Ryzen 5 1600 "Review" leaks early

whelp there is hope for the R5's, can't wait to see more reviews released.
 
I think the 1600 is going to be the sweet spot of the entire Ryzen lineup. With 65w TDP i'm guessing there will be little trouble pushing this critter to 4Ghz. We will know soon enough.
 
You can't use too much Tim. It just squeezes out. Old myth that doesn't die.

But that's excessive.
 
Meeho said:
It doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter until you use so much it starts dripping off the side, then gets into the socket when you pull the CPU. There is almost no way all that paste stayed on the heat spreader :p
 
Well, doesn't really matter temp wise, but does mess wise :)
 
Regardless of temp, that's a fuckton of TIM, looks to be at least .25 of the tube used smh.
At least it has no problem hitting 4GHz being a "65w" chip.
And being 6c12t, it still uses more power then a 5GHz 7700k when it's OC'ed @4GHz, not that it matters to me.
And who knows how accurate his testing method is, but considering this is only a $220 chip, it's a very tempting offer. ;)
Can't wait for the real results.
 
If the 6 core 1600x only achieves 4.0ghz (same as 8 core), isn't that kind of disappointing. Intel's 6 core CPUs have overclocked higher so they are better for gaming. These just seemed like CPUs which didn't make the cut as 8 core with the same garbage overclock potential. The 6800k was pushing 4.5ghz all day, something I would have expected from Ryzen.
 
Nirad9er said:
If the 6 core 1600x only achieves 4.0ghz (same as 8 core), isn't that kind of disappointing. Intel's 6 core CPUs have overclocked higher so they are better for gaming. These just seemed like CPUs which didn't make the cut as 8 core with the same garbage overclock potential. The 6800k was pushing 4.5ghz all day, something I would have expected from Ryzen.
Click to expand...

Given that the 6 core is the same die as the 8 core, the same upper cap is what I expected.
 
4 to 4.1 ghz is expected but disappointing. The 1600 would be a lot more exciting if it could hit 4.5 under water, or some other appreciable speed faster than the 1700. Unless you really are tight on budget, and assuming the 1500 tops out at 4 to 4.1, I think the 1700 is the correct purchase across the whole Ryzen line.
 
i read the 6-cores are actually 8-core processors with 2 cores disabled, so i wouldn't expect them to so much beyond the 7s. Curious to see how high the 4 cores go.
 
starmax said:
i read the 6-cores are actually 8-core processors with 2 cores disabled, so i wouldn't expect them to so much beyond the 7s. Curious to see how high the 4 cores go.
Click to expand...

Aren't the four core processors just 8 core CPUs with half of the cores enabled?
 
Really? Wow, I read the opposite back in Jan. So much speculation written about this platform... thanks
 
starmax said:
Really? Wow, I read the opposite back in Jan. So much speculation written about this platform... thanks
Click to expand...

Yup, as of now the 8 cores are two CCX modules of 4+4, the 6 cores are 3+3, and the 4 fours are 2+2.
 
Sulphademus said:
Yup, as of now the 8 cores are two CCX modules of 4+4, the 6 cores are 3+3, and the 4 fours are 2+2.
Click to expand...
exactly, I'm not sure why people think there would be any difference in the OC given they are built on the exact same chip. perhaps they think it's power limited or something....
 
Napoleon said:
exactly, I'm not sure why people think there would be any difference in the OC given they are built on the exact same chip. perhaps they think it's power limited or something....
Click to expand...

It's just super disappointing considering Intel's 6 core chips for the past 5 years have been pushing mid 4ghz. 4 GHz just seems weak for a 6 core chip by today's standards. I'm willing to bet the 4 core (2+2 ccx) chip will still top out at 4ghz which is pathetic for a 4 core chip where Intel is pushing 5 GHz!

What if Intel's line up (6800k, 7700k, 6700k, etc) topped out at 6900k 4.3ghz speed? It would be really pathetic and sad.
 
Nirad9er said:
It's just super disappointing considering Intel's 6 core chips for the past 5 years have been pushing mid 4ghz. 4 GHz just seems weak for a 6 core chip by today's standards. I'm willing to bet the 4 core (2+2 ccx) chip will still top out at 4ghz which is pathetic for a 4 core chip where Intel is pushing 5 GHz!

What if Intel's line up (6800k, 7700k, 6700k, etc) topped out at 6900k 4.3ghz speed? It would be really pathetic and sad.
Click to expand...
Exactly... The past six years. Come on man give some credit. This is the first new chip released and is actually doing better than predicted. edit...and if most Ryzen could hit 4.3 as you say pathetic then it would kick ass.
 
