AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs AMD Ryzen 5 1600X: What is the difference?
59points
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
46points
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Comparison winner
vs
66 facts in comparison
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 1600 better than AMD Ryzen 5 1600X?
- 267MHz higher ram speed?
2667MHzvs2400MHz - 30W lower TDP?
65Wvs95W - 448KB bigger L1 cache?
576KBvs128KB - Supports ECC memory?
- 21.2 more performance per watt?
75.1vs53.9 - Has NX bit?
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 1600X better than AMD Ryzen 5 1600?
- 12.5% faster CPU speed?
6 x 3.6GHzvs6 x 3.2GHz - 0.4GHz higher turbo clock speed?
4GHzvs3.6GHz - 5.4% higher PassMark result?
13067vs12398 - 5.
42% higher PassMark result (single)?
2199vs2086 - 64GB larger maximum memory amount?
128GBvs64GB - Has FMA4?
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
Intel Core i7-7700K
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
Intel Core i5-7400
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
Intel Core i5-9400F
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD A10-7850K
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
Intel Core i5-7600K
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Athlon 3000G
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
Intel Core i5-9400
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD A8-5500
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
1 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
10.
0/10
1 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
0 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
0.0/10
0 User reviews
Features
Value for money
7.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Gaming
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Reliability
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Energy efficiency
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
CPU speed
6 x 3.2GHz
6 x 3.6GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
turbo clock speed
3.6GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
L3 core
2.
67MB/core
2.6MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Benchmarks
PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
Geekbench 5 result (single)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
Blender (bmw27) result
310.8seconds
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
Blender (classroom) result
948.6seconds
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Integrated graphics
OpenCL version
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
Memory
RAM speed
2667MHz
2400MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
maximum memory bandwidth
42.7GB/s
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
DDR memory version
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
maximum memory amount
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Supports ECC memory
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✖AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Features
uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
Has F16C
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✔AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 5 1600
✖AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 1600X)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Which are the best CPUs?
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Review
AMD CPU review. Latest product shots, rating, price and Ryzen 5 1600X specs. Gaming CPU benchmarked against the biggest PC games like Fortnite, Minecraft and PUBG Should you buy this AMD CPU?
The processor, also known as the CPU, is the most important component on any gaming PC motherboard. It works alongside the graphics card to power your PC games. This AMD CPU has 6 cores, 12 threads and runs at a clock speed of 3.6 GHz.
PCGameBenchmark rates processors by how many of the top 1,000 PC games the chip can run.This AMD CPU can run 993 of the top 1000 games — so we give it a 99% rating.
Games that this CPU can run include Fortnite, Apex Legends, Minecraft, PUBG, GTA V, League of Legends, Overwatch and Rainbow Six Siege.
For a full list of the games that this CPU will run and the chance to compare it to other Intel and AMD processors check our CPU comparison tool. We have benchmarked every AMD and Intel CPU and track the best prices too. No need to wait for AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Black Friday 2022 deals or some other sale to get the lowest prices!
Check out best deals on cheap processors and the latest deals on Amazon.
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
PCGameBenchmark Rating: 94%
| Best Price: | $258.86 |
|---|---|
| You Save: | $18.12 (7%) |
Check latest prices
Network N earns commission from qualifying purchases via Amazon Associates and other programs.
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Specs
CPU |
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X |
|---|---|
Weight |
0.31 lb (141.75 g) |
Dimensions (L x W x H) |
4.06 cm x 0.76 cm x 4.06 cm 1.6 in x 0.3 in x 1.6 in |
Brand |
AMD |
Model Number |
YD160XBCAEWOF |
Cores |
6 Cores |
Threads |
12 Threads |
Clock Speed (Frequency) |
3.6 GHz |
| Best Price: | $258. 86 |
|---|---|
| You Save: | $18.12 (7%) |
Check latest prices
Network N earns commission from qualifying purchases via Amazon Associates and other programs.
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X PC Gaming Performance
This processor will run 941 of the top PC games. Use PCGameBenchmark’s Rate My PC service to test your current set up and set how it compares.
Can It Run GTA 5?
This AMD processor can run GTA 5. It beats the system requirement for processor speed.
Can It Run Fortnite?
This AMD processor can run Fortnite. It beats the system requirement for processor speed.
Can It Run Apex Legends?
This AMD processor can run Apex Legends. It beats the system requirement for processor speed.
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Features
- Frequency: 4.0 GHz Precision Boost
- 6 Cores/12 Threads UNLOCKED
- Cache: 3 MB/16 MB (L2/L3).
