AMD Ryzen 5 2600 CPU Review: Efficient And Affordable

6 cores for a budget price

By published

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

A recent game update added several new features to Civilization VI, but it also invalidated our previous benchmark results. Average turn times increased marginally, and we noticed a few changes to overall hierarchy. This test continues to favor Intel's architectures.

Considering the relatively narrow differences between processors, Ryzen 5 1600 lagged the rest of the field by a significant margin. But Ryzen 5 2600 helped rectify the situation at stock settings, going so far as to beat AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

Ryzen 5 2600 averaged almost 7 FPS higher than the previous-gen 1600 thanks to optimized multi-core boost frequencies and lower memory latency. Again, our overclocked Ryzen 5 2600 even beat the tuned 2600X. Meanwhile, Core i5-8400 reminded us that it's plenty fast, despite a locked ratio multiplier preventing meaningful overclocking.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

The overclocked Ryzen 5 2600 only trailed Core i7-8700K by 2 FPS, which is impressive given the -8700K's $160-higher price tag. Meanwhile, a stock Ryzen 5 2600 beat the Ryzen 5 1600 by an average of 10.4 FPS, quantifying AMD's generational improvements.


MORE: Best CPUs


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy


MORE: All CPUs Content

Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.
13 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    Right now the price difference between the 2600x and 2600 is $229 vs $189 , so a $40 difference.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    21009625 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

    Reply
  • Dugimodo
    I think for Granny I'd go the 2400G and save on a graphics card myself.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    21011262 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.

    Reply