bit-tech.net

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 34

Reply
Corky42 11th April 2017, 15:23 Quote
It's a shame AMD hasn't managed to get the updated microcode into the hands of MoBo manufactures in time for the R5 launch, i was looking forward to seeing how the supposed 6ns improvement in RAM latencies effected benchmarks.
jrs77 11th April 2017, 17:25 Quote
The 1500X would've been the better choice for a review tbh, as it's the real competition for the intel i5-lineup imho. It would also give a better comparison with the same core-count.

And why didn't you include the i5-7600k in the Cinebench single threaded benchmark? That would be a good indicator if AMD can actually compete core vs core.

Most software is still single threaded, so I don't have any use for more than 4 cores at the moment really. And please include some realworld benchmarks like photoediting speeds, Winrar, etc. That's where these CPUs will be used the most.
Harlequin 11th April 2017, 17:32 Quote
aha theres no i5`s in the single thread score
wardogz 11th April 2017, 18:18 Quote
No i5 -7600k comparisons, which is the cpu most equal price wise, why? because mostly the i5 7600k hammers the 1600x in games, i'm getting a bit fed up of all the bias skewed reviews tbh.
Corky42 11th April 2017, 18:32 Quote
I'll probably regret this but what leads you to believe the i5 -7600k hammers the 1600x in games, wardogz?

Most reviews I've read so far shows the R5 within 1-5fps of the i5 -7600k in most games. :|
Combatus 11th April 2017, 18:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardogz
No i5 -7600k comparisons, which is the cpu most equal price wise, why? because mostly the i5 7600k hammers the 1600x in games, i'm getting a bit fed up of all the bias skewed reviews tbh.

Unfortunately, we don't have a 7600K in house although we managed to get one on loan a while back which is why it's present in some of the benchmarks.
Combatus 11th April 2017, 18:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
The 1500X would've been the better choice for a review tbh, as it's the real competition for the intel i5-lineup imho. It would also give a better comparison with the same core-count.

And why didn't you include the i5-7600k in the Cinebench single threaded benchmark? That would be a good indicator if AMD can actually compete core vs core.

Most software is still single threaded, so I don't have any use for more than 4 cores at the moment really. And please include some realworld benchmarks like photoediting speeds, Winrar, etc. That's where these CPUs will be used the most.

It's coming!

TBH we've already covered the core vs core count in our previous coverage with the 8-core Ryzen 7's vs the Core i7-6900K, but as I mentioned above, we don't have an in-house i5 at the moment - Intel is extremely tight with their CPU loans and this was the same before Ryzen launched too.

Our video encoding and photo editing tests are both using real-world programs as is our Terragen rendering benchmark.
jrs77 11th April 2017, 20:01 Quote
Appreciate the information.

For the photoediting-tests, Adobe Photoshop is the most important graphics-software for two decades now, and I really wish that people would use it for testing the CPUs. Terragen and all these are nice, but they are not really real-world applications as a tiny minority uses these, whereas everybody slightly into photo-editing and graphics uses Photoshop.
Batch-processing with one or two filters applied, etc would be most interesting to see the results.

Anyways. Besides the missing Photoshop tests Anandtech did a pretty good review, pitting the R5-1600X and 1500X directly against the intel i5-7600k and 7500...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

Singlethreaded the i5s still beat the R5s and they come with an integrated GPU to boot, which is a musthave for office-PCs and small workstations where a dedicated GPU would be total overkill.
supermuchurios 11th April 2017, 20:23 Quote
Budget CPU...£249?
I just bought a hyperthreaded Pentium for £55..that is what I class as budget.
What planet are you on?
Combatus 11th April 2017, 20:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Appreciate the information.

For the photoediting-tests, Adobe Photoshop is the most important graphics-software for two decades now, and I really wish that people would use it for testing the CPUs. Terragen and all these are nice, but they are not really real-world applications as a tiny minority uses these, whereas everybody slightly into photo-editing and graphics uses Photoshop.
Batch-processing with one or two filters applied, etc would be most interesting to see the results.

Anyways. Besides the missing Photoshop tests Anandtech did a pretty good review, pitting the R5-1600X and 1500X directly against the intel i5-7600k and 7500...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

Singlethreaded the i5s still beat the R5s and they come with an integrated GPU to boot, which is a musthave for office-PCs and small workstations where a dedicated GPU would be total overkill.

We'll see what we can do in future tests regarding Photoshop.

I think Office PCs use a mix of hardware tbh. I've never seen a Core i5 or a Core i3 in any office I've worked at - it's usually Pentiums, and for some reason many of these were paired with discrete GPUs too, albeit very lowly ones. Workstations have a good argument for discrete GPUs too as so many applications offer GPU acceleration these days.

I'd imagine it's the Ryzen 3 series where the lack of IGP could hurt AMD, but then that's why they'll be bringing APUs to AM4 soon - most AM4 boards have onboard display ports for this reason. I think the Ryzen series is mainly focussing at users that don't want IGP, and the only reason it's lacking from AMD's line up at the moment is that they haven't dumped everything on us at once. The APUs could be particularly interesting too, seeing as the only thing inherently wrong with the likes of the A10-7850K was poor performance on the CPU side of things.
jrs77 11th April 2017, 20:48 Quote
Exactly their old APUs is why I'd be interesting to see their new ones, as I don't need a dedicated GPU, as you can see from my signature. I only need a somewhat decent iGPU that has enough grunt to accelerate graphics-software so that you don't get screentearing etc when scrolling/panning/zooming around in Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign.
Gareth Halfacree 11th April 2017, 20:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
[...] whereas everybody slightly into photo-editing and graphics uses Photoshop.

