AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz

[Dbiggs9]

AMD limited the OC of ryzen to leave room for later ryzen2 launches.

 

[Joss]

AMD limited the OC of ryzen to leave room for later ryzen2 launches.

And on what do you base your conclusion ?

 

[Nihilus]

Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz. Why even bother with the x models? Even better value with the R5 1600. B350 motherboards are pretty cheap.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz. Why even bother with the x models? Even better value with the R5 1600. B350 motherboards are pretty cheap.

Agreed, the X chips really aren't worth the cash, especially with all the chips being unlocked. The true gems seem to be the 1600 and 1700.

 

[Dbiggs9]

And on what do you base your conclusion ?

Economics same reason Intel gave you little icp from sandy-skylake

 

[GoldenX]

To me the OC capabilities are bad just because the design is new.

 

[Kanan]

Thanks for including minimum FPS. Next time please include it within one page (neighboring the regular "average" graphs), for better overview.

High power draw

Very relative, it's only a small tad more in idle and other tasks (mostly 10 W), which is kinda irrelevant. I think you overstated it, "higher" sounds better than "high" here.

Overclocking barely worth it

Yet, your own overclocked benchmark results prove that it's worth it. 6s less encoding time. Someone who encodes a lot will save a lot of time in the long run.

I think with higher voltages the overclock would be a bit higher - I would've liked to see different overclocking results based on different voltages (taking 1.45V as the realistic maximum, I'd say) - missed the chance here.

 

[Iceni]

Great perf./$ but they all max out around 4ghz. Why even bother with the x models?

You'd go with the X model only if you want the single core turbo over 4Ghz. The 1600X and 1800X are both capable of 4.1Ghz single core. But if you over-clock them you loose that feature.

In essence you have a choice to make with Ryzen. 3.9-4Ghz always on on all cores, or stock speeds with a higher single core turbo. If you want the constant over-clock then the non x models are the chips to look at. If you don't plan on overclocking and want a decent all rounder then you take the X model.

It depends on how you want the machine to function. If you want the cores for multitasking and multithreading, and still want to game then the X model is very favourable as a stock part.

If all you want to do is play games then the question isn't what chip to pick. It's how much do you want to invest. The i5 7600K is still the overall better gaming chip if that is all you do. But in order to make it that you are now forced to overclock it. Since at stock speeds AMD have a competitor. How big that overclock is is totally dependant on the investment in that chip. To gain the advantage you will need to be pushing 4.8+ and have the cooling solution to deal with that even potentially delid. With that in mind you may be spending $1-200 more just for bragging rights. And should have really got the 7700K instead of investing in over-clocks.

Amd on the other hand are hitting the market with a line up that are poor overclockers. That can still hit framerates that are right on top of intel. The second generation chipset for these CPU's is going to be where the money is. It'll solve most of the issues, and still be an am4 socket. It might even have features that unlock overclocking to regular levels +10-20%. If that is the case then intel will need a hard response to that chipset.

 

[Relayer]

Don't know why people are complaining about gaming performance. I think these parts are absolutely fine from gaming and productivity perspective. I mean who buys a $250 CPU and then pairs it with top range Monitor/Graphics card? Most of the people are going to use this CPU with a mid/enthusiast class Monitor/Graphics card anyway. Sure you won't get top gaming performance, but you will gain more from productivity and value perspective.

It seems like if it can't beat the 7700K in every gaming benchmark then it sucks. Lots and lots and lots of people though have been gaming with CPU's that are much slower and never even realized their experience was suffering soooo bad.

Thanks for including minimum FPS. Next time please include it within one page (neighboring the regular "average" graphs), for better overview.

Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.

Still an excellent review W1zzard. Not complaining.

 

[Relayer]

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.

Yes. Buy the 1600. It'll overclock "better".

 

[Relayer]

To me the OC capabilities are bad just because the design is new.

Let's not forget it's a different process than Intel. Last I heard Intel still had the best fabs and process in the industry. Nothing AMD can do about that though.

 

[Kanan]

Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.

Yeah absolutely, that's why everyone was asking for it and that's why he has included them in this review. /s No they are not worthless, they are important for competitive gamers especially, they can't afford it, not even for one split second.

And stop your multiposting, learn to Multi-Quote instead.

 

[happy medium]

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

You realize that a 7600k, Asus z170 motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~$500 overclocks past 4.6
A 1600X with a decent Asus motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~ $500 overclocks to 3.9

The 7600k @ 4.6+ wins in EVERY benchmark for the same price and will destroy it in gaming.

 

[GoldenX]

There is no need for a "decent" expensive motherboard, the CPU is a SoC.

 

[Xzibit]

You realize that a 7600k, Asus z170 motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~$500 overclocks past 4.6
A 1600X with a decent Asus motherboard, and 16gb of ddr4 3000 costs ~ $500 overclocks to 3.9

The 7600k @ 4.6+ wins in EVERY benchmark for the same price and will destroy it in gaming.

Intel
239.99 = 7600K (no HSF)
135.99 = Asus Prime (You need a Z or X board)
30 = HSF (Just to get the system up and running. More if you want to OC)
405.98

AMD
249.99 = 1600X (HSF inc)
89.99 = Asus Prime (B350 does just fine, This review uses MSI one)
339.98
*319.98 = If you go with the 1600 get same OC if your hell bent on OC in the first place.

