AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz

[r9]

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.

Being 4% behind doesn't mean that it can't run the current software.
Try running something parallel while gaming on both i5 7500 and R5 1600 and let me know how it goes.
The point is doesn't take a lot to optimize for Ryzen.
AoS patch was done in two weeks more or less with Dota.
Those 4% can swing only in Ryzen direction due to multithreading or code optimization.

 

[r9]

Streaming i5 6600k vs 1600x.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

In this review:

running Ryzen at memory speeds of 2133 or 2400 MHz only, with a significant performance penalty

In AMD Ryzen Memory Analysis: 20 Apps & 17 Games, up to 4K

We are happy to report that you can save some money by choosing a slower DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2666 memory, at least until DDR4-3200 or higher memory becomes more affordable. You lose practically no performance to slower memory on the Ryzen platform, when averaged across our CPU tests. The fastest memory configuration in our bench, DDR4-3200 CL14, is about 3.1 percent faster than the slowest DDR4-2133 configuration. In specific tests, the differences in performance can be larger than the average. WinRAR handles a 1.5 GB compression job 5 seconds faster on DDR4-3200 than DDR4-2133, for example.

Okay, what did I miss?

 

[Dave65]

Thanks guys, went with the 1700x..

 

[Footman]

This should be the correct clocks ... explains a lot

Looks like the 1600X is the Ryzen to choose if you don't want to mess with overclocking, the boost to 4.1ghz is interesting and the 2 missing cores between the 1800x and 1600x are unlikely to mean much for gamers....

 

[Footman]

Is it me or is that 3.8GHz OC relatively low? Since most Ryzen hit 4.0 up to 4.1GHz.

I hit a wall with my 1700 at 4.0ghz. I was prime stable at 1.3875vcore, which I thought was great, but try as I might I was not able to move higher than 4.0ghz! I may buy a 1600x to play with as it will boost to 4.1ghz, however I am still unsure if this boost is just on a single core or all cores....

 

[Dave65]

Thanks guys, went with the 1700x..

I got the 1700 not the 1700x
So far so good 4ghz @ 1.34375..
had it to 4.2 but it took 1.43 to do it so I backed it back to 4 and am happy with that..

 

[bug]

I hit a wall with my 1700 at 4.0ghz. I was prime stable at 1.3875vcore, which I thought was great, but try as I might I was not able to move higher than 4.0ghz! I may buy a 1600x to play with as it will boost to 4.1ghz, however I am still unsure if this boost is just on a single core or all cores....

Considering the boost frequency is for only 1-2 cores active, I wouldn't bet on XFR working for all cores. Even if it does, XFR is more like the frequency of modern mobile chips: nice to write on a paper, but unsustainable past a minute or so. It's nice to have it, if your workflow happens to be bursty, but I wouldn't make a buying decision based on it.

 

[Footman]

Considering the boost frequency is for only 1-2 cores active, I wouldn't bet on XFR working for all cores. Even if it does, XFR is more like the frequency of modern mobile chips: nice to write on a paper, but unsustainable past a minute or so. It's nice to have it, if your workflow happens to be bursty, but I wouldn't make a buying decision based on it.

You are correct, I won't base any purchase on possibilities, however if I consider single core performance of potentially 4.1ghz and multiple core performance of the 1600x at 3.6ghz then this CPU is looking good for people who don't overclock. Over clocking performance on all cores is likely to be around 3.9-4.0ghz, much like the rest of the 6 and 8 core ryzens...

 

[bug]

You are correct, I won't base any purchase on possibilities, however if I consider single core performance of potentially 4.1ghz and multiple core performance of the 1600x at 3.6ghz then this CPU is looking good for people who don't overclock. Over clocking performance on all cores is likely to be around 3.9-4.0ghz, much like the rest of the 6 and 8 core ryzens...

True.
One thing to note a 4.0GHz overclock over the base 3.6Ghz is an 11% improvement. Not really worth it outside benchmarks. Especially if it wreaks havoc with the power consumption.
Personally, and this just what I do, if I can't get at least 20%, I don't overclock at all. And even then, there has to be some program involved that I feel I'm waiting for. Formatting a document in 4 seconds instead of 5 is not my cup of tea.

 

[Super XP]

One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC whether it be for Gaming or not. Near future games will get crippled by CPUs such as the i5-7500 for example. More cores will ultimately win in the end.

