Keyboard Corsair Mechanical Gaming Keyboard
Software Windows 10
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). :p.

 
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
4,679 (0.94/day)
Location
in a van down by the river
Processor faster at instructions than yours
Motherboard more nurturing than yours
Cooling frostier than yours
Memory superior scheduling & haphazardly entry than yours
Video Card(s) better rasterization than yours
Storage more ample than yours
Display(s) increased pixels than yours
Case fancier than yours
Audio Device(s) further audible than yours
Power Supply additional amps x volts than yours
Mouse without as much gnawing as yours
Keyboard less clicky than yours
VR HMD not as odd looking as yours
Software extra mushier than yours
Benchmark Scores up yours
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)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bug

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
3,300 (0.55/day)
System Name Primary|Secondary|Poweredge r410|Dell XPS|SteamDeck
Processor i7 11700k|i7 9700k|2 x E5620 |i5 5500U|Zen 2 4c/8t
Memory 32GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|32GB ECC DDR3|8GB DDR4|16GB LPDDR5
Video Card(s) RX 7800xt|RX 6700xt |On-Board|On-Board|8 RDNA 2 CUs
Storage 2TB m.2|512GB SSD+1TB SSD|2x256GBSSD 2x2TBGB|256GB sata|512GB nvme
Display(s) 50" 4k TV | Dell 27" |22" |3.3"|7"
VR HMD Samsung Odyssey+ | Oculus Quest 2
Software Windows 11 Pro|Windows 10 Pro|Windows 10 Home| Server 2012 r2|Windows 10 Pro
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

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
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.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
4,679 (0.94/day)
Location
in a van down by the river
Processor faster at instructions than yours
Motherboard more nurturing than yours
Cooling frostier than yours
Memory superior scheduling & haphazardly entry than yours
Video Card(s) better rasterization than yours
Storage more ample than yours
Display(s) increased pixels than yours
Case fancier than yours
Audio Device(s) further audible than yours
Power Supply additional amps x volts than yours
Mouse without as much gnawing as yours
Keyboard less clicky than yours
VR HMD not as odd looking as yours
Software extra mushier than yours
Benchmark Scores up yours
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
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.16/day)
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? :)
 
Top