Since the cores wont be pegged at max you can stream to your friends while gaming and telling them how you PWND them instead of using your phone or worse having to buy another 4c/4t system to do so.



UPDATED:
Forgot the HSF for the 7600K since it doesnt come with one

 

[happy medium]

Intel
239.99 = 7600K
135.99 = Asus Prime (You need a Z or X board)
375.98

AMD
249.99 = 1600X
89.99 = Asus Prime (B350 does just fine, This review uses MSI one)
339.98
*319.98 = If you go with the 1600 get same OC if your hell bent on OC in the first place.

Since the cores wont be pegged at max you can stream to your friends while gaming and telling them how you PWND them instead of using your phone or worse.

You can get the same quality Z170 board as a B350 for $89
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627 600567584 600567554&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

So for the same price i'd go for a 7600k overclocked vs a 1600 any day.

 

[Xzibit]

You can get the same quality Z170 board as a B350 for $89
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627 600567584 600567554&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

So for the same price i'd go for a 7600k overclocked vs a 1600 any day.

Just FYI that review is using a $169.99 Asrock Z270 Gaming K6 for the 7600K and a $89.99 Asus Prime B350 for 1600X. They were able to clock it to 4.1Ghz, not bad for a $89 board.

Don't forget the 7600K doesnt come with a stock cooler so factor that in as well. $30 just to get it up and running more if you want to OC.

 

[happy medium]

Just FYI that review is using a $169.99 Asrock Z270 Gaming K6 for the 7600K and a $89.99 Asus Prime B350 for 1600X they were able to clock it to 4.1Ghz, not bad for a $89 board.

ANd for your information, the $89 board I linked will overclock a 7600k to 4.6 .
So what is your point?

 

[Xzibit]

ANd for your information, the $89 board I linked will overclock a 7600k to 4.6 .
So what is your point?

You were try'n to compare prices but forgot essentials. Now your buying last gen parts to save money. That's good but still short.

 

[happy medium]

You were try'n to compare prices but forgot essentials. Now your buying last gen parts to save money. That's good but still short.

but yet the $89 Z170 boards have more features than the 89$ AM4 boards
and the Z270 are basically the same as a Z170.
Again I ask , whats your point?


My point is, its the same price for a faster Z170 board , 7600k and ram vs a 1600x, board and ram
I understand that the 1600x will encode a movie 50 seconds faster but who cares?

 

[happy medium]

cares?

 

[Xzibit]

but yet the $89 Z170 boards have more features than the 89$ AM4 boards
and the Z270 are basically the same as a Z170.
Again I ask , whats your point?


My point is, its the same price for a faster Z170 board , 7600k and ram vs a 1600x, board and ram
I understand that the 1600x will encode a movie 50 seconds faster but who cares?

Apparently the reviewers your linking to

A fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K
Priced at $250, the six-core 1600X is an exceptional buy and a fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K, which offers only four cores for the same price. Granted, they're exceptionally good cores that can be pushed quite far and may even look to be the better choice right now in most games.

That said, the 1600X offered more consistent performance in Battlefield 1 and of course still pushed well over 120fps. It also made out better in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and provided similar performance in Hitman. Even in games such as Mafia III and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided where the 1600X trailed the 7600K, the margins weren't that great.

So, out of the box gaming performance is currently similar between AMD and Intel, but Ryzen holds a clear lead in productivity performance regardless of the application (hundreds will mimic what was seen in 7-Zip and Excel). The 1600X is a beast for content creation at this price point, roughly matching the 7700K for $100 less.

Even when overclocked, the 7600K can't hang with the 1600X when it comes to productivity and we expect this to be the case with games once they start better utilizing Ryzen.

Ryzen 5 feels more like an enthusiast-grade product than Intel's thanks to its quality heatsink and unlocked multiplier as well as overclocking support on not just the flagship chipset but also the affordable B350.

On the contrary, the 7600K requires a pricier Z-series chipset if you plan to overclock and don't forget there's no stock cooler at all. That's right, you pay more for the unlocked K-models and Intel does you a favor by keeping the metal, so you can immediately add $20-$30 to the total expense for a basic air-cooler plus the aforementioned ~$20 premium on motherboard.

After accounting for the cooler and comparing the price of these processors with an entry-level motherboard that supports overclocking, we find that the 1600X actually ends up costing 8% less, not the 4% more it seems for just the CPU. If you opt for the vanilla 1600 like I suggest, then you're saving over 15% on the core components. That's pretty insane for a 12-thread setup versus a quad-core.

 

[happy medium]

Apparently the reviewers your linking to

alternative? Yes I agree.
Better> NO!

 

[W1zzard]

Really mins are as worthless as maximums. They are just a snapshot of a single frame. Need graphs, really.

99th percentile

 

[Relayer]

Yeah absolutely, that's why everyone was asking for it and that's why he has included them in this review. /s No they are not worthless, they are important for competitive gamers especially, they can't afford it, not even for one split second.

And stop your multiposting, learn to Multi-Quote instead.

Even if I were to take your position seriously, it depends on where the mins occur on whether it matters in the least.