I don't.
Combatus 11th April 2017, 21:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Exactly their old APUs is why I'd be interesting to see their new ones, as I don't need a dedicated GPU, as you can see from my signature. I only need a somewhat decent iGPU that has enough grunt to accelerate graphics-software so that you don't get screentearing etc when scrolling/panning/zooming around in Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign.

I was quite envious of your i7-5775C when I saw you had one a while back! Also impressed by Broadwell's IGP performance - a shame they didn't continue along those lines as it had pretty good 1080p performance in many games with CPU grunt to match. If AMD can pair an 8 thread quad core with something that offers solid 1080p performance in current games they could be on to a winner.
jrs77 11th April 2017, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I don't.

Well. Let's say I don't know off anyone working professionally as a graphics-designer, who uses anything other than Photoshop. It's the mandatory software to use really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combatus
I was quite envious of your i7-5775C when I saw you had one a while back! Also impressed by Broadwell's IGP performance - a shame they didn't continue along those lines as it had pretty good 1080p performance in many games with CPU grunt to match. If AMD can pair an 8 thread quad core with something that offers solid 1080p performance in current games they could be on to a winner.

Yeah, I'm still happy with my CPU. I'd actually say that it is the best CPU I've bought since the C2DE8400 back then.
And yes, I too still don't understand why they only continued the IrisPro graphics in their mobile CPUs. An i5-7600C or whatever they would call it would be a killer CPU, even at the price of an i7-7700k.

So yeah, if AMD can come up with a 4C/8T APU that has the graphics-performance for 1080p-gaming at a $300 pricepoint, then they have an absolute winner.
Gareth Halfacree 11th April 2017, 21:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Well. Let's say I don't know off anyone working professionally as a graphics-designer, who uses anything other than Photoshop.
I do.
Vault-Tec 11th April 2017, 22:03 Quote
Loads of people who I used to do design/emulation with used PSP over Photoshop. I mean at the end of the day the price of Photoshop is laughable if you are anything less than a business or a professional making his business out of it.

I was taught Photoshop so that's what I used to use (licensed copy of PS 7). Been a while since I have used it now though.
jrs77 12th April 2017, 09:55 Quote
Professional = makes a living from it. Graphics-design is my day-job, which I studied for three years in university.
After university I worked in an advertisement agency for a couple years before I moved and became self-employed.
In all these 20 years I've never seen a "professional" using anything other than Photoshop, as none of the agencies you might work with will accept anything else.

I'm trying for some time now to switch to Linux and use Gimp/inkscape/Scribus instead of Adobe, but there's first of all the problem with CMYK not supported by Gimp, nor 32bit and there's the problem with printers/press not accepting other layered formats than .psd or .ai.
Gareth Halfacree 12th April 2017, 11:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77

In all these 20 years I've never seen a "professional" using anything other than Photoshop
I have.
Vault-Tec 12th April 2017, 11:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I have.

Yeah me too, plenty of times. Not quite a witty as two words but hey, I'm trying :D
Chicken76 12th April 2017, 11:23 Quote
Other reviews show the R5 1600 (non-X) as a 65W part. On the first page you list it as a 95W part. Who is correct?
Vault-Tec 12th April 2017, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken76
Other reviews show the R5 1600 (non-X) as a 65W part. On the first page you list it as a 95W part. Who is correct?

65w

http://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600
Yadda 12th April 2017, 12:08 Quote
I haven't studied the results in great detail but at first glance they look pretty good:

- more-or-less the same gaming performance as Ryzen 7.
- very good multi-threaded performance.

I don't think the Ryzen CPUs (or any future AMD CPU for that matter) will compete directly with any of Intel's offerings in the same way as, say the Tbirds of old did (which trounced the competition across the board). Sadly those days are long gone, but Ryzen does slot into the running order by offering a different balance of single thread performance, multi-thread performance and cost.
Parge 12th April 2017, 12:42 Quote
I'd love one simply because I like the idea of having SO MANY cores (even if performance was a little slower in some instances)
Anfield 12th April 2017, 13:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
I'd love one simply because I like the idea of having SO MANY cores (even if performance was a little slower in some instances)

Unfortunately it is inevitable that it will be slower in some cases, but look at it this way, the £1650 6950x has the exact same problem of losing to the £230 7600k in a number of situations.
Yadda 12th April 2017, 14:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
I'd love one simply because I like the idea of having SO MANY cores (even if performance was a little slower in some instances)

Sure. "Horses for courses" as they say.

If I used my PC predominantly for tasks which benefit from that many cores & threads then I'd be all over them.

I don't though, so buying one of the 8c/16t offerings would be a poor choice: higher cost and poorer performance (for what I do).

It'd be like buying a tractor for touring. Sure, the torque is impressive but, ya know...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums