AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz

[tvamos]

It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must... https://i.redd.it/3a8lgbc0lxqy.png
Other than that, nice reviews.

 

[BiggieShady]

Rise of the Tomb Raider and Sniper Elite 4 have ridiculously good minimum frame rates on Ryzen 5 ... It would be glorious to see L3 cache usage graphs in some cpu profiler while running these games

 

[W1zzard]

Wow! negative result from overclocking! it's the first time I see performance diminishes after overclocking. this CPUs are basically overclocked to their limit by AMD.

the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter

It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must...

Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios

 

[tvamos]

the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter


Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios

Yes, I understand, but still, such a difference is something to look at. Maybe next NVidia drivers will do ryzen justice.

 

[Nima]

the test measures time taken. Overclocked -> time shorter


Still waiting for Vega to be able to test Ryzen with a high-end GPU that's not GPU limited in all scenarios

Oops! still less than 5% gain with overclocking which mean this CPU is near it's limit at stock clock.

 

[TheGuruStud]

It seems testing with an AMD gpu is a must... https://i.redd.it/3a8lgbc0lxqy.png
Other than that, nice reviews.

Nvidia has garbage dx12 drivers. Vega testing is going to be very interesting.

 

[hat]

Oops! still less than 5% gain with overclocking which mean this CPU is near it's limit at stock clock.

AMD has a history of doing that. The high end chips are often close to the limit already. If you buy a low end chip, you can probably overclock to what the high end chip can reach... but if you have the high end chip already, you're not going very far.

Still, the 1600x looks like a pretty good chip for the money, especially in heavily multithreaded tasks.

 

[Axaion]

I have to question why it seems to have much higher minimum fps in battlefield 1 at 1440p, compared to 1080p.

Something is not quite right here

 

[W1zzard]

I have to question why it seems to have much higher minimum fps in battlefield 1 at 1440p, compared to 1080p.

Something is not quite right here

Could be some disk caching effect (1920x1080 is the first run). That's why I mentioned that I don't 100% trust those results yet

 

[tomy91]

I came here for the "Performance per Watt" and "Performance per Dollar" charts but they're not here. Also most of tests seems handpicked to favor Intel and they're not using Windows 10 Creators Update that finally has some Ryzen optimizations. Plus the Core i7-7700K somehow is missing from power consumption tests (guess why). Welcome to "IntelPowerup"!

 

[Axaion]

Could be some disk caching effect (1920x1080 is the first run). That's why I mentioned that I don't 100% trust those results yet

Yeah, well its nice that you did minumum frames at least, it does matter imo

 

[Totally]

Where are all the Intel/AMD fans, Ryzen-naysayers that we had pre-launch? The comments section so peaceful and constructive but nowhere near as entertaining reading all the dumb shit they say.

 

[HTC]

Haven't been able to find "my CPU's" bench yet: the 1600 non-X.

Don't really care for that XFR crap (i intend to underclock it: not overclock it) and i very much like the 6 core / 12 thread only 65W TDP.

@ least that is for sale in my area, unlike the only board i want to pair it with

 

[birdie]

I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:

The similarly priced Core i5-7600K is convincingly beaten by the 1600X across the board, and the 1600X even registers wins against the much costlier i7-7700K in some tests.

Let's see (1080p):

7600K wins in:

• Anno 2205
• BF1
• Dishonored 2
• Doom
• Fallout 4
• Far Cry Primal
• Hitman
• Resident Evil 7
  
• Total War: Warhammer
• Watchdogs 2
• The Witcher 3

1600X wins in

• Civ 4
• Styx: Shards of Darkness

More or less a draw in

• Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
• Sniper Elite 4
• Shadow Warrior 2

I see nothing that indicates that the Core i5-7600K is "convincingly beaten" by the 1600X.

If anything this review reeks of a hint of fanboyism. Also, I've failed to notice the tests which pitch these two CPUs against each other at the same frequency with SMT disabled while measuring their TDP.

I'm not a fan of either company but I want to see an unbiased review and this one slightly favours AMD CPUs despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm glad that AMD has released competitive CPUs, but we need to understand their inherent shortcomings before praising them too much. I still firmly believe that Zen 1.0 is a good testbed for a new CPU architecture, but only in Zen 2.0 AMD can claim unabated superiority.

Right now we're pitching a six core CPU with SMT (!) against a four core Intel part and we are made believe that AMD has suddenly become competitive. Yes and no.

AMD Zen CPUs are competitive in price performance metrics, but the true performance crown still belongs to Intel. Intel just for this very moment doesn't want to rearrange their CPUs range. Nothing can stop Intel from releasing Skylake-X parts which will destroy AMD.

 

[CounterSpell]

we need a performance per dollar chart !!!!

 

[Altern8]

I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:


Let's see (1080p):

7600K wins in:

• Anno 2205
• BF1
• Dishonored 2
• Doom
• Fallout 4
• Far Cry Primal
• Hitman
• Resident Evil 7
  
• Total War: Warhammer
• Watchdogs 2
• The Witcher 3

1600X wins in

• Civ 4
• Styx: Shards of Darkness

More or less a draw in

• Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
• Sniper Elite 4
• Shadow Warrior 2

I see nothing that indicates that the Core i5-7600K is "convincingly beaten" by the 1600X.

If anything this review reeks of a hint of fanboyism. Also, I've failed to notice the tests which pitch these two CPUs against each other at the same frequency with SMT disabled while measuring their TDP.

I'm not a fan of either company but I want to see an unbiased review and this one slightly favours AMD CPUs despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm glad that AMD has released competitive CPUs, but we need to understand their inherent shortcomings before praising them too much. I still firmly believe that Zen 1.0 is a good testbed for a new CPU architecture, but only in Zen 2.0 AMD can claim unabated superiority.

Right now we're pitching a six core CPU with SMT (!) against a four core Intel part and we are made believe that AMD has suddenly become competitive. Yes and no.

AMD Zen CPUs are competitive in price performance metrics, but the true performance crown still belongs to Intel. Intel just for this very moment doesn't want to rearrange their CPUs range. Nothing can stop Intel from releasing Skylake-X parts which will destroy AMD.

First post ever, here on TPU. Loyal reader since the dawn of TPU... From Norway, so not the best english

So, talking about fanboyism? I rest my case... I'm totally neutral any aspect, but this made me finally register.

Anyway, I see that the worst critisim over AMD has ended, and we consumers now finally can have many things to choose from, just given the money we want to spend. Not sure if that was correct written, but however; us consumers, now we finnaly have competition at least between two! Shoulnd't we then smile?

 

[mcraygsx]

I'm reading this review and I simply cannot believe my eyes:


Let's see (1080p):

7600K wins in:

• Anno 2205
• BF1
• Dishonored 2
• Doom
• Fallout 4
• Far Cry Primal
• Hitman
• Resident Evil 7
  
• Total War: Warhammer
• Watchdogs 2
• The Witcher 3

1600X wins in

• Civ 4
• Styx: Shards of Darkness

More or less a draw in

• Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
• Sniper Elite 4
• Shadow Warrior 2

I see nothing that indicates that the Core i5-7600K is "convincingly beaten" by the 1600X.

If anything this review reeks of a hint of fanboyism. Also, I've failed to notice the tests which pitch these two CPUs against each other at the same frequency with SMT disabled while measuring their TDP.

I'm not a fan of either company but I want to see an unbiased review and this one slightly favours AMD CPUs despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm glad that AMD has released competitive CPUs, but we need to understand their inherent shortcomings before praising them too much. I still firmly believe that Zen 1.0 is a good testbed for a new CPU architecture, but only in Zen 2.0 AMD can claim unabated superiority.

Right now we're pitching a six core CPU with SMT (!) against a four core Intel part and we are made believe that AMD has suddenly become competitive. Yes and no.

AMD Zen CPUs are competitive in price performance metrics, but the true performance crown still belongs to Intel. Intel just for this very moment doesn't want to rearrange their CPUs range. Nothing can stop Intel from releasing Skylake-X parts which will destroy AMD.

I have to agree with you there, INTEL has constantly provided minor IPC improvements with each new CPU they released in past 6+ years while AMD on the other hand has sat IDLE with nothing relevant for consumers or business sector. But finally AMD has caught up with Haswell level IPC. But they are about to be hit with Skylake-X in HEDT with better IPC and frequency then Ryzen counterpart. Even at stock RYZEN provides almost no headroom for overclock (unless you consider 100Mhz worthwhile). Only way to improve performance on RYZEN is thought BIOS, Patches, Microcode, worth around like Power Plans etc.

But AMD has beaten INTEL in a price war for sure and consumers have more options then ever.

 

[Iceni]

• Anno 2205 - 1 FPS
  
• BF1 - 5.7 FPS
  
• Dishonored 2 - 8.5 FPS
  
• Doom - 0.8 FPS
  
• Fallout 4 - 15.6 FPS
  
• Far Cry Primal - 7.6 FPS
  
• Hitman - 11.9 FPS
  
• Resident Evil 7 - 1.5 FPS
  
• Total War: Warhammer - 13.6 FPS
  
• Watchdogs 2 - 7.8 FPS
  
• The Witcher 3 - 2.8 FPS

I think we must be looking at different charts @birdie .

The only games where intel wins are Total war, Fallout 4, and Hitman. The rest been under 10fps. That only shows that in selected titles the intel 7600K is a better chip. For absolutely everything else it is as close as damnit, or better, Whist been cheaper, and been on a platform that has yet to see the first generation of tweaks. AMD has come away with an absolute blinder of a chip.

 

[Frick]

Yeeessss this is the one to get. Man I wish I had money, my poor Pentium G3220 is really struggling at times.

 

[happy medium]

here we go again testing games with a gpu bottleneck. Total BS.
Wonder why we don't have a 7600k overclocked in the charts vs a 1600 overcocked?

95% of 7600k's overclock past 4.6 .
95% of 1600's overclock to less than 4.0

Results after overclocking the 7600k @ 4.6? the 7600k wins 95% of all the benchmarks for the same price.
or buy a 6700k for $300 and overclock it to 4.7 and it will beat a $500 1800x @ 4.0 in 99% of games that ARE NOT GPU LIMITED.

 

[Xzibit]

here we go again testing games with a gpu bottleneck. Total BS.
Wonder why we don't have a 7600k overclocked in the charts vs a 1600 overcocked?

95% of 7600k's overclock past 4.6 .
95% of 1600's overclock to less than 4.0

Results after overclocking the 7600k @ 4.6? the 7600k wins 95% of all the benchmarks for the same price.
or buy a 6700k for $300 and overclock it to 4.7 and it will beat a $500 1800x @ 4.0 in 99% of games that ARE NOT GPU LIMITED.

You realize that for Intel you are forced to buy highest chipset motherboard to even OC which shoot up entry cost.

 

[Frick]

Also there's more to life than gaming. If your sole purpose is gaming, go Intel and overclock. Every other case, go AMD.

 

[tacosRcool]

It's an awesome chip for the price and people just need to lay off all the hate.

 

[Joss]

AnandTech review (where they used both Nvidia and AMD cards) showed very interesting results (as @tvamos showed in post #26)
I'm eager for the upcoming TPU review with Vega.

 

[hat]

Also there's more to life than gaming. If your sole purpose is gaming, go Intel and overclock. Every other case, go AMD.

Of course, you could always go x99... for much more money.