Ryzen 1600 af 4ghz: Ryzen 1600 4GHz enthusiasts, what’s your voltage? : Amd

Ryzen 5 1600 AF 4Ghz

Geekbench 5 Score

1122

Single-Core Score

6523

Multi-Core Score

Result Information

User	sportsbeer
Upload Date	Thu, 02 Apr 2020 04:02:55 +0000
Views	1099

System Information

System Information
Operating System	Ubuntu 19.10 5.3.0-45-generic x86_64
Model	Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7B85
Motherboard	Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. B450 GAMING PRO CARBON AC (MS-7B85)

CPU Information
Name	AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Topology	1 Processor, 6 Cores, 12 Threads
Base Frequency	3.73 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache	64. 0 KB x 6
L1 Data Cache	32.0 KB x 6
L2 Cache	512 KB x 6
L3 Cache	8.00 MB x 2

Memory Information
Memory	15.65 GB

Single-Core Performance

Single-Core Score	1122
Crypto Score	2223
Integer Score	977
Floating Point Score	1252
AES-XTS	2223 3.79 GB/sec
Text Compression	1095 5.54 MB/sec
Image Compression	1046 49.5 Mpixels/sec
Navigation	1055 2.97 MTE/sec
HTML5	848 995. 9 KElements/sec
SQLite	878 275.2 Krows/sec
PDF Rendering	987 53.5 Mpixels/sec
Text Rendering	810 258.2 KB/sec
Clang	966 7.52 Klines/sec
Camera	1165 13.5 images/sec
N-Body Physics	1145 1.43 Mpairs/sec
Rigid Body Physics	1134 7023.5 FPS
Gaussian Blur	1432 78.7 Mpixels/sec
Face Detection	1118 8.61 images/sec
Horizon Detection	984 24.3 Mpixels/sec
Image Inpainting	2318 113. 7 Mpixels/sec
HDR	2041 27.8 Mpixels/sec
Ray Tracing	1456 1.17 Mpixels/sec
Structure from Motion	1012 9.07 Kpixels/sec
Speech Recognition	1071 34.2 Words/sec
Machine Learning	774 29.9 images/sec

Multi-Core Performance

Multi-Core Score	6523
Crypto Score	6221
Integer Score	6203
Floating Point Score	7268
AES-XTS	6221 10.6 GB/sec
Text Compression	6846 34.6 MB/sec
Image Compression	7742 366. 2 Mpixels/sec
Navigation	3672 10.4 MTE/sec
HTML5	6776 7.96 MElements/sec
SQLite	7413 2.32 Mrows/sec
PDF Rendering	6574 356.8 Mpixels/sec
Text Rendering	3990 1.24 MB/sec
Clang	7980 62.2 Klines/sec
Camera	6643 77.0 images/sec
N-Body Physics	7927 9.92 Mpairs/sec
Rigid Body Physics	10063 62345.8 FPS
Gaussian Blur	6616 363.7 Mpixels/sec
Face Detection	8032 61. 8 images/sec
Horizon Detection	6735 166.0 Mpixels/sec
Image Inpainting	10596 519.8 Mpixels/sec
HDR	13891 189.3 Mpixels/sec
Ray Tracing	11524 9.25 Mpixels/sec
Structure from Motion	6526 58.5 Kpixels/sec
Speech Recognition	3650 116.7 Words/sec
Machine Learning	2592 100.2 images/sec

Compare

Set Baseline

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF Review

AMD’s first-gen Ryzen chips continue to sell as budget alternatives to the newer generations and the Ryzen 5 1600/2600 products in particular are very attractive for budget builds. Today we’re checking out the 12nm version of the Ryzen 5 1600 that despite the name, is a new CPU that’s only been on the market for a few months.

To quickly recap, the Ryzen 5 1600 was released in April 2017 for $220, based on the original 14nm Zen architecture. It’s a 6-core, 12-thread part clocked at 3.2 GHz for the base with an all-core boost clock of 3.4 GHz and cooled using the Wraith Spire.

About a year later, AMD replaced it with the Ryzen 5 2600 at $200. It was also a 6-core processor, but featuring updated 12nm Zen+ cores. It ran at a base clock of 3.4 GHz with an all-core of 3.7 GHz. Because the more refined process was more efficient, AMD downgraded the cooler to the Wraith Stealth.

After one more year, we got the current generation Zen 2 processors. Here the replacement was the Ryzen 5 3600, another (incredibly good) $200 part.

But what is this Ryzen 5 1600 AF?

Late last year a mysterious Ryzen 5 1600 refresh made it to market. Bizarrely, AMD released a really cheap version of the Ryzen 5 2600, but just called it the Ryzen 5 1600. Known as the «Ryzen 5 1600 AF» because of the box identification, it’s very different to the original Ryzen 5 1600 AE model.

