AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Leaked Benchmarks Analyzed, Faster Than Intel’s Fastest 6 Core

[valyamd]

I think you're reading too much into it tbh, besides not everyone has a 4790 or better, lots of people myself included are running older platforms and the upgrade will be worth it, but I'll be going 6 core not 8 as they're a bit rich for my blood.

intel 6 core and 8 core yes the price is wayy to much but a amd ryzen 6 or 8 core cost about intel 4 core i think it"s a good deal it"s just my point of view sorry for my bad eng.

 

[alucasa]

Ryzen should change its name to Divide.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Lets just be happy Intel finally has some competition. The new AMD chips are going to be pretty good, either way, so will be interesting when they finally get released.

 

[Vayra86]

Some of my 3570K CPU-Z bench scores for comparison...

i5-3570K @ 3.7 GHz = 1603 ST/6077 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.0 GHz = 1733 ST/6571 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.3 GHz = 1862 ST/7053 MT
i5-3570K @ 4.5 GHz = 1950 ST/7429 MT
i5-3570K @ 5.0 GHz = 2164 ST/8440 MT

Thanks for this, was wondering at what clock you'd hit the 'leaked' 1888 single score on my current proc, and was too lazy to bench yet

Ryzen had better clock easily to 4.5 on air, or I'm not so sure it's the best choice performance wise. Price/perf however, this looks to be a massive winner for all of us.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Them prices.......Drool

 

[wurschti]

The benchies are great and I love what AMD has done with the new CPUs. The big question is "Will it deliver in real world scenarios?". That means we have to wait for reviews, real reviews, like techpowerup or hardware canucks or smth like that. I would like to hear the opinion of Intel or NVIDIA fanboys. I'd like some neutral reviews. That would make all the questions get an answer. That would make all of us happy and we could make our decision for our next CPU/Platform.

 

[BiggieShady]

Maybe I am just that cheap and don't purchase more than I need during the lifetime of my CPU??? ANd for those that are looking at my system specs and laughing, remember I am am a reviewer so the 6950x was free.

Well, maybe you are just used to having 10 cores. Many things are multithreaded these days.

• Latest games that target DX12 and Vulkan are organized using render thread pools and game thread pools.
• Offline 3D rendering
• In large code solutions distinct modules are compiled in parallel with latest compilers
• Video, image and sound processing
• Web browsing, every tab in Chrome is a process
• Multithreaded game servers, running a game with local server on a same machine
• and last but not least regular everyday OS multitasking a mix of single/multi threaded processes

Everyone can find at least two or three items from that list that would benefit him/her from having more cores.
Days of the moar cores e-peen prosthetic are long gone ... make way for the quad core newbs

 

[EarthDog]

You overestimate number the general population and what they actually do with a PC I think.

4c/8t is fine for 95% of people, period.

Still not buying into the more cores is better mantra over 4c/8t.

 

[Vayra86]

You overestimate number the general population and what they actually do with a PC I think.

4c/8t is fine for 95% of people, period.

Still not buying into the more cores is better mantra over 4c/8t.

For most people yes. For gaming however I think the time has come for 6c/12t. If not for a video stream, then for discord, a browser, and having the four other cores exclusively for game threads. On top of that, you get a much more 'lean' CPU that will generally last a lot longer, while you don't have to deal with powering a massive eight cores, which helps your clocks. And if your game actually scales to six cores, that's a 30-40% perf increase without clock bumping anything, which will easily make up for the 100-200mhz you lose versus a 4c/8t.

Reason I say this is because on 4c/8t I definitely have already seen CPU bottlenecks for gaming over 60 fps.

I'm definitely leaning towards an R5 X version in any case.

 

[kruk]

You overestimate number the general population and what they actually do with a PC I think.

4c/8t is fine for 95% of people, period.

Still not buying into the more cores is better mantra over 4c/8t.

If you look at that this way, then you can also say two cores are enough for 95% of the people ...

 

[valyamd]

If you look at that this way, then you can also say two cores are enough for 95% of the people ...

well said

 

[NdMk2o1o]

You overestimate number the general population and what they actually do with a PC I think.

4c/8t is fine for 95% of people, period.

Still not buying into the more cores is better mantra over 4c/8t.

A dual or quad core is more than enough for peoples needs then if that's the case... I mean it seems like you're taking this personally (imo anyway but that might not be the case) cause you have an i7, who cares if it gets beaten by amd or not if it's sufficient for your needs?

