AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

AMD's Ryzen line-up shook up the CPU market with more cores and threads at lower price points than competing Intel processors. But the series' universally unlocked ratio multipliers are the real key to extracting maximum value from Ryzen.

The Ryzen 7 family redefined what an 8C/16T CPU cost, and the Ryzen 5s do the same in their segment with a powerful duo of affordable 6C/12T options. AMD's Ryzen 5 series also includes the 4C/8T 1500X and 1400, but we think AMD's $220 Ryzen 5 1600 is much more interesting.

Like its $250 1600X counterpart, the Ryzen 5 1600 features six cores and 12 threads. AMD bins the 1600X as a 95W part, while the 1600 falls into the 65W TDP range. As expected, the 1600's lower TDP boils down to reduced voltages, imposing lower stock frequencies and thermal output. The Ryzen 5 1600 features a 3.2 GHz base clock rate compared to the "X" model's 3.6 GHz, and it also incurs a similar 400 MHz deficit to the dual-core Precision Boost frequency.

Ryzen 5 1600 falls neatly into the $40 price gap between Intel's Core i5-7500 and -7600K. Both competitors are quad-core models lacking the benefit of Hyper-Threading. That should make for a lopsided battle favoring AMD in heavily-threaded workloads, such as content creation and rendering. Ryzen processors also provide acceptable performance in lightly-threaded workloads. The Intel CPUs do come with on-die graphics for those who need it, while AMD dedicates all of Ryzen's transistors to host processing. Discrete GPUs are a must-have for enthusiasts anyway, so it makes sense to go the route that AMD chose.

MORE: Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips

MORE: Intel Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K, i7-7700, i5-7600K, i5-7600 Review

MORE: Broadwell-E: Intel Core i7-6950X, 6900K, 6850K & 6800K Review

AMD indicates that its non-X models do not feature XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) functionality, which allows the CPU to dynamically adjust its clock rate (for two cores) above the Precision Boost rating based on available thermal headroom. During a single-core Cinebench test, we recorded frequencies that regularly jumped to 3.7 GHz on two cores, so it appears the Ryzen 5 1600 also features XFR. Many of the architecture's other features remain unchanged, including its spacious 16MB of L3 cache, SenseMI suite, and unlocked multiplier.

Intel's carefully segmented stack, which relies on locked multipliers to force specific performance profiles, serves as a liability in the face of AMD's unlocked approach. As we've seen from other Ryzen models, the non-X SKUs tend to hit their overclocking ceilings at lower frequencies and offer less consistent memory overclocking. But your access to the platform's many knobs and dials is the same, no matter which Ryzen CPU you purchase. A bit of tuning often pulls the non-X models into range of their more expensive counterparts, also helping close the gap with Intel's mid-range Core CPUs in lightly-threaded apps.

Much like Intel's K-series CPUs, AMD's X models don't come bundled with thermal solutions. So, their additional frequency headroom is accompanied by a higher platform cost. AMD sweetens the Ryzen 5 1600's value proposition by giving you its 95W Wraith Spire cooler. The 1600, like all other Ryzen chips, drops into Socket AM4. Combining the budget-minded processor with an affordable B350-based motherboard results in a capable 6C/12T rig with plenty of horsepower in reserve for any number of enthusiast workloads.

A lot has been written about Ryzen's challenges in some games, but improved memory support and a trickle of software patches have addressed the most glaring issues. The Ryzen processors are good enough for gaming. But the question is whether they offer enough performance to unseat Intel's incumbents in the important price-to-performance ratio comparison. Let's see if the 1600 has what it takes to usurp Core i5.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
94 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • AgentLozen
    I've been reading the reviews for the various Ryzen models including this one. I just have to say that it's soooo refreshing seeing AMD go toe to toe with Intel once again. We haven't seen a close race in years.
    20
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    if you look past the author's positive spin, I think the Core i5's are really the way to go for gaming.

    For now and, in most cases, not by much.