Forget about the name, this is a 2nd-gen Ryzen part. Essentially it’s an R5 2600 with a slight decrease in clock speed. Apparently AMD didn’t have enough 14nm wafers available to keep producing the R5 1600, so they simply shifted it to the 12nm process and now they’re making a version of the R5 2600 that they call the R5 1600.

At this point you may be asking yourself, why do I care that AMD is making new products and selling them under old names? Seems counterproductive, but the reason you should care is price. These underclocked Ryzen 5 2600 CPUs cost a mere $85. That’s a Zen+ 6-core, 12-thread part for just $85 brand new.

The original 14nm Ryzen 5 1600 was a great deal at a little over $100 and the Ryzen 5 2600 was killer at $120, but the Ryzen 5 1600 AF blows them both out of the water at just $85. That is, as long as you can get it. The CPU seems to be readily available in the United States, but it’s not sold everywhere.

Before we get into the blue bar graphs, here’s a look at how the 1600 AF clocks compared to the original 1600 AE model, as well as the 2600: running a heavy Blender workload, the original 1600 operates at 3.4 GHz, the new AF model maintained 3.7 GHz and the 2600 runs at 3.8 GHz.

From this test alone, it would appear like the 1600 AF could be up to 3% slower than the 2600 out of the box, but it’s way cheaper. Armed with that information, let’s jump into our tests which we’ll power through as the results aren’t surprising and don’t require much explanation.

For testing we’re using the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master with 16GB of G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4-3200 memory and a RTX 2080 Ti GPU.

Benchmarks

First up we have the Cinebench R20 multi-core performance and here the 1600 AF basically matched the 2600, less than a 1% margin in it. This means out of the box the AF was 12% faster than the original 1600.

For single core performance the 2600 was 1.5% faster than the 1600 AF and that makes the new 12nm 1600 is 10% faster than the original.

Running 7-zip we see identical compression performance. Again, the AF is about 10% faster than the original 1600. For the decompression test the 2600 was 1.5% faster than the 1600 AF which was 9% faster than the original 1600.

The last application we bothered to run was Blender, here the 1600 AF was about a 1% slower than the 2600. No surprises here.

Gaming Benchmarks

Time for some gaming benchmarks and first up we have Assassin’s Creed Odyssey AND… the 1600 AF delivers basically the same performance as the R5 2600, making it a little faster than the original 1600. As expected the margins are very similar at 1440p.

Performance in Battlefield V is very similar between the original 1600, the 1600 AF and the 2600. Of course, it’s the same story at 1440p, so with a lesser graphics card you can expect to see no difference at all.

The 1600 AF matched the 2600 with identical performance in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, making it a few frames faster than the original model and we see basically identical margins at 1440p.

We see identical gaming performance from the 1600 AF when compared to the 2600 once again, this time when testing with The Division 2.

The results at 1440p are no different and here we see more evidence that the 1600 and 1600 AF will deliver the same gaming experience with a lower tier GPU.

Next up we have Far Cry New Dawn and yes…. this is a familiar sight.

The 1600A basically matching the 2600 making it a little faster than the original, the true 1600. 1440p doesn’t offer up any surprises, more of the same here.

We see a nice 13% boost to the 1% low performance for the 1600 AF over the 1600 in Hitman 2 at 1080p and the refreshed 1600 was able to basically match the 2600. The 1% low margin extends to 16% at 1440p, but overall the margins are much the same.

The 1600 AF also shows good 1% low improvements in Total War Three Kingdoms, beating the 1600 by a 16% margin at 1080p to coming in 1-2 fps behind the 2600. The margins are reduced slightly at 1440p, but overall a similar story.

Wrap Up: Incredible Budget CPU

That was our quick look at how the Ryzen 5 1600 AF performs and the results were as positive as we expected. It’s a Ryzen 5 2600 with very minor reduction in clock speed. Speaking of which, you can of course overclock the 1600 AF as it’s fully unlocked. Our chip — which we bought from retail — hit 4.2 GHz using 1.4v and that’s the same overclock achieved by the R5 2600 retail part we have on hand.

Some chips might only do 4 GHz depending on silicon quality, some or rather few might exceed 4.2 GHz, but based on reports we’ve seen 4.2 GHz seems like the upper end of the overclocking results. Our original R5 1600 chip also does 4 GHz and that seems to be about as good as you can realistically hope for with the older processor.

In other words, the Ryzen 5 1600 AF is not only cheaper than the original 1600 and faster out of the box, but it should also overclock better. Power consumption is inline with the 2600, with a slight advantage out of the box due to the minor decrease in clock speed, though this can vary depending on silicon quality.

