Review

Ryzen 5 1600X vs. 1600: Which should you buy?

The reply to that query could seem apparent to a lot of you, not least as a result of our Ryzen 5 assessment mentioned the non-X mannequin appeared like a greater worth. Nevertheless, we did not even have a plain 1600 on-hand on the time, we simply assumed primarily based on what we noticed with the Ryzen 7 chips that the 1600 would overclock as nicely, or at the very least almost in addition to the 1600X.

Though there is not prone to be a dramatic efficiency distinction between the 2 chips, the $220 1600 comes bundled with the 95-watt ‘Wraith Spire’ cooler, whereas the $250 1600X does not include a cooler in any respect. If you add the price of a fundamental heatsink to the 1600X, the non-X model is round 20% cheaper, but it should not be greater than 10% slower out of the field.

The ‘X-rated’ 1600X additionally options “XFR” or Prolonged Frequency Vary, which is mainly a beefier model of Turbo that lets the CPU overclock itself a little bit tougher when attributes resembling energy, present and thermals are inside acceptable ranges. XFR is enabled by default on ‘X’ mannequin Ryzen CPUs, although it is disabled when manually overclocking.

The 1600X has a base clock velocity of three.6GHz, a lift clock of four.zero GHz and a most XFR increase velocity of four.1GHz. Nevertheless these figures are a little bit deceptive.

For instance, increase frequencies will solely permit the 1600X to hit four – four.1GHz for single-threaded workloads, whereas the CPU will not really increase larger than three.7GHz on multi-threaded workloads, or a mere three% enhance over the bottom clock.

The 1600 alternatively operates at a base clock frequency of simply three.2GHz and is marketed to spice up as excessive as three.6GHz, although once more that increase frequency will solely be achieved when taxing a single core. Nevertheless, regardless of promoting a lift velocity of three.6GHz, stressing a single core generally additionally sees the 1600 exhibit XFR-like beneficial properties, permitting it to achieve three.7GHz. Curiously, it looks like all Ryzen CPUs characteristic XFR.

The 1600’s most multi-thread frequency is three.4GHz, which means that for heavy workloads it should solely be clocked eight% decrease than the 1600X. After all, these figures shall be completely different if you manually overclock, which is actually value contemplating provided that Ryzen CPUs are unlocked and the 1600 may be pushed fairly arduous with the Wraith Spire field cooler.

We will already say that if you do not plan to overclock, the 1600X is the quicker CPU whereas the 1600 is the higher worth as it may’t be greater than 10% slower and but it is at the very least 20% inexpensive because of the included field cooler and decrease MSRP.

Nevertheless, we aren’t certain if that story stays true when overclocking, particularly if the 1600X affords extra headroom. Rumor is, the X-models are able to larger frequencies and we have seen some proof of this with the 1700X and 1700, although for probably the most half the margins have been skinny.

The 1600X chip we have now on-hand for testing had no bother hitting four.1GHz at simply 1.38 volts and it was even attainable to benchmark the system at four.2GHz after growing the voltage to 1.5, however AMD recommends a most of 1.45 volts for sustained use.

Set on the identical 1.38 volts, the 1600 reached 4GHz — not unhealthy — and growing the voltage a fraction extra to 1.four allowed us to attain a secure overclock of 4050MHz, solely 50MHz shy of what the 1600X managed.

After all, this might have very simply been across the different approach. I simply occurred to obtain 1600X. I’ve seen loads of reviewers and now customers restricted to 4GHz with the 1600X, in order at all times with overclocking, your mileage will range (4GHz does appear almost assured, although).

For single-threaded workloads, the handbook overclock will not really be any quicker than the inventory four.1GHz XFR efficiency, however multi-threaded efficiency should be as much as 11% quicker for the 1600X and 21% quicker for the 1600.

Earlier than shifting on, we should word that this is not an in-depth Ryzen 5 1600 assessment — in truth, it is not likely a assessment in any respect. That may come later together with protection of the quad-core 1400 mannequin.

As a substitute, we thought it could be attention-grabbing to take an in depth have a look at the efficiency variations between AMD’s six-core Ryzen 5 processors, assuming you’re fortunate sufficient to be available in the market for a brand new CPU priced between $200 and $250.

Take a look at System Specs

Benchmarks

One thing I should word immediately is that even with G.Ability’s new FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 reminiscence, the Ryzen 5 1600 was restricted to working the reminiscence at 2933. This was the identical limitation we confronted with the 1500X, so high-speed reminiscence assist continues to be depending on the CPU. This can hand the 1600X a slight benefit, over the benefit it already had as a result of these larger clock speeds.

In any case, even with DDR4-2933 reminiscence the 1600 was nonetheless good for a reminiscence throughput of 35GB/s.

When testing with Cinebench R15, the 1600X is 10% quicker within the multi-threaded take a look at and 11% quicker within the single-threaded take a look at, which is about what we might count on to see out of the field. Keep in mind the 1600X is clocked 11% larger for single-threaded work and 9% larger for multi, so these figures make sense.

7-Zip gives a glimpse into actual world utility efficiency with each the compression and decompression exams utilizing all out there threads on the 1600X and 1600. Right here the 1600X was round 7 to eight% quicker than the 1600, which is according to what was beforehand seen in Cinebench and once more given the out of the field clock speeds these are the margins we anticipated to see.

Testing sport efficiency with Hitman we discover that the 1600X is simply four% quicker than the 1600 when evaluating both the typical or minimal body charges. Clearly not a big distinction and it explains why we did not see many worthwhile beneficial properties in most video games when overclocking Ryzen.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is the final sport I used to check the 1600 and 1600X. This time we see a mere 2 to three% efficiency benefit in favor of the 1600X, so once more it seems like you can count on a poor return on funding when shopping for the 1600X for gaming.

When overclocked, efficiency is equalized on the Ryzen 5 CPUs. The 1600 fell simply 50MHz shy of the 1600X when utilizing affordable voltages — clearly a negligible distinction and as you can see each CPUs allowed the Titan XbigP to common 88fps.

Wrap Up

The Ryzen 5 1600 is the apparent alternative as suspected. Between its $220 asking value and bundled cooler, it presents an excessive amount of of a worth proposition to present the cooler-less 1600X a lot consideration at $250.

All informed, with the 1600 CPU and its cooler mounted on an inexpensive B350 motherboard together with reminiscence resembling G.Ability’s FlareX DDR4-2400 16GB equipment, you have the core elements of a killer six-core/12-thread machine for not more than $400.

How a lot does Intel’s Core i7-6800Okay value once more?

The 1600-based construct has much more attraction when you notice that it should overclock to at the very least 4GHz whereas our G.Ability RAM reached 2933MHz with relaxed timings.

Taking a look at it that approach, the Ryzen 5 1600 is an distinctive worth. As I discovered earlier within the week, even in comparison with extra inexpensive CPUs such because the Core i5-7600Okay, the brand new six-core Ryzen chips are a significantly better purchase, no matter what it’s you plan to do with them.

Nevertheless, there’s not a lot purpose for anybody to buy the 1600X over the 1600 as you’re solely paying extra for much less. You is perhaps questioning why AMD would launch a 1600X in any respect and I might say it exists merely to maximise revenue.

AMD’s enjoying an identical sport as Intel with these chips. The distinction being that they’re doing it with out fully making the most of fans who wish to save a little bit cash. In relation to the 1600, you’re being rewarded for doing all your homework and a little bit tinkering.

Most Download

To Top