 

[bug]

One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC whether it be for Gaming or not. Near future games will get crippled by CPUs such as the i5-7500 for example. More cores will ultimately win in the end.

It may be sure for you, but someone who actually writes software, I'll say that's at least 50% wishful thinking.

 

[Super XP]

It may be sure for you, but someone who actually writes software, I'll say that's at least 50% wishful thinking.

Multi Core is already here. Newer games will benefit more and more.
This was 2010.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Tests/More-Cores-More-FPS-794274/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/36gg5y/yes_games_do_use_8_cores/

The future is Multi Cores. Whether you Game or not.

 

[bug]

Multi Core is already here. Newer games will benefit more and more.
This was 2010.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Tests/More-Cores-More-FPS-794274/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/36gg5y/yes_games_do_use_8_cores/

The future is Multi Cores. Whether you Game or not.

Are you a high school kid or something?

 

[Mussels]

its not wishful thinking to get a CPU that matches todays needs perfectly (within 2% of the top dog in 4K gaming), with double (or more) the core/thread count.

no matter how you look at it, that simply cant be the poor choice - 2% loss at worst, with the possible benefits scaling up depending on how many cores you grab with ryzen.

-2% through +100% is kind of a good bet.

 

[bug]

its not wishful thinking to get a CPU that matches todays needs perfectly (within 2% of the top dog in 4K gaming), with double (or more) the core/thread count.

no matter how you look at it, that simply cant be the poor choice - 2% loss at worst, with the possible benefits scaling up depending on how many cores you grab with ryzen.

-2% through +100% is kind of a good bet.

True, but that's not what he said. He said:

One thing is for sure, the Ryzen future proofs your PC

I don't have a crystal ball, but judging by the rate of code adopting multithreading, by the time 8 cores standard, first generation Ryzen will be thing of the past.
By all means, get a Ryzen if that's what you want/need. If you're lucky, it will last you as long as an i5-2500k. But future proof "for sure"? That's a little out there.

 

[Super XP]

Are you a high school kid or something?

Your comment tells that you are the high school kid.
FYI
Ryzen (12-16 Threads) and any 6+ Core Intel CPUs future proofs your PC. Whether you agree with this or not.

 

[Mussels]

some of us have been around since the very early single core days, adoption of more cores is incredibly slow. Right now we're at the cusp where new games use 4+ threads, while old games use 1-2 threads.

Ryzen is perfect for the next few years because its got the single core performance for all existing titles, with the multi threaded performance for future titles.
Oh and its cheaper. Spending less for the best of both worlds? Thats future proofing.

 

[bug]

Your comment tells that you are the high school kid.
FYI
Ryzen (12-16 Threads) and any 6+ Core Intel CPUs future proofs your PC. Whether you agree with this or not.

Presenting various statements as facts with little to no justification makes it very hard for me to continue this conversation.

some of us have been around since the very early single core days, adoption of more cores is incredibly slow. Right now we're at the cusp where new games use 4+ threads, while old games use 1-2 threads.

Ryzen is perfect for the next few years because its got the single core performance for all existing titles, with the multi threaded performance for future titles.
Oh and its cheaper. Spending less for the best of both worlds? Thats future proofing.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say. But in my case, I'm looking at my CPU load at work and rarely are all 8 cores used. At home I have 4 cores and outside of games, they also rarely see action at the same time. For my uses, I'm future proofed with only 4 cores.

 

[Caring1]

some of us have been around since the very early single core days.....

I remember getting excited about the speed boost from a 66MHz CPU going to 100MHz lol

 

[bug]

I remember getting excited about the speed boost from a 66MHz CPU going to 100MHz lol

I remember hitting the Turbo button to make the computer blaze at 16MHz. Top that

 

[Footman]

I remember hitting the Turbo button to make the computer blaze at 16MHz. Top that

Errr, what's a computer??? I remember when my abacus had only 11 columns....

 

[Mussels]

I'm not disagreeing with what you say. But in my case, I'm looking at my CPU load at work and rarely are all 8 cores used. At home I have 4 cores and outside of games, they also rarely see action at the same time. For my uses, I'm future proofed with only 4 cores.

What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.

 

[bug]

What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.

If software doesn't get rewritten within the next two years to make 4/8 cores inadequate, I'm pretty future proof.

 

[notb]

What you just said is that you're good for the *present* based on present needs - which is not the same as future proofed.

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.