 

[Dbiggs9]

I'm sure over the next few years games will start using 8 core's. I remember when Core2duo was hot and most games didn't need a quad core. now it's a 4 core min for most games

 

[valyamd]

If you look at that this way, then you can also say two cores are enough for 95% of the people ...

this all I'm trying to say but I see that they do not want to go forward will remain at quad core does not see that quad core already reached the limit should be passed on six core had long ago to reach mainstream but that was not competition from amd intel it continued to sell four core for price of 6 core and now finally amd managed to bring six core and even eight-core mainstream and people are still not satisfied say they do not need more than 4 core for gaming

 

[rruff]

say they do not need more than 4 core for gaming

4 fast cores >> 8 cores @90% of the speed. That's going to be true for a long time.

 

[valyamd]

4 fast cores >> 8 cores @90% of the speed. That's going to be true for a long time.

4 core faster because they have 4.2 GHz clock for clock is the same shit and you have another 4 cores bonus on 8 core cpu you can rendering or anything else or gaming in same time

 

[EarthDog]

If you look at that this way, then you can also say two cores are enough for 95% of the people ...

Id disagree there... especially if they game as there are some titles out which REQUIRE more than two threads. If they don't game and its an internet/email PC, then yes, a dual will be fine for most.

Valy... just stop... please. Try rendering at the same time you game and see how that works out.... either your gaming experience will blow, or you won't render near as fast. I mean come on... think!!

A dual or quad core is more than enough for peoples needs then if that's the case... I mean it seems like you're taking this personally (imo anyway but that might not be the case) cause you have an i7, who cares if it gets beaten by amd or not if it's sufficient for your needs?

Take this personally?? Nope. I could also give two shits about what i own and justifying against whatever AMD has out there. I think I was pretty clear on that? FFS, I even mentioned what I had (was 'free') and that I would sell it if I could (but can't).

What does get annoying and personal is when people respond like this, completely missing points I intentionally made to separate myself from what I own...as I knew someone would look and say something asinine like that, lol!

 

[kruk]

Id disagree there... especially if they game as there are some titles out which REQUIRE more than two threads. If they don't game and its an internet/email PC, then yes, a dual will be fine for most.

Well, on the most popular gaming platform out there, Steam, there are almost 46 % of people still using PCs with two cores. Also, there is a huge MMORPG/MOBA playerbase out there and those games have really low system requirements. So, I'm still skeptical about the 4C spread, but I really can't prove you are wrong ...

 

[EarthDog]

And those 46% of people can't play a couple of games out these days. Not exactly where I would want to start with a PC. A native quad is plenty for most, but, with the more games that are coming out and other things that use more threads, this is why I find a sweet spot in a 4c/8t CPU for the next few years and why I value IPC and clocks more so than cores.........for MY uses.

There are PLENTY of articles out there showing, in many titles, that a dual core can lop off some FPS in many titles. Again, I don't want to start already behind...

 

[cdawall]

There are PLENTY of articles out there showing, in many titles, that a dual core can lop off some FPS in many titles. Again, I don't want to start already behind...

Sadly there are more articles showing a performance loss with an 8350 than a 6100...

 

[EarthDog]

That's a different story. Ryzen will resolve that issue for sure.

 

[Crap Daddy]

I think there's a reason why we haven't seen any game benchmark leaks yet and there's a reason why the prices are so low. All we are fed seems too good to be true.

 

[medi01]

With all those "leaks" they're trying to show how good Ryzen is and I'm almost confident that XFR was on. I'd better be wrong though.

I frankly also think XFR is on (and it was on in Blender test, otherwise 95W rating on the chip makes no sense=

 

[medi01]

You aren't getting it...

...but to answer your question, HELL NO THAT ISN'T BAD!!!

Why, if I DID NOT NEED more than 4c/8t would I get a $390 CPU? Why not get the $199 4c/8t CPU?!!!!! Why are we comparing 16t to 8t simply because of price when the reality is 95% of people won't use more than the 8t on AMD/Intel anyway?!!!!

Most AAA games from 2016 onwards are expected to be able to utilize more than 4 cores.
They also come in handy for those who like to record gameplay.

4c/8t is fine for 95% of people, period.

2c-2t is fine for 95% of people, sorry to bust your bubble.

 

[EarthDog]

Expected to be... I'm waiting with bated breath to see most games scale past 8 threads.

Yes, there are usage scenarios where that can help...not arguing that point in the least.

Lol, you aren't bursting any bubbles bud.. hardly.