Maximum system memory speed: 2667MHz - Socket Type: AM4. System Memory Type: DDR4
- Extended Frequency Range (XFR). Max Temperature: 95°C
- Requires a thermal solution sold separately
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X DEALS — BEST prices
| Best Price: | $258.86 |
|---|---|
| You Save: | $18.12 (7%) |
Check latest prices
Network N earns commission from qualifying purchases via Amazon Associates and other programs.
Other AMD processors
Here are a few other options…
Good
AMD Athlon II X4 640 Review
42% Rating
$69.
95
Better
AMD Athlon 200GE Review
48% Rating
$75.31
Best
AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core Review
73% Rating
$298.68
Latest Processor Reviews
- AMD Ryzen 5 4600G Review
- Intel BX8070110600K Review
- AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
- AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Review
- AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Review
- Intel Core i3-10100F Review
- Intel Core i9-10850K Review
- AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT Review
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT Review
Gaming Laptop DealsRate my PC
Game System Requirements: Trending
Call of Duty: Warzone 2 System Requirements
FIFA 23 System Requirements
GTA 5 System Requirements
Elden Ring System Requirements
Red Dead Redemption 2 System Requirements
Warhammer 40,000: Darktide System Requirements
Valorant System Requirements
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 System Requirements
Cyberpunk 2077 System Requirements
God of War System Requirements
Fortnite System Requirements
Overwatch 2 System Requirements
Minecraft System Requirements
CSGO System Requirements
Genshin Impact System Requirements
Call of Duty: Warzone System Requirements
Football Manager 2023 System Requirements
STAR WARS: Squadrons System Requirements
Victoria 3 System Requirements
The Sims 5 System Requirements
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Processor:
Return of the «people’s six-core»
Methodology for testing
computer systems of the 2016 sample
5, mentioning, however, that these processors themselves will appear on sale only in the second quarter of this year.
Later, the date of their actual publication was also set: contrary to the forecasts of pessimists, it was the very beginning of the quarter, and not its end. At the same time, as expected, the processors are positioned as competitors to the Core i5 in terms of prices, but even the younger 1400 and 1500X are capable of performing eight computation threads simultaneously — like desktop Core i7 for LGA115x. Moreover, even the older six-core Ryzen 5 1600X has a recommended retail price at the level of not only the older one, but also the only “overclockable” one in the Core i5-7600K line, but in the Ryzen family, the multipliers are unlocked completely. On the one hand, this, of course, “beats” 1600X and 1500X — after all, you can “play around” with their cheaper “brothers” with indices 1400 and 1600 (and this is more useful: the maximum achievable frequency will be approximately the same). On the other hand, all models of the family are relatively inexpensive, so if you are not interested in overclocking, then the new processors will also do.
Yes, of course, a direct comparison with the Core i5 in terms of prices is not entirely correct, since it is not necessary to purchase a discrete video card for Intel processors. But it is precisely gamers and other enthusiasts who have suffered the most due to the lack of “big leaps” in increasing the performance (or, at worst, the number of cores) of mass processors, and for them the issue of buying a discrete video card is not an issue. nine0003
In summary, the phased introduction of AMD’s new platform to the market continues exactly as planned. First, it was necessary to demonstrate the ability to produce high-performance processors, which some users had already begun to doubt — and doubts were removed. Now the turn has come to cheaper processors, and over time, mass APUs will appear on sale. However, it is easy to see that while is cheaper does not mean is slow : despite positioning at the Core i5 level, AMD is ready to ship 8-12 computation threads for the same money, i.
e. what in the Intel assortment corresponds to Core i7 , and not necessarily for the mass platform. Actually, some users, as we already wrote, expected six cores for LGA115x back in 2015 — and now it’s 2017, and … they will have to wait for more. nine0003
Or they will have to take a closer look at AM4 — AMD delivers what they are looking for, and even cheaper than the quad-core Core i7. At first glance, this is a very generous offer. And what to expect from him in practice, we will check during our testing. True, at the moment we have only managed to get acquainted with the Ryzen 5 1600X, the most expensive processor in the line. In absolute terms, it is, of course, inexpensive, but still “pops up” for the psychologically important mark of $200, and there it’s already close to Ryzen 7 1700. It is clear that the latter will be slower in single-threaded applications (of which there are 9 to date).0018 is slightly larger than most ), but as many as eight cores look more attractive than six.
