AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 3.6 GHz

[W1zzard]

Priced at an affordable $230, AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X is targeted at a larger market than the Ryzen 7 2700X. The processor still comes with 6 cores and 12 threads, matching the best Intel has to offer. In our testing, we see the new processor neck-to-neck with the Ryzen 7 1700X and beating the Intel Core i5-8600K.

Show full review

 

[ShurikN]

That XFR2 is actually amazing. Get proper cooling and forget about oveclocking, the CPU does it for you.

 

[phill]

If I was going to buy a 6 core CPU, this would be it.... Amazing show from AMD...

 

[windwhirl]

Well, this pretty much settles it for me. I think I'll be getting a Ryzen 2600X this year.

Good job, AMD.

 

[dicktracy]

8400 is better

 

[R0H1T]

Can we assume that CFL (also Ryzen) was tested with the latest patches ~ firmware & others covering spectre+meltdown, including the ones from MS this April?

 

[sutyi]

8400 is better

Depends on use case really.

Also if you are running it with a Stock Cooler and DDR4-2400 or 2666 on B360 propably not all always.

Having a semi decent 120mm tower cooler and Z370 + DDR4-3000/3200 under said i5-8400 helps it a lot if, cause otherwise it wont be running near the turbo clocks due to temps. Also having MCE capability might boost it even further in some cases.

 

[jabbadap]

Depends on use case really.

Also if you are running it with a Stock Cooler and DDR4-2400 or 2666 on B360 propably not all always.

Having a semi decent 120mm tower cooler and Z370 + DDR4-3000/3200 under said i5-8400 helps it a lot if, cause otherwise it wont be running near the turbo clocks due to temps. Also having MCE capability might boost it even further in some cases.

Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.

 

[R0H1T]

Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.

That's not true, there's a reason Intel doesn't give us turbo boost speeds anymore (only max single core turbo) & cooling has a lot do with it.

 

[sutyi]

Uhm i5 8400 has no problems keeping turbo clocks on lesser chipset and even with that crappy reference blower. i7 8700 non-k other hand can't keep it's clocks. Memory support is another matter though, and you can get better performance on z370+xmp memory.

Having it running on an open benchtable on top of your desk or inside a case with limited fresh air and rendering video for an hour is not really the same. Having longer all-core loads it definitely does reduce boost clocks in order to keep temps managable on the stock cooler.

 

[jabbadap]

That's not true, there's a reason Intel doesn't give us turbo boost speeds anymore (only max single core turbo) & cooling has a lot do with it.

Yes they don't officially marketing them, but there are multipliers different count of active cores in cpu microcode. Which can be read with intel XTU, like Steve have done in techspot.

Having it running on an open benchtable on top of your desk or inside a case with limited fresh air and rendering video for an hour is not really the same. Having longer all-core loads it definitely does reduce boost clocks in order to keep temps managable on the stock cooler.

Yeah you might be right with the stock cooler, Steve used Gammaxx 200t on those tests. But vrm power throttling was not the problem with i5 8400, like it was with i7 8700 non-k.

 

[trparky]

After watching quite a bit of coverage on YouTube and looking at many graphs comparing FPS numbers that compare the Ryzen 5 2600X to the Intel Core i7 8700K I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Yes, there's no doubt that Intel will win in the crazy high god-like FPS (frames per second) arena but for those of us who are having to settle for 1080p @ 60Hz because we're trying to build a decent system on a budget (I myself have a $1400 USD budget) there's not going to be much difference between going with Intel as versus going with an AMD Ryzen 2600X (or at least the difference is going to be so small that it's not even worth mentioning).

 

[AlienIsGOD]

this is great, im eyeing a 2600/2600X for my next build

 

[R0H1T]

After watching quite a bit of coverage on YouTube and looking at many graphs comparing FPS numbers that compare the Ryzen 5 2600X to the Intel Core i7 8700K I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Yes, there's no doubt that Intel will win in the crazy high god-like FPS (frames per second) arena but for those of us who are having to settle for 1080p @ 60Hz because we're trying to build a decent system on a budget (I myself have a $1400 USD budget) there's not going to be much difference between going with Intel as versus going with an AMD Ryzen 2600X (or at least the difference is going to be so small that it's not even worth mentioning).