1/2 bent said:
Exactly... The past six years. Come on man give some credit. This is the first new chip released and is actually doing better than predicted. edit...and if most Ryzen could hit 4.3 as you say pathetic then it would kick ass.
Click to expand...
I don't expect an 8 core to clock high but I would expect a 6 or 4 core to clock higher but to be the same clock speed as the 8 core is sad. It was lazy of AMD to design an 8 core then just disable cores on each ccx. They should atleast get higher clock speed. That's my point.
 
Gideon said:
Just the limit of the process they are using this generation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really think GloFo usage is kind of screwing over AMD. I wonder if they are obligated to keep a certain amount of business with their spin off.

Ryzen would look a lot better if it could clock like Intel.

Think about how the GTX 1060/RX 480 comparisons would turn out if the 480 could clock like like the 1060.
 
Nirad9er said:
If the 6 core 1600x only achieves 4.0ghz (same as 8 core), isn't that kind of disappointing. Intel's 6 core CPUs have overclocked higher so they are better for gaming. These just seemed like CPUs which didn't make the cut as 8 core with the same garbage overclock potential. The 6800k was pushing 4.5ghz all day, something I would have expected from Ryzen.
Click to expand...

Probably will be the same. But note that my CPU can easily do 4.1 GHz, if the cooling was a little better. On water cooling, 4.1-4.2 may be possible for a good many chips, if you get on the good side of the chip lottery. Of course, that's not much next to a 5GHz Kaby Lake, but still... I expect as time goes on and folks have more time with Ryzen, we'll see a lot more 4.1s and 4.2s, maybe even some 4.3s.
 
I think the 1600 has my name on it, but I will wait for the official reviews this time.
 
I've used Thermal Grizzly a few times. Using that much of it is definitely going to affect temps in a notable* way. I got much better results spreading it on thin enough to read through.

*Notable meaning around 4 to 5 degrees Celcius using normal clamping force with an air cooler IME. Much less difference if using a 4 lug waterblock.
 
Snowdog said:
Yeah, I really think GloFo usage is kind of screwing over AMD. I wonder if they are obligated to keep a certain amount of business with their spin off.

Ryzen would look a lot better if it could clock like Intel.

Think about how the GTX 1060/RX 480 comparisons would turn out if the 480 could clock like like the 1060.
Click to expand...

stop comparing clock speed with architecture, nvidia and AMD's architectures aren't even remotely the same so claiming they'd be equal if one could overclock the same as the other is dumb. AMD's approach is about clock efficiency while nvidia's approach is out right brut force. they make up for the problems the architecture has by running double the clock speed while AMD's able to do the same at half that. both companies flip flop with this concept, back during the 8/9k series Nvidia was all about efficiency when they released the G92 gpu while AMD just brute forced all their performance, then it swapped with the 4k series vs nvidia's 400 series, then swapped again with the 6k series and now it's swapped back to what we have today.

back on point though, glofo's not the thing holding AMD back with ryzen, it's more so their approach to hyperthreading. either way it's a good start for a brand new architecture on a brand new process. if they can improve on it from what it's at then there's a ton of potential. people so easily want to forget all the problems intel had with their i7 900 series when it first released as a brand new architecture..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
stop comparing clock speed with architecture, nvidia and AMD's architectures aren't even remotely the same so claiming they'd be equal if one could overclock the same as the other is dumb. .
Click to expand...

Back in reality clock speed actually does matter. If AMD could run 20% faster, performance would be 20% higher and they appear to have about 20% clock speed deficit to both Intel and NVidia.

Process makes a huge difference for clock speed, and power efficiency. TSMC seems to be everyones go to source for leading edge product fabbing, and no one other than AMD seems to use GloFo.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Probably will be the same. But note that my CPU can easily do 4.1 GHz, if the cooling was a little better. On water cooling, 4.1-4.2 may be possible for a good many chips, if you get on the good side of the chip lottery. Of course, that's not much next to a 5GHz Kaby Lake, but still... I expect as time goes on and folks have more time with Ryzen, we'll see a lot more 4.1s and 4.2s, maybe even some 4.3s.
Click to expand...


Wait about 6 months, manufacture process will mature, Bios will as well... Clocks should go higher. Just like it did with Intel. My BDW-E 6800k I bought at launch did 4ghz at 1.25v. Hit a hard wall at 4.2ghz no matter what voltage I put to it. I'm sure if I bought one right now, it would definitely do better.
 
Rvenger said:
Wait about 6 months, manufacture process will mature, Bios will as well... Clocks should go higher. Just like it did with Intel. My BDW-E 6800k I bought at launch did 4ghz at 1.25v. Hit a hard wall at 4.2ghz no matter what voltage I put to it. I'm sure if I bought one right now, it would definitely do better.
Click to expand...

I thought people were getting 4.4 to 4.5 on water for a 6800k. Maybe you just got a dud chip.
 
The Legit reviews review shows the 1600 outpacing the 1700x in a couple of games, what's going on there? they're both stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top