Ryzen 5 1600 "Review" leaks early

Nirad9er said:
I thought people were getting 4.4 to 4.5 on water for a 6800k. Maybe you just got a dud chip.
Click to expand...


I bought my CPU at launch. There were many duds to start. Glofo will probably take a little longer to mature than Intels much more refined process but look at how the RX 480s clock compared to launch, much better clocks are being seen.
 
Nirad9er said:
I thought people were getting 4.4 to 4.5 on water for a 6800k. Maybe you just got a dud chip.
Click to expand...

Manufacturing also improves over time. So early Broadwells may have been less impressive than their later counterparts. Not my barrel of monkeys, though.
 
Simplyfun said:
I think you get less inter thread bouncing across the CCX with 3+3 vs 4+4, it's just math depending on how many threads the game has going on.
Click to expand...

I think I've seen it on other benches too, when they simulated Ryzen 5, does make sense.
 
CAD4466HK said:
I think I've seen it on other benches too, when they simulated Ryzen 5, does make sense.
Click to expand...

Really 3+3 and 4+4 would cross that boundary in a similar fashion. It could be core parking, and waking. Fewer cores mean fewer parkings...
 
Snowdog said:
Really 3+3 and 4+4 would cross that boundary in a similar fashion. It could be core parking, and waking. Fewer cores mean fewer parkings...
Click to expand...

Could be, could also be the games in question RotTR and DOOM. Tomb Raider doesn't have a good track record with Ryzen lately, but a difference of 22 FPS? Even though it was DX11. You really think that's core parking related?
Then you have Doom being tested in OpenGL with a 18 FPS difference.
I'm thinking he used results from the release 1700X benches he did, even though he doesn't have the same games benched in that review. He did also use 2133MHz RAM in that previous review.
Combined with the 2133MHz speeds and launch day BIOS issues, I could see that making up the difference.
Too bad he doesn't mention the 1700X settings in the intro of the review, or if he had balance or performance mode on. And too bad I can't read Spanish to see if any one called it out in the 1200+ comments. ;)
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Really 3+3 and 4+4 would cross that boundary in a similar fashion. It could be core parking, and waking. Fewer cores mean fewer parkings...
Click to expand...

could be, while it could also have something to do with windows load balancing with the 2 extra cores. i'd lean toward it being the core parking like you mentioned but then again that's easily fixable by running high performance profile in windows which i'd expect any proper reviewer to be using anyways. i agree it's an odd result though.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Not really the way it works, no such thing as a real core and hyperthreaded one :p
Click to expand...
I think they refer to it in the context of one core having the first thread used = physical core , then the 2md thread = hyperthreaded. Not necessarily a labeled core and a hyperthreaded one.
 
Nirad9er said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not lazy. It's budget limited. If anyone's lazy it's Intel with 10X the resources getting caught by AMD. Let's get real here.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
The Legit reviews review shows the 1600 outpacing the 1700x in a couple of games, what's going on there? they're both stock.
Click to expand...

They probably re-used launch review numbers instead of re-running. The games the 1600 is outpacing the 1700x are probably ones in which Ryzen fixes/optimizations have had effect in (both software and in the bios/platform).
 
I hate when reviews don't retest the games. Looks like they copy pasted ryzen launch day numbers from 1700x. Whats worse it them ignoring their own numbers and publishing them anyways. Talk about them getting lazy lol.
 
NKD said:
I hate when reviews don't retest the games. Looks like they copy pasted ryzen launch day numbers from 1700x. Whats worse it them ignoring their own numbers and publishing them anyways. Talk about them getting lazy lol.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately there are review sites who will continue to do that forever. Ryzen could end up better by double digit % and you'll never know it reading those sites.
 
Which is why AMD probably should have delayed the launch by a month. AMD knew full well that this is how reviews are done and consumed.
 


If you are going to look at it objectively, you are going to get pretty good performance at a very good price. The 1700,1600 and 1400 make excellent offerings.
 
OrangeKhrush said:


If you are going to look at it objectively, you are going to get pretty good performance at a very good price. The 1700,1600 and 1400 make excellent offerings.
Click to expand...


So Ryzen costs more and it performs significantly worse or did I miss something?
 
Dayaks said:
So Ryzen costs more and it performs significantly worse or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

The 1700 is less and it can do what the 1700X and 1800X can do. And believe it or not but beyond gaming their are other uses and the extra threads are like camebert and crackers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top