For budget builders with access to the 1600 AF at $85, there is simply no better choice. As we said earlier, the Ryzen 5 2600 was already amazing value at $120. Thus, the 1600 AF which is basically the same CPU for a further discount is just an insane deal.

AMD is putting the hurt on Intel with parts like this. Right now the Core i5-9600K costs $240 and the locked i5-9400F comes in at $165 (check out this performance comparison). We expect both of these 6-core/6-thread processors to be slower than the 1600 AF for gaming within a few years. If the 1600 AF is not selling in your country, you can still buy the R5 2600 for less than any modern Core i5 processor, which is why we had picked it as the best budget CPU you can buy, well, until now.

Shopping Shortcuts:

• AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 5 2600 on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 5 3600 on Amazon
• Intel Core i5-9400F on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 5700 on Amazon
• GeForce RTX 2060 Super on Amazon

Test and Review: 12nm AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1200 AF

The third generation of Ryzen processors has been out for a while, but AMD updated two first generation models earlier this year. Namely, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and AMD Ryzen 3 1200 processors, which came out in the 12nm version (AF). We decided to evaluate the performance of these two CPUs, as well as their power consumption.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and AMD Ryzen 3 1200 processors were originally introduced back in 2017, three years ago, codenamed «Summit Ridge». They used cores on the Zen architecture. Later, AMD introduced the Zen + architecture and the modern Zen 2, which was able to bring processors to the level of Intel competitors. Although the Ryzen 3000 generation has been on the market for quite some time, and successors will be presented soon, it was decided to release two old processors in a new edition.

In April, the 12nm versions of the two Ryzen processors first appeared. In terms of frequencies, they are identical to their predecessors, but the changes are associated with a more modern technical process. In addition, AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1200 AF 12 nm rely on improved Zen + cores, also known as «Pinnacle Ridge», so these CPUs are still more logically attributed to the Ryzen 2000 line, they received small improvements in architecture, caches, memory controller and Turbo operation.

But AMD didn’t change the key specs: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF 12nm offers six cores and 12 threads, base frequency is 3.2 GHz, in Turbo mode it increases to 3.6 and 3.7 GHz, L3 cache — 16 MB. The junior AMD Ryzen 3 1200, on the other hand, offers four cores without SMT support, clock speeds vary from 3.1 to 3. 45 GHz. The L3 cache is limited to 8 MB. Both processors run at a TDP of 65W.

Prices start from 6.500 ₽ in the case of AMD Ryzen 3 1200 AF 12nm, the «older» processor will cost from 9.700 ₽, the processors are comparable to the original versions or even cheaper.

processor comparison

Ryzen

Model	TDP (W)	Cores/Threads	Clock frequency	XFR	XFR2	L3 cache	Price
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF 12nm	65 W	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6 GHz	—	3.70 GHz	16MB	from 9.700 ₽
AMD Ryzen 5 1600	65 W	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6 GHz	3.70 GHz	—	16MB
AMD Ryzen 3 1200AF 12nm	65 W	4 / 4	3. 1 / 3.4 GHz	—	3.45 GHz	8 MB	from 6.500 ₽
AMD Ryzen 3 1200	65 W	4 / 4	3.1 / 3.4 GHz	3.45 GHz	—	8MB

Let’s see how the 12nm AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and AMD Ryzen 3 1200 processors perform against the competition, including the new Ryzen 3000 line.

Subscribe to the Hardwareluxx VKontakte and Facebook groups, as well as to our Telegram channel (@hardwareluxxrussia).

We recommend checking out our guide to picking the best Intel and AMD processor for the current quarter. It will help you choose the best CPU for your money and not get confused in the range of models on the market.

<>Test and Review: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1200 AF 12nm
Test Configuration

How useful is AMD Ryzen 5 1600 overclocking cores and memory? GECID.com. Page 1

::>Processors
>2017
> How useful is AMD Ryzen 5 1600 overclocking cores and memory?

22-10-2017

Page 1
Page 2
One page

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 processor is very popular right now due to its excellent price-performance ratio. And thanks to the unlocked multiplier, it can be easily overclocked. But what kind of growth can be expected from overclocking experiments? Let’s figure it out.

The processor itself has support for 6 cores and can process up to 12 data streams simultaneously. Its base frequency is 3.2 GHz, and the dynamic frequency can be increased up to 3.6 GHz. The TDP level is 65W and the critical temperature is 95°. Previously, we have already tested the processor itself and compared the performance of the system based on it when using RAM with frequencies of 2400 and 3200 MHz.

The test configuration also includes an MSI X370 SLI PLUS motherboard, a be quiet! Silent Loop, a pair of 8GB 2-rank DDR4-3400 Patriot Viper 4 modules, and an Inno3D iChill GeForce GTX 1080 X3 graphics card.

Test stand:

• AMD Ryzen 5 1600
• MSI X370 SLI PLUS
• Be quiet! Silent Loop 240mm
• 2x 8 GB DDR4-3400 Patriot Viper 4
• Inno3D iChill GeForce GTX 1080 X3
• Kingston SSDNow KC400 (SKC400S37/256G)
• Seagate IronWolf ST2000VN004 2TB
• Be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11 850W
• Be Quiet! Pure Base 600 Window Orange
• AOC U2879VF

Before starting, we warn you that overclocking experiments are carried out at your own peril and risk, and they can lead to loss of warranty. Therefore, before starting overclocking, everything should be carefully weighed. If you still decide to take this step, then be sure to take care of reliable cooling and increase the settings at short intervals, simultaneously monitoring the temperature and stability of the system.

We will show everything in a simplified form for convenience. We will not go into details, so take the video as one of the overclocking methods, and not as an all-inclusive guide.

So let’s start with RAM. If the bars in your system work at a speed of 2133, then for sure they will start without problems at a speed of 2400. To do this, you just need to go into the BIOS and change their frequency. In most cases, you won’t need to change advanced settings.

If you set a higher speed, for example, 3200 MHz, then you already need to select timings and voltages, as well as change additional memory settings.

However, everything is simplified if one or more XMP profiles are embedded in the SPD of the modules. In this case, select one of them and all other settings will be pulled up automatically. Since we have a frequency of 3400 MHz recorded in XMP, we only further reduced it to 3200 without changing the rest of the parameters.

To overclock the processor to 4 GHz, the multiplier was increased to 40 and the “CPU Core Voltage” was raised slightly above the safe 1.4 V. Sometimes additional parameters need to be modified. For example, on another system, I had to increase the CPU NB / Soc voltage to 1.15 V. Therefore, a lot depends on the specific processor instance, motherboard, and even BIOS version.

As a result of such simple manipulations, the CPU ran stably at 4 GHz, and the RAM at an effective speed of 3200 MHz.

The comparison itself took place in three stages. At the first test bundles differed only in the frequency of the processor: 3.4 GHz, that is, nominal, against overclocking to 4 GHz. But the speed of the RAM in both cases was 3200 MHz.

First, some synthetics. In AIDA64, the speed of reading, writing and copying information to RAM practically did not improve from overclocking the processor. On the contrary, you can even see a slight drop in performance.

But in WinRAR there is an increase in performance: the overall speed has increased by 7.5%.

7-Zip sees an even bigger bonus: overall packing and unpacking speeds increased by 12% and 15%, respectively, and the overall rating went up by more than 13%.

Scene rendering speed in Corona benchmark decreased from 185 to 162 seconds or 12%.

In four out of five modes of the complex RealBench test, the increase was from 10 to 17%. That is, in everyday tasks, overclocking will be noticeable at work.

And even CineBench noticed positive changes from processor overclocking, raising the numbers by 12-17%.

And now let’s move on to gaming tests in Full HD resolution, in which the graphics settings are chosen in such a way that, on the one hand, they provide a high-quality picture, and, on the other hand, so that the video card does not severely limit the capabilities of processors.

Let’s start with Rise of the Tomb Raider at a very high graphics preset. As expected, a system with an overclocked processor takes the lead. In terms of the overall average, the gap is small: 145 versus 141 FPS or just over 2%. And at the minimum, the difference is already more impressive: 47 versus 39FPS, equivalent to 21%.

Even with the ultra preset in Far Cry Primal we won’t hit the graphics card. And thanks to the increased CPU frequency, we also get a good bonus: 99 vs. 90 fps for the average frame rate and 68 vs. 61 for the minimum.

Updated Rainbow Six Siege with a high graphics settings profile from the first frames gives a noticeable advantage to a system with an overclocked CPU. This can be seen both in the percentage of loading of the video card, and in the speed of the video sequence. Final scores: 232 vs. 224 FPS mid and 98 against 77 at the minimum.

Very high graphics settings without MSAA and TXAA in GTA V allow you to feel the advantage of overclocking experiments. The average speed has risen from 72 to 82 fps or by 14%, and the minimum — from 51 to 61, i.e. by 20%.

To launch the story campaign of Battlefield 1 , the medium graphics preset was used, so as not to exactly run into the capabilities of the video card. In this mode, overclocking the CPU does not have such a significant effect on the frame rate, which improved by 2-5%. More specifically, the average frequency has increased from 165 to 174 FPS, and the minimum — from 130 to 133.

Processor dependent WATCH_DOGS 2 at a very high graphics preset indicates a higher gain. If in the nominal mode of the CPU we get an average of 72 frames / s with drawdowns up to 58, then after overclocking — 78 with drawdowns up to 63. The difference is 8-9%.

The very high settings profile in Deus Ex Mankind Divided provides completely comfortable gameplay in both cases.