Review: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 processor - just fantastic value

I don't see why overclocking wouldn't be relevant. Everyone talking about R5 is talking about DIY computer builds - if you're capable of building you're own computer, you're probably capable of overclocking.. especially now when there are so many safety systems to prevent damage and one button OC tools in place to just click and boom 4.6/4.8 easily doable.

Does that "solve" the more core=future argument? No. But it definitely makes a pretty good case for someone who's buying now but may upgrade within a year or two - or someone who doesn't believe more cores are going to matter in the next 3-4 years. I don't agree with the latter point, but I also can't say 100% that >4 cores are going to be required either.

As for him linking Tom's, I couldn't find a Guru3D article that compared an overclocked i5 7600K to a R5 and the i5 7600K overclock page doesn't show any games anyway. That being said, I agree that Tom's is a bad source - especially after that recent Intel only recommendation guide thingy they did the other week.

Isn't that what most gamers want though? Like minimum framerates aside, if there is something I can do to give me 15% additional performance, I don't care how much power it's going to add, or if the % uplift on the clock is going to scale linearly with the performance increase.

Either way I'm just playing devil's advocate - I'd recommend and do recommend r5 over the i5 any day of the week. I'm of the opinion it's the more "future proof" system - it's just I think there are decent arguments for still buying an i5. Especially if you don't plan on keeping it long, or are strictly gaming at 1080p.

 

You should revisit your point in a year from now and see how both cpu's compare. Also game selection should be broad.

 

I was just pointing it it's not black and white decision. I'm planing to replace this build in 3-4 years and i'm pretty sure if Intel doesnt change their CPUs by adding extra cores at the same price, AMD will be my next choice.

$/performace if all cores are used is no brainer for sure ...

 

There's a funny thing about building on a budget. It's usually applying the phrase "I'm poor therefore I buy rich". Meaning that usually a buyer on a budget looks to build more futureproof systems than a person who has the ability to switch systems faster.

 

Ryzen CPUs substantially underperform in gaming, even compared to the 7600K. The main cause of this is the m***ive cross CCX latency. Frequent thread migration across cores in addition to slow average L3 cache access times (because half of it is 2 to 3 times slower to access) is what's causing Ryzen to no perform *** well as Intel's CPUs in games.

To the poster who said that cross-core ping delay in Intel's CPUs is 80ns: My friend, I'm talking about Kaby Lake CPUs, you're talking about Haswell E.

 

It's ringbus everywhere. There is also the issue of CPU usage and available CPU resources, and compiler optimizations, which you should have mentioned.

 

My friend, AMD have screwed up so many times in the past 10 years or so, it's no longer acceptable. With Bulldozer, they had pairs of cores that shared many resources including L2 cache, which caused huge latencies and slowdowns.

With Ryzen, they could've released properly clocked and priced single CCX quad cores first. Inifnity fabric is also the reason behind Ryzen CPUs not clocking well. They would've have been in a much better position, had they done that.

 

How is this "screwing up"? Do you even know what a compiler is or does? If they had released quads nobody would have given a sh*t, and rightfully so. They would have been in a "me too" position if they had done that, and it would be like they never even existed. Go read a bit about compilers, seriously.

 

You're forgetting the part where amd is 3 guys in a row boat that caught up to intel ,a luxury yacht with 500 hp.

It's practically a miracle :grin:

 

I disagree. I think their current 8-core and 6-core CPUs are underwhelming and underpriced. Selling their 6-core CPU for $250... they're degrading their own products. That company is cheap, sleazy, and dishonest. In their pre-release demos, they were showing Ryzen CPUs outperforming their Intel counterparts in games.
They have the audacity to recommend people to buy 3200MHz RAM with their "budget" R5 CPUs, so that they get better performance (3% to 18%). The truth of the matter is, high frequency RAM reduces both of Ryzen's memory latency, which is like 50% higher than Kaby Lake, and cross-CCX latency, which goes down from 250ns to ~120ns.

 

In this video, the poster is using a draw call benchmark. His run span across 2 threads running in one CCX vs two CCXs. The difference is a staggering ~22% better performance if you confine the two threads to one CCX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BORHnYLLgyYs.sjsu.edu/~louden/cmptext/

 

8 more threads*

Oh hey, look who is back, the troll.

Seriously if your ENTIRE POINT OF EXISTENCE ON THESE FORUMS is to come go to each and every AMD forum post and try and convince people how bad AMD is, spew nonsense, and clearly show you have no idea what you are talking about, why are you here?

 

Why are so bothered about me trying to get my opinions across? Does it have anything to do with you having a Ryzen CPU?

 

It has to do with the fact that you only post if it's to bash a product. If you were anti-intel and went into every intel thread to post nonsense other then to flamebait there as well, you'd have a problem with people there too.

Don't believe you are doing what i say you are doing? Look at your own post history.

If you had valid things to say, or were not just regurgitating stuff that was already stated countless times on these forums before, then sure maybe you wouldn't be trolling, but these are not the cases, you're just here to troll, to try and convince AMD is bad where it's not, and to give your "opinion" as "fact".

And you state the same nonsense in every single thread.

So again, why are you here? <----- Answer that question.

 

I'm here to inform and be informed. Why are you here?

 

Sure buddy, they only outperform CPUs 3x more expensive than they are, not 10x more expensive. I guess they're real disappointments. :nerd:

 

Fused Multiplication Addition is a hardware instruction, it is not performed in microcode / AGESA.

There is a good deal of misinformation about what microcode actually can do - in this case it can be used to catch the faulty function and abort it gracefully but it won't enable it to work as intended in real time. An entire core revision will be required to resolve it - assuming amd even bothers. The issue has only been replicated using a tool intended for haswells microarch. A tool specifically for Zen may not hit the issue at all.

 

I've read Agnar's microarch analysis and agree with him that per core, these cpu's are superior to Intels,

However, there is a bottleneck with the cpu's that only becomes apparent as core count decreases.

Instead of removing a ccx package on the 4 core packages, it instead consists of 2 of them with 2 cores fused off and disabled each.

likewise, the 6 cores are 2 ccx packages with a single core fused off each.

What this means, is that on these cpu's without application awareness, 3 and 4 thread applications will traverse the CCX for a physical core to use.

Many such applications are not going to be updated to keep to a ccx.

Performance issues in particular benchmarks on alternative hardware sites have demonstrated this is causing an issue within the NVidia drivers for instance on 4 and 6 core chips (and supposedly there is a driver coming that addresses the issue sometime in the next 2 weeks).

But I expect to see titles that can utilise up to 6 threads natively will choke on 1400/1500 and 1600 processors :\

 

You're not "informing" anyone, as its already been stated, what you state is either topics that have already been covered, or complete nonsense or downright wrong. If you really think you are, that's quite sad.

Stop. Trolling.