There's also cooling & the associated costs with a high end cooler, that don't get a mention in Ryzen reviews. That's because generally the bundled cooling gets the job done, in case of Intel you need that on all K parts & even in some other models if you want the chip to turbo longer.

 

[trparky]

There's also cooling & the associated costs with a high end cooler, that don't get a mention in Ryzen reviews. That's because generally the bundled cooling gets the job done, in case of Intel you need that on all K parts & even in some other models if you want the chip to turbo longer.

That's very true.

 

[Batou1986]

@W1zzard in your review you state

The underlying reason is that Ryzen has very clever Boost algorithms that automagically increase clock frequencies beyond rated stock frequencies. Out of the box, the 2600X will boost to 4.2 GHz when just a single core is active, which is higher than what we managed with manual overclocking.

But then go on to suggest

For the Ryzen 5 2600X specifically, I'm not sure if buying a X470 motherboard is the best approach since these boards are currently overpriced, and there really isn't much of a difference to X370.

Is it possible we could get a test between the two platforms comparing the performance of the Boost since X470 supports "XFR2 Enhanced" and "Precision boost overdrive" where the X370 does not.

 

[bubbleawsome]

In the blurb on the website homepage it says

In our testing, we see the new processor neck-to-neck with the Ryzen 7 1700X and beating the Intel Core i7-8600K.

I think you mean i5 8600k?

 

[Space Lynx]

It beats the 8600k? where at? lol

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/14.html according to your own benches at 1440p gaming, the 8600k beats everything in almost every game...

 

[Foobario]

Can we assume that CFL (also Ryzen) was tested with the latest patches ~ firmware & others covering spectre+meltdown, including the ones from MS this April?

I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.

Other sites that confirmed the firmware updates were made to Intel BIOS show the 2700X on par with the 8700K in gaming.

I guess those that don't plan on updating their BIOS can view this as an accurate review.

Then again, maybe Anandtech won the silicon lottery big time in their Ryzen samples and applying the Meltdown fixes have no impact on gaming just like Intel is telling everyone.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I'll be dropping a 2600 (non x) straight into my B350 motherboard to replace my 1600 (non x) 3.9Ghz 24/7 vs 4.1-4.2Ghz plus a small IPC increase and improved latency and memory compatibility for a decent upgrade, even just a 200-300Mhz OC on Ryzen seems to make such a big difference, god help Intel next year with Ryzen 2

I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.

Yup, with Spectre fix, 8700k is on par with 2700k

 

[W1zzard]

In the blurb on the website homepage it says
I think you mean i5 8600k?

fixed

I suspect the BIOS wasn't updated to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown issues for Intel.

sure was. from page 1 "This review uses our updated test suite for processors in 2018, which includes the latest BIOS updates with microcode fixes for recent security issues, Windows 10 Fall Creators Update with all updates, and new software tests and games, which are all using the latest versions as well."

 

[HammerOn1024]

8400 is better

Sure if you have the cash. That's not the point here.

 

[dirtyferret]

If they had put RGB on it then it would beat Intel easy in IPC.

 

[HD64G]

Best VFM CPU again from AMD since the Ryzen 1600 came out. Especially after we now know for sure that one can upgrade on the same mobo for 4-5 years with any new cpu from AMD...

Admittedly, Intel went to slice prices last year and got some credit back with the i5-8400 but this one is again the king of the hill for restricted budget systems until Ryzen 2600 is tested and maybe will surpass the X.

 

[Space Lynx]

Best VFM CPU again from AMD since the Ryzen 1600 came out. Especially after we now know for sure that one can upgrade on the same mobo for 4-5 years with any new cpu from AMD...

Admittedly, Intel went to slice prices last year and got some credit back with the i5-8400 but this one is again the king of the hill for restricted budget systems until Ryzen 2600 is tested and maybe will surpass the X.

How? i5-8400 beats it in every game at 1440p across the board? min, avg, and max fps for 90% of games... thats costs $175, you can get the cheapest Intel mobo for $50 for it since it doesnt oc anyway... and some cheap ram, since slow ram doesn't hurt intel as much as it hurts amd rigs.

ugh. im done with this conversation. look ryzen is better in many ways.... but if all you do is game... just sayin...