AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs 2600

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Y

yurithmetics

Jan 2, 2019
27
0
30
I recently purchased a GTX 1060 3 GB. On Amazon, there is a new Amd ryzen 5 1600 for 159.99$ and a new 2600 for only 5$ more. There is a used 1600 for $149.99, however. Which one should I go for? I searched up the Bottleneck calculator and it says that my 1060 graphics is too weak for a 2600, with a 35.84% bottleneck. But then again, some people say that Bottleneck calculator isn't all that accurate. So should I go for a used 1600, new 1600, or new 2600? Or scrap the whole idea and go with something Intel?
 
Solution
M
If it's only a $5 or $10 difference, get the 2600. The XFR2 and Precision Boost 2 in the 2600 allow the 2600 to turbo boost more precisely. The first generation Ryzen would basically turbo only if you were loading 1 or 2 cores, and not turbo at all if you were using 3 or more cores. This is because the first generation Ryzen's turbo relied on a static lookup table. With XFR2 and Precision Boost 2, the second generation has more dynamic adjustment, with multiple turbo levels depending on the core loading.

I don't have data on the 2600 vs 1600, but I do have data on the 2700X vs the 1800X, so let's just use that: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/5

The 1800X will run at 4.0...
Sort by date Sort by votes
M

Matt C

Honorable
Jul 31, 2012
14
0
10,510
I would say get the 2600 as 3rd gen are about to be released... can't see why you'd get a 1st gen now. I doubt your GTX 1060 is somehow going to be significantly bottlenecked... the CPU supports PCIe 3.0 x16
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
WildCard999

WildCard999

Titan
Moderator
Jul 18, 2014
21,771
1,935
93,640
Don't use bottleneck calculator website....it's trash and doesn't account for the game or resolution. I'd get the R5 2600/B450 motherboard & 2x8gb DDR4 @3200mhz. If you like the idea of the 3rd gen Ryzen then grab the used 1600 and then upgrade when those come out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mikewinddale

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2016
290
55
18,940
If it's only a $5 or $10 difference, get the 2600. The XFR2 and Precision Boost 2 in the 2600 allow the 2600 to turbo boost more precisely. The first generation Ryzen would basically turbo only if you were loading 1 or 2 cores, and not turbo at all if you were using 3 or more cores. This is because the first generation Ryzen's turbo relied on a static lookup table. With XFR2 and Precision Boost 2, the second generation has more dynamic adjustment, with multiple turbo levels depending on the core loading.

I don't have data on the 2600 vs 1600, but I do have data on the 2700X vs the 1800X, so let's just use that: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/5

The 1800X will run at 4.0 GHz with 1 or 2 threads, but drop to 3.7 GHz with 3 or more threads. The 2700X has a nearly linear drop in turbo frequency, starting at 4.3 GHz at 1 thread to 4.0 GHz at 16 threads, with the turbo gradually dropping in a linear fashion as you move from 1 to 16 threads.

So I assume the difference between the 2600 and the 1600 is similar.

Moreover, XFR2 will take into account power supply and temperature when determining whether and how to boost. So whereas the first generation Ryzen basically relied on a lookup table to determine its turbo, the second generation dynamically estimates the feasible turbo based on thread count, temperature, and power.

Personally, I'm still a bit confused about the difference between Precision Boost and XFR, so if you're confused, you're not alone. But this is what I think the difference is: Precision Boost determines whether or not to turbo, based on thread count. Then XFR determines how much to turbo. With the first generation, it was basically "if 1 or 2 threads, turbo; if > 2, don't turbo." Then XFR would determine how much to turbo. With the second generation, Precision Boost 2 is much more permissive in allowing turbo with > 2 cores. Then, XFR2 does the same thing as XFR - determining how much to turbo - but better.

So not only does the 2600 have a higher turbo frequency (3.9 GHz vs 3.6 GHz), but you're more likely to actually turbo when running multiple threads.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
B

bigpinkdragon286

Splendid
Oct 3, 2012
4,648
35
28,590
Bottlenecks are application and setting specific, which is why a single number to represent something that changes on a title and setting basis, and which can be shifted even in the same titles is recommended against using. No one number can accurately express the ability of either the CPU or GPU to be the bottleneck.

Five dollars is little to spend to enjoy the benefit of a newer Ryzen CPU over the first gen, and even if you bottleneck once in a while, the improved single threaded performance won't go to waste. However, AMD is also likely announcing, and perhaps even launching the newest 3rd generation of Ryzen CPUs tomorrow morning between 9 AM - 10 AM Pacific Time Zone (UTC-8) so depending on your immediate needs, it may be prudent to wait a day and see what the market is going to do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mikewinddale

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2016
290
55
18,940
"Or scrap the whole idea and go with something Intel?"

In your particular case, the closest Intel equivalent I could find was the Core i5-9400 for $193.99 on Newegg. So that's already $30 more expensive. It has an ever so slightly higher turbo clock (4.0 GHz Intel vs 3.9 GHz AMD), but the Intel lacks hyperthreading.

Cinebench R15 scores are:
AMD: single-thread: 164, multi-thread: 1286
Intel: single-thread: 169, multi-thread: 954

So the Intel has a much lower multi-thread score, probably because it lacks hyperthreading.

And the Intel is $30 more. If you drop down one level to try to find an Intel for the same price as the AMD, you're at the 4 core Core i3-8350K.

So in your price-range, go with AMD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom