AMD Ryzen 5 2600 CPU Review: Efficient And Affordable

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

AMD's Ryzen 5 2600 at stock settings outperformed the Ryzen 5 1600, but generally lagged the rest of the field in rendering workloads emphasizing single-core performance.

Switching to heavily-threaded benchmarks helped Ryzen 5 2600 redeem itself, particularly after we overclocked it. Again, the Ryzen 5 2600X operates at higher clock rates out of the box, so it didn't pick up as much performance after tuning.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a quintessential single-threaded workload that typically illustrates Intel's per-clock advantage. The overclocked Ryzen 5 2600 was plenty competitive in this workload though, beating Intel's stock Core i7-8700K.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 5 2600 landed where we expected it to; the CPU's advances over Ryzen 5 1600 are largely related to improved memory performance.

The x264 HandBrake tests went Intel's way, particularly after we overclocked the Core CPUs. However, the company's multiplier-locked Core i5-8400 couldn't muster enough performance to beat a stock Ryzen 5 2600. Intel's propensity for over-segmenting its portfolio once again proves costly against AMD's more enthusiast-friendly alternatives. Incidentally, Core i5-8400 was much more competitive in the x265 test, which makes greater use of AVX instructions that play well to Intel's architecture.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

This thread is closed for comments
13 comments
    Your comment
  • joeblowsmynose
    Really grasping at straws to come up with some cons, eh? "needs better than stock cooler for serious overclocking", "slower than a faster, more expensive CPU", lol. Those cons apply to ever CPU ever made.
  • Gillerer
    Now I know you want to use 1080p in order to get differences between CPUs and not be GPU limited. The problem is, those differences are therefore artificially inflated compared to some enthusiast gamers' hardware.

    It'd be nice to have one middle-of-the-road (in terms of GPU/CPU-boundness) game benchmarked in 1440p and 4k, too, as a sort of sanity check. If the differences diminish to rounding error territory, people looking to game in those resolutions with good settings might be better off getting a "good enough" CPU and putting all extra money towards the GPU.

    Not only that, if there actually *was* a distinct advangage to getting the best IPC Intel mainstream processor for high-res, high-settings gaming, finding that out would be interesting.
  • Blytz
    I chucked a basic corsair liquid cooler on my 1600X and it runs all cores @ 4.0 I hope the clock for clock is worth the upgrade for those making that step
  • 1_rick
    I did the same thing (except I used an NZXT AIO) with the same results. It seems like a 4.2 OC means the 2600 isn't a worthwhile upgrade from the 1600X, but that's what I expected.
  • Giroro
    Right now the price difference between the 2600x and 2600 is $229 vs $189 , so a $40 difference.
  • theyeti87
    I would love to know whether or not the Indium (I) Iodide 99.999% anhydrous beads that I package for Global Foundries at work is used for the solder in these chips.
  • Dugimodo
    I'm not sure if it does but I think the 8400 needs to include a basic cooler in the cost analysis after seeing several reviews that show it thermal throttles on stock cooling and loses up to 20% performance depending on load and case cooling etc. These charts make it look better than the 2600 when in reality the difference may be almost nothing. Not that I'm buying either :) too much of a performance junkie for that.
  • derekullo
    515477 said:
    Really grasping at straws to come up with some cons, eh? "needs better than stock cooler for serious overclocking", "slower than a faster, more expensive CPU", lol. Those cons apply to ever CPU ever made.


    On the flipside the last con "Only $20 cheaper than 95W Ryzen 5 2600X" does make a lot of sense.

    For only $20 you get noticeably better performance with "you may even say because" a much better cooler.

    Even if I was building a computer for my grandmother who only wanted to use it to do Facebook and free casino games, I'd still go with the 2600x
  • Dugimodo
    I think for Granny I'd go the 2400G and save on a graphics card myself.
  • derekullo
    571858 said:
    I think for Granny I'd go the 2400G and save on a graphics card myself.


    True, but between the 2600s I'd choose the X.
  • zodiacfml
    I'd lose overclocking but I'd prefer the i5-8400. Price has to be lower than Intel's
  • Olle P
    515477 said:
    Really grasping at straws to come up with some cons, eh? ... "slower than a faster, more expensive CPU"
    Yes, and it's arguable if it's even true!
    Looking at the test results for 2600 vs 2700 at stock speeds the 2600 is in many cases actually better because of its higher clock speeds. When 2-6 cores are used the 2600 dominates the 2700.

    Other than that I agree with most of the conclusions. The 2600 does have its nieche, but it's less of a general recommendation than the 1600 was before since the 2600X is so much better than the 1600X.
  • Kenneth_72
    I debated all this and decided on 2600 with aftermarket cooler. Still $20 cheaper than 2600x and BETTER COOLER. Should beat the X at max OC because should throttle less,,,,we'll see.