    Throw in any amount of productivity on top of gaming though and the R5-1600 is easily worth the slight gaming hit.
    13
  • Other Comments
  • AgentLozen
    I've been reading the reviews for the various Ryzen models including this one. I just have to say that it's soooo refreshing seeing AMD go toe to toe with Intel once again. We haven't seen a close race in years.
    20
  • DavidDisciple
    10-4. I was soooooo sick of hearing Intel fanboys brag and belittle AMD and now the tide has turned. It's great to see AMD providing some serious competition and a brand new architecture. It's also great to see an AMD 1st generation processor beat a 7th generation Intel processor.
    1
  • barryv88
    Finally! Took you guys very long to bring out this article - in what is described by many, the little champ of the Ryzen launch so far. The 1600.
    Can't wait to get mine!
    8
  • elbert
    Great review but the big gun was a no show. The 1600's stock cooler and can it do 3.7~3.8Ghz. How does that effect the game price effenciency if we add in cooler costs? How does streaming or just recording the game play for later upload effect performance? How about an older game like CSGO while recording? Can we have a part 2 to this review with these and other tests?
    5
  • barryv88
    Anonymous said:
    Great review but the big gun was a no show. The 1600's stock cooler and can it do 3.7~3.8Ghz. How does that effect the game price effenciency if we add in cooler costs? How does streaming or just recording the game play for later upload effect performance? How about an older game like CSGO while recording? Can we have a part 2 to this review with these and other tests?


    You can check out Bitwit's vid on streaming/recording performance where Ryzen wins rather dramatically. The 7700 is really humbled, given that its 4 extra theads over the i5's don't help either.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXeenX0FZAY
    7
  • ZRace
    @Elbert: When streaming, more use is usually being made of having more cores/threads available, so I'd guess the Ryzen CPUs yield better game streaming results compared to pure gaming results when comparing the to the current i5's.
    1
  • darth_adversor
    I'm not an Intel fanboy by any means (I think it's fantastic that AMD is going head-to-head with Intel again), but for gaming, minimum frame-rate data is so much more important than average. The article does make a mention of that toward the end, but I don't think it was emphasized nearly as much as it should have been. I really want AMD to succeed (I was AMD all the way throughout the socket 754, 939, AM2/3 days), but if you look past the author's positive spin, I think the Core i5's are really the way to go for gaming.

    Hopefully that will change as the platform matures and the software catches up. I'm still sitting on a 2500k, probably gonna hold out for one more generation before I upgrade. I'd love to go back to AMD.
    9
  • DavidDisciple
    Yeah, and things just keep getting better for Ryzen with all the game optimizations and updates for memory compatibility and manufacturers like ROG are adding them in their performance gaming systems. Things are looking pretty good for Ryzen.
    6
  • JocPro
    Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...
    5
  • PaulAlcorn
    Anonymous said:
    Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...



    I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.
    4
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    if you look past the author's positive spin, I think the Core i5's are really the way to go for gaming.

    For now and, in most cases, not by much.

    Throw in any amount of productivity on top of gaming though and the R5-1600 is easily worth the slight gaming hit.
    13
  • Zapablast05
    BF1 frame time variance is from Resident Evil 7.
    5
  • 10tacle
    Good showing by AMD. Intel was long overdue for serious competition again. The Ryzen is a much better all around choice for those looking for a balanced system for both gaming and productivity programs. Also keep in mind that at 1440p resolution in games, the 7600k's performance advantage that it has at 1080p dissipates even at overclock (there is a troubling big gap in minimum FPS specifically in Tomb Raider - hopefully that's just a fluke for that game only). Project Cars and the upcoming PCars 2 runs better on Intel chips, so that's not surprising.

    Now speaking of overclocking, why keep mentioning that the 7600K doesn't come with a stock cooler whereas the 1600 does when you test with an aftermarket Noctua's NH-U12S for overclocking?
    4
  • PaulAlcorn
    Anonymous said:
    BF1 frame time variance is from Resident Evil 7.


    Good eye. So many charts, there was bound to be one stray :) The results are correct, that chart was mislabeled. Fixed!
    1
  • Sakkura
    It might be worth doing a few gaming performance tests with other software running.

    Streaming (software-based) is the more extreme example, but even having Discord, a browser, and a few other things running in the background could be trouble for a Core i5 trying to keep up with a 6-core Ryzen chip. And that is a more realistic workload than just a pure game on a clean Windows install.
    6
  • PaulAlcorn
    Anonymous said:
    It might be worth doing a few gaming performance tests with other software running.

    Streaming (software-based) is the more extreme example, but even having Discord, a browser, and a few other things running in the background could be trouble for a Core i5 trying to keep up with a 6-core Ryzen chip. And that is a more realistic workload than just a pure game on a clean Windows install.


    Keep your eyes open for something very soon :)
    3
  • JocPro
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...



    I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.


    Me and some fellow redditors just scourged for weeks over all the pre-release and leaked material trying to understand the meaning of the X, and the first hypothesis was towards XFR, but it wasn't explicit in any of the material that we had available. It was clear that X models have XFR, but nowhere it was said that non-X models didn't have it. Still I find it weird for you to point it out as an unknown this late in an article when the 1700 clearly supports XFR and was launched about 3 months ago...
    3
  • mitch074
    Anonymous said:
    I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.


    Technically, I must agree with JocPro. In practice though, XFR has a full 100MHz (some say, up to 200 MHz in extremely rare cases) range on 'X' parts, while it's limited to 50 MHz on non-X - thus, nothing to write home about.

    It would have been interesting to take the boxed cooler into account, too: from what I could see, it's good up to 3.8 GHz, allowing to overclock the chip on the cheap and thus completely destroying the 7600K on the performance-price ratio as it goes from a 20 to 60 bucks difference.

    Last note, you keep repeating that Intel has an IPC advantage over Ryzen; personally, it's more of a software optimization edge. Taking a single-threaded, heavily-optimized but using only "basic" instruction set software like Lame, and comparing the 4 GHz Ryzen with 5 GHz Kaby Lake, the latter has 20% better clock speed but doesn't get 20% more performance over Ryzen. For tasks like MP3 compression that easily take place essentially in-cache, the rest of the system can be quite easily ignored.

    From what I could find, Ryzen is good to excellent in basic x86, FPU, SSE1-3, but has some progress to do on SSE4.x. AES is probably the most glaring performance dark spot on the chip, being roughly half as fast as Kaby...

    But then, I've yet to see anyone finding out the actual strengths and weaknesses of the processor; Tom's used to do that, but it's been a while.
    5
  • PaulAlcorn
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    Hey, Paul: AMD has never said that non X processors lack XFR, they just have a more limited extra boost of 50-100 MHz instead of the 100-200 MHz in the X models...



    I have marketing materials (reviewers guides, press releases, slides from briefings, etc.) that say, specifically and repetitively, that XFR is only on X SKUs.


    Me and some fellow redditors just scourged for weeks over all the pre-release and leaked material trying to understand the meaning of the X, and the first hypothesis was towards XFR, but it wasn't explicit in any of the material that we had available. It was clear that X models have XFR, but nowhere it was said that non-X models didn't have it. Still I find it weird for you to point it out as an unknown this late in an article when the 1700 clearly supports XFR and was launched about 3 months ago...


    Here, have a look at my watermarked reviewers guide.
    .
    http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR1.jpg

    http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/paullie1/XFR2.jpg
    0
  • Midwest_1
    Hey Paul I have a ryzen build that actually is very competitive. However something is definitely wrong with your specs vs. Benchmarks. My specs as followed:
    Ryzen 5 1600 clocked at 3.8 cuz
    Corsair vengeance lpx 3200 memory clocked at 2666
    Corsair rm750 power supply
    Asrock x370 fatality k4 gaming
    Asus strix rx580 o.c. mode

    Benchmarks:
    GTA5 68 FRAMES AVERAGE
    SHADOWS OF MORDOR 76 FRAMES AVERAGE

    Explain how a 1080 fe edition barely beats the rx580
    1