And if the task is to save money, the younger Ryzen models “without X” do a good job of it, since they are also overclockable (and an expensive board is not required for this: AMD does not limit overclocking to only the top chipset). In a word, the question of choosing a specific Ryzen model is not so simple and depends on a lot of factors — with Intel in this regard, everything is clearer (but also much more boring). Having tested only the older Ryzen 5 1600X and Ryzen 7 1800X, it is impossible to answer this question, and we do not yet have other processors of the new family. So let’s try to solve a simpler problem: just evaluate the scalability of the architecture in this pair, later expanding the “area of knowledge” with the results of other AMD Ryzen processors. nine0003
Test stand configuration
As mentioned above, so far we have got only one representative of the middle family, and the eldest in it. In principle, the process of commissioning a new testing methodology is already underway, but it is not completed, and we considered it irrational to speed it up in this case — after all, there is not yet a large basis for comparison.
Therefore, we will postpone the transition to the new method a little more — other processors for AM4 and not only should appear. And today’s testing to some extent will be an addition to the study of AMD Ryzen 7 1800X. nine2
Moreover, this is the maximum frequency that AMD is ready to guarantee. And in practice, this is also the maximum: attempts to reach 4 GHz on all cores become successful only when the supply voltage is increased (with all the consequences), and this is true for both 1800X and 1600X. For their cheaper «brothers», this is also true, which is why we wrote above that they are of the greatest interest to an overclocker (unlike Intel processors, where it is «allowed» to overclock only older models in the lines or representatives of the initially «flying out» far beyond mainstream HEDT platforms). «X» in this situation is precisely the maximum that is guaranteed to be achievable while maintaining all the obligations of the manufacturer. But the maximum is different (due to the difference in the number of cores), and for different money — after all, the recommended retail prices of these processors differ by about two times. Their performance, even ideally, should differ to a lesser extent, but for a more accurate answer to the question “how much?” need to be tested.
And preferably — in the closest possible conditions, which the manufacturer practically provided. In this case, we only had the choice of the frequency of the RAM, but since the Ryzen 7 1800X was tested with DDR4-2666 last time, there was nothing to choose from 🙂 9 ×256
Testing methodology
As mentioned above, for the first express testing we used last year’s test methodology, which is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:
- iXBT.com performance measurement method based on real applications of the 2016 sample
- Method for measuring power consumption when testing processors
- Method for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing nine0261
- 2016 iXBT.
com Game Performance Measurement Methodology
And the detailed results of all tests are available as a full spreadsheet (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. In particular, this applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by the areas of application of the computer. nine0003
We didn’t use gaming tests at all this time: as it was shown last time, the processors of the Ryzen family do not have any performance problems in this class of applications, and we will study the intricacies of their work a little later: in more «fresh» games and on a more powerful video card.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2016
The difference between the i7-6700K and i7-7700K is larger than predicted when comparing clock speeds, but we will deal with this issue later. At the moment, what’s more interesting is that the 1600X/1800X pair perform worse than one would expect based on the number of cores.
This is due to the features of the software. To the greatest extent — After Effects, which copes with the test task faster on six than on eight cores. Tellingly, « is not a bug — it’s a feature «: the effect also appears when comparing Intel processors for LGA2011-3, and it looks exactly the same in relative terms with higher absolute performance. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion: even if all programs «can» use a large number of processor cores, this is still not enough — it is required that they use them in the «correct» way. Yes, and it is desirable to compare the same cores — quantity does not always translate into quality. As you can see, this is not only characteristic of Intel products at the moment — having returned to the high-performance segment, AMD began to experience the same problems. But this, of course, is only a problem for the older and most expensive models — playing into the hands of Ryzen 5, given their prices. The six-core models of this family perform at the level of modern Core i7 (even if I use caution), but cost the same as Core i5.
Accordingly, for users of «outdated» Core, who are thinking about upgrading, as mentioned, they may be of interest. It is easier and cheaper to install a used i7-3770 into an existing system than to change the platform, but sometimes it has to be changed (if only because of the failure of motherboards, and not only), but in this case, of course, everyone The buyer wants to get the maximum return at the minimum cost. nine0003
When processing photos, the difference between 1600X and 1800X is even smaller, which is expected: programs in this group are less susceptible to the number of processing cores. Taking into account the prices, one more argument is in favor of Ryzen 5. Despite the fact that this family loses to the Core i7 in this case, it is possible, good and cheaper. The old Core i7, in any case, bypasses quite convincingly.
In contrast to this case — radically single-threaded and without the use of modern command extensions. In principle, as one would expect, the efficiency of the Ryzen processor cores (regardless of the numbers) is the same — at similar frequencies and the performance is the same.
Interestingly, running at a comparable clock speed, the Core i7-3770 demonstrates the same performance — models for LGA1151, not least, go ahead thanks to frequencies. In general, Ryzen ~ Ivy Bridge as a first approximation. But in top modifications — with a large number of cores, and for less money (considering, of course, positioning «in life»: sales and the secondary market can behave as you like). nine0003
As we remember, among the processors for LGA2011-3, six-core models demonstrate the maximum performance in this program, and they are also slower than the same Core i7-3770. Among Ryzen, the six-core 1600X also turned out to be the fastest, only both processors of this architecture tested at the moment are faster than the same Core i7-3770. However, we would not be surprised if the Ryzen 5 1500X turns out to be even faster — this is just another fact in the treasury of the importance of not just “multi-threaded optimization”, but “correct multi-threaded optimization”. And the influence of qualitative, and not just quantitative characteristics on the final performance, of course.
nine0003
Although sometimes the amount is enough. And do not blame the Ryzen 5 1600X for being behind the Core i7-7700K — if AMD had claimed absolute leadership everywhere and everywhere, the prices would have been different. Taking into account the current ones, it can sometimes afford to lag behind (all the more so, as we will see later, not everything is going smoothly with the system on the 7700K).
As has been said more than once, Skylake processors do not cope too convincingly with archiving compared to their predecessors. The current Ryzen is also not perfect, but in practice it is quite fast. If we remove unpacking (which is still performed in one thread) — in relative terms it will be even better. nine0003
And file operations with the same drive can be ignored: to a small extent they depend only on single-threaded performance, why 1600X, 1800X and 3770 (recall that above we “agreed to consider” its cores approximately corresponding to Ryzen) are close with an accuracy of almost not up to measurement error.
The requirements of this program to the system are very diverse: as has been said more than once, it is very susceptible to the number of «physical» cores, it is cool about «virtual multithreading» technologies, but does not disdain fast memory and capacious caches. Actually, the latter, as it seems to us, to a large extent interferes with the current Ryzen (both tested in any case) — the third-level cache memory is actually divided between CCX (i.e., access to “foreign” is slower than to “own” for core), which makes it difficult to exchange data. However, the top Ryzen 7 1800X showed results at the level of modern Core i7 for LGA1150/1151. The Ryzen 5 1600X is slower in proportion to the number of cores — and this is, rather, somewhere modern Core i5, and not the fastest. But they are also faster than the «old» Core i7. Yes, and much faster than the best AMD processors sold just last year, which have already had to be compared almost with Pentium. In any case, in such applications.
nine0003
If all applications loaded all cores evenly, given the roughly equal frequencies of the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 5 1600X, one would expect a 25-30 first percent advantage. In fact, it’s not a secret that performance from increasing the number of cores grows non-linearly, and sometimes it doesn’t grow at all (if two are enough, for example) or turns out to be lower than expected (due to the peculiarities of specific programs and default process migration). All this, of course, first of all “harms” multi-core processors: a couple of cores are always utilized in the right way, four — not always, and six or eight — sometimes. On the other hand, if you don’t have to pay too much for them, and tasks where the number of cores matters, at least sometimes you have to solve — why not? Especially if you need to pay only for the processor, which AMD is now offering to play — as we already wrote, even the Ryzen 7 1800X, together with the motherboard, can actually compete in price with the lower six-core processors for LGA2011-3, although it is comparable in performance to eight-core, and the Ryzen 5 1600X is much cheaper.
.. But it is very similar to the six-core Core i7-5820K/6800K in terms of average performance 🙂 That is, the cores, in general, are quite “honest” and comparable. Which is an additional argument in favor of the chosen strategy for the phased introduction of models to the market from older to younger ones — these “older” ones do not win very often. The very young ones (not counting Ryzen 3 and APU), however, the company somewhat limited in frequencies, however, with an unlocked multiplier, we will not be surprised if it turns out that “ locks are made against honest people .” In any case, for a thrifty buyer (unless, of course, he does not mind a discrete video card), AMD’s approach turns out to be more flexible and convenient: multi-core processors are at least as good as «small-core» ones, and they are all designed for the same inexpensive platform.
But taking into account software limitations, one has to focus not only on comparison by the number of cores — intensive methods, such as improving single-threaded performance, are more effective than extensive methods, since they affect everywhere and everywhere, and not just by luck.
And here, it would seem, the claims to the fact that last time we compared the Ryzen 7 1800X with the Core i7-6700K, but not with the i7-7700K, become fair: as you can see, the latter really works noticeably faster, and, it would seem, ceteris paribus. Well, it’s time to move on to these «other things being equal». nine0003
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
In principle, the first alarm bells sounded during the first testing of Kaby Lake on our website, when the integrated performance of the Core i7-7700K turned out to be 2.5% higher compared to the Core i7-6700K, but at an increased 17% of energy consumption. At the same time, both processors were tested on the same board based on the Z270 chipset (earlier i7-6700K results on the board with the Z170 were 4% lower, which, as we can see, exceeds the difference between the processors) and with the same DDR4-2133, moreover using the integrated GPU. We did not re-test the i7-6700K, taking the results obtained earlier on a simpler board based on the B250, but the i7-7700K was already tested with the DDR4-2400 «specified» according to the specification.
And also on the Z270, although in the implementation of Gigabyte, not Asus. As a result, the “super-linear” performance increase shown above was obtained … But against the background of an increase in energy consumption, it simply pales. nine0003
In principle, this is something that was discussed many times before the start of power consumption measurements: different instances of processors can behave differently, and even react differently to environmental conditions. On the other hand, things may not be so bad if we recall the previous “Refresh”: on the same board, the i7-4770K turned out to be significantly more economical than the i7-4790K, and the latter was not completely “terrible” — it was just a return to the level of the i7-3770, but with better performance than both the latter and the i7-4770K. Now the same thing has “drawn up” once again, and it has been aggravated due to the use of faster memory and, accordingly, a greater load on the ICP and cache. That is, increasing the performance of «mass» Core i5 / i7 is in principle possible, but it is not the «ill will» of Intel that is holding it back, but a simple unwillingness to increase power consumption, which, with extensive methods (hello overclockers!) grows much faster than performance.
Although, of course, there is a margin — it’s not without reason that the system for mounting coolers on the mainstream Intel platform has remained identical since 2009: therefore, the upper limit is the first-generation Core for LGA1156, which can even compete with solutions for AM3 + in the competition for the position of «heaters». But sometimes you have to go back to the roots to some extent — as with the LGA1151 update, when Intel decided to slightly improve the performance and «overclocking» of new solutions. And since there is still not one manufacturer on the desktop processor market, but at least two, the «mismatch» of their actions may look like this. If the Ryzen 7 1800X consumes a little more power than the Core i7-7700K, then the Ryzen 5 1600X is more economical than the latter. nine0003
However, this does not apply to the minimum (=single-threaded) load mode — in it ( so far?! ) the behavior of solutions for AM4 leaves much to be desired, at least from the point of view of a perfectionist.
As a result, the “energy efficiency” of the Ryzen 5 1600X is slightly higher than that of the Ryzen 7 1800X (due to the fact that the maximum consumption values \u200b\u200bat full load on all cores are lower), but it is not so much inferior to the older representative of the “seventh generation” Core . Solutions for LGA1155, in any case, it is superior to a much greater extent, and with the fastest processors for LGA1150 and with the newest models for LGA2011-3 (i.e. Broadwell-E) it can compete on equal terms too. This is not surprising: we repeat that when you try to squeeze the maximum performance, it grows more slowly than power consumption. Processors for LGA115x are, in fact, thoroughly overclocked mobile models. The scalability of modern generations of Core is, of course, good, but there is a limit to everything. And AMD works “at the limit”, if it has to, then in the Ryzen 7 1800X, but not in the “simplified” Ryzen 5 1600X — a flexible approach to the number of cores allows you to expand the range of processors for AM4 in this direction.
Intel has no such freedom of maneuver, which is the company’s own fault. However, until recently, this state of affairs did not interfere with her, but now, perhaps, she will have to think about it. nine0003
Total
Potentially, the Ryzen 5 1600X may be about a quarter slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X, which directly follows from the performance characteristics of the processors: they differ only in the number of active cores. In reality, not all programs are able to use even 12 computation threads, not to mention 16 — accordingly, in general, the difference between these models can be reduced to zero. But the recommended retail prices of these processors differ by about half, which even theoretically achievable performance is impossible to «justify» from the point of view of lovers of spherical price-performance ratios. Outside the spherical vacuum, it has long become commonplace that the farther from the mass segment, the more expensive the performance, and not always the case is limited only to money (but they are always required).
But the Ryzen 5 family just practically falls into the mass segment, which makes it extremely attractive to buyers: below it is unlikely to save much. Plus, AMD’s approach to the development of new processors at the moment looks interesting, which, in particular, allows them to offer even six-core processors relatively inexpensively. Which, we note, do not require any special motherboards, and in general, the platform in its essence completely and completely meets the requirements of the mass market — even if processors with slightly out of the usual characteristics are produced for it. At the same time, the price of new products looks quite ordinary, which makes these processors attractive. Today’s express testing confirmed all this. And we will soon return to the Ryzen 5 1600X and other models of the line in order to further study some issues. nine0003
In conclusion, we invite you to watch our video review of the Ryzen 5 1600X processor: