Ryzen 1600X 6c12t 3.6/4.0 GHz $249 - the gaming CPU arrives 4/11

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
Seriously, why are ANY CPU's considered to be "gaming" CPU's at this point? Almost all games are GPU bound performance wise at higher resolutions, and even a Intel Core i3 or AMD A8 processor can run most of them at 1440p if you have it paired with good video card like a GeForce 1070.

Do most people really care if your game runs at 150fps at 1080p resolution versus "only" 100fps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlowSpyder

Magic Hate Ball

Senior member
Feb 2, 2017
290
250
96
Seriously, why are ANY CPU's considered to be "gaming" CPU's at this point? Almost all games are GPU bound performance wise at higher resolutions, and even a Intel Core i3 or AMD A8 processor can run most of them at 1440p if you have it paired with good video card like a GeForce 1070.

Do most people really care if your game runs at 150fps at 1080p resolution versus "only" 100fps?

I mean I have a 144hz monitor so I do kinda care. 100+ FPS is generally smooth even without vsync on my monitor though.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
Ryzen 5 1600 + VMware = :hearteyes:

The Ryzen 7 processors, even more so. With 16 threads at your disposal, you could probably run a dozen smaller VM's at once! You would probably run into disk I/O bottlenecks on your SSD before the CPU got busy.

Edit: Unfortunately, it doesn't currently work with VMWare ESXi. You get a Pink Screen Of Death if you try to install the latest (as of March 2017) build of 6.5 with a Ryzen processor.

I'm sure that they'll fix this by the time Naples comes out.
 
Last edited:

Geegeeoh

Member
Oct 16, 2011
145
126
116
Hitman and TC's The Division didn't show that more than 4 cores/threads do matter?
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,993
3,356
136
Overclocked i5 7600k and overclocked ryzen 1600 should cost about the same right? Ryzen should be on average slightly faster in games, and a lot faster in applications.

Core i5 7600K = $240
+ Cooler Hyper 212 Evo = $25
+ Cheapest Z270 Mobo = $114

Total = $379

Ryzen R5 1600 = $219 (no extra cooler required for mild OC)
+ Cheapest B350 Mobo = $80

Total = $299

It seems the AMD Wraith Spire that comes with the R5 1600 is more than capable of cooling the 8C 16T R7 1700 at 3,9GHz. So it should do the same OC on the 6C 12T R5 1600 no problem.

AMD%20R5%20(12).jpg


 
Last edited:

AMDisTheBEST

Senior member
Dec 17, 2015
682
90
61
i am still rocking fx 8320. no plan to upgrade unitl 2019 at least, or next year if i suddenly come up with more money than expected
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,952
1,585
136
Why do you keep fueling the unproven speculation that flies in the face of current benchmarks then? .

I game. And i game bf series and have since bf bc2. Bf mp demands more cpu power.
Bf have to ny eyes always been forerunner of what came to other engines in 2 or 3 years time.
Ans yes - I have been vocal about problems with 4 cores driving the min in the hard maps and situations.
Becauce it was quite obvious to me. And it matters a lot for experience.

At first i thought there was something wrong with my rig. Netcode or server lag.
And yes those netcode and lag problems exist but its not what taxes peoples computer and gives the most frequent problems.

Daily. And i mean daily playing on the new maps in bf people complain about their fps. It correspond fine to computer base bm of the new maps. Most need more cpu grunt than even the hardest map before. Amiens.

Fortunately we have the data now to back up this subjective experience. And not some light conquest situation or utter irrelevant sp bm.
I was right.

Frametimes bf1 MP
5dc3506cb2874c8ea23ced0bdd278a47.png
FPS:
c7760617b1.png
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This is the CPU I've been waiting for. Its just that the 1700 is so inexpensive for a 16 thread CPU that I've been considering it instead.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,678
3,939
136
Ryzen is 2x faster than FX8370 in BF1 :eek:

That is insane performance uplift. And funny thing is that there is more room for improvement, be it platform (Inf fabric clock/DDR4 clock, uarch improvements) or software (OS scheduler, game specific optimization for Zen).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,952
1,585
136
Ryzen is 2x faster than FX8370 in BF1 :eek:

That is insane performance uplift. And funny thing is that there is more room for improvement, be it platform (Inf fabric clock/DDR4 clock, uarch improvements) or software (OS scheduler, game specific optimization for Zen).

Its 2.5x faster in cb r15 vs 8370 so you are probably right ;)
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,678
3,939
136
Its 2.5x faster in cb r15 vs 8370 so you are probably right ;)
Well productivity apps are no surprise, I have already known it will rock in those workloads long before it was to be released :D
It is those gaming scores that are very interesting , Ryzen is really a well balanced design. It's amazing how much lost ground has AMD managed to make up in one single shot :). And Zen is multi-year roadmap, there are supposed to be yearly updates- so Zen+ should be 2018 and Zen++ 2019. Very interesting and exciting period ahead of us!
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,952
1,585
136
Yeaa. When intel wakes up we are in for a roll.
The prices for a 8c die is imo still to high.
Foremost we need it cheaper. 180 usd 8c 7nm cpu h1 2019. Yes thank you.
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
It is those gaming scores that are very interesting , Ryzen is really a well balanced design. It's amazing how much lost ground has AMD managed to make up in one single shot :).

"Balanced design" is it in a (14nm) nutshell.

Roughly 90% of a 7700K in games and 90% of a 6900K in other stuff for $500-600 for CPU, cooler, and a B350 motherboard.

If you knew someone didn't mind a bit of work to OC their chip, you could recommend the 1700 easily without knowing what the person used his computer for as you should be able to reach 3.8 with basically every chip. And if the person himself was unsure of what he might do, the 1700 is good enough to cover for any likely scenario for the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexruiz

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I game. And i game bf series and have since bf bc2. Bf mp demands more cpu power.
Bf have to ny eyes always been forerunner of what came to other engines in 2 or 3 years time.
Ans yes - I have been vocal about problems with 4 cores driving the min in the hard maps and situations.
Becauce it was quite obvious to me. And it matters a lot for experience.

At first i thought there was something wrong with my rig. Netcode or server lag.
And yes those netcode and lag problems exist but its not what taxes peoples computer and gives the most frequent problems.

Daily. And i mean daily playing on the new maps in bf people complain about their fps. It correspond fine to computer base bm of the new maps. Most need more cpu grunt than even the hardest map before. Amiens.

Fortunately we have the data now to back up this subjective experience. And not some light conquest situation or utter irrelevant sp bm.
I was right.

Frametimes bf1 MP
5dc3506cb2874c8ea23ced0bdd278a47.png
FPS:
c7760617b1.png

~3 weeks until we see how the 1600X fits into that chart (for real instead of approximations). I'm hoping just +2 good cores instead of +4 is "good enough" to beat down the 7700K. A $250 gaming CPU will help AMD more than a $500 one will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ancalagon44

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
If the 1600 OCs like the 1700 it's more like a $220 gaming CPU (with cooler!) from AMD than a $250 CPU. Though it's possible the 1600X is worth the extra $30 if it can reliably hit higher speeds than the 1600.
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
At this point I just assume that all Ryzen CPUs will OC to 3.9-4.1GHz and not much more due to voltage and heat density issues. Ignoring LN2, has anyone attempted higher OC with R7 cores disabled?

I don't think R5 or R3 will be "gaming" CPUs any more than R7 is, that is to say that they won't beat Intel for the 144Hz gamers, but will be just fine for GPU-limited scenarios.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,206
1,580
136
If the 1600 OCs like the 1700 it's more like a $220 gaming CPU (with cooler!) from AMD than a $250 CPU. Though it's possible the 1600X is worth the extra $30 if it can reliably hit higher speeds than the 1600.

I will go 1700x or 1600x just because I don't want to trash the cooler I don't need. Lol. (and getting a better binned CPU ;))
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
I will go 1700x or 1600x just because I don't want to trash the cooler I don't need. Lol. (and getting a better binned CPU ;))
I'll be going 1600X to get the higher base and all-core turbo clocks, so that I don't have to OC from the start. While OC profiles mean that you don't have to run with all power-saving features disabled all the time, enabling and disabling profiles is still a hassle. Don't need the cooler either, but that's besides the point :p
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,952
1,585
136
~3 weeks until we see how the 1600X fits into that chart (for real instead of approximations). I'm hoping just +2 good cores instead of +4 is "good enough" to beat down the 7700K. A $250 gaming CPU will help AMD more than a $500 one will.
Not on the fps chart. But surely on the all crusial frametimes.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
It seems like the 1600X will make some of the R7 chips a poor buy, if it clocks as high as they do.
If the 1600 follows the pattern, and clocks as high as the 1600X, then the 1600X will also be a poor buy.

Looking from this distance, I think the 1600 is possibly going to be the sweet RyZen chip?
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
Future games and game engines being written to use more threads is speculation for any particular game, but it is definitely where the industry is moving. Intel's per-core performance has almost leveled off (+30% over 5 years?) so increasing threads is the only way to do more in the same slice of time.
The problem will always be it's easy to thread some stuff, but hard to thread other stuff particularly in a time bound application like a game. Hence no matter how many cores you have you are still going to have a bottlenecks on single thread performance.
If I were to buy a cpu I would want 6 cores, but not at the expense of single core performance. Hence neither AMD nor Intel really give me a good reason to buy (one lacks single thread performance, the other charges a fortune for 6 cores).
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The problem will always be it's easy to thread some stuff, but hard to thread other stuff particularly in a time bound application like a game. Hence no matter how many cores you have you are still going to have a bottlenecks on single thread performance.
If I were to buy a cpu I would want 6 cores, but not at the expense of single core performance. Hence neither AMD nor Intel really give me a good reason to buy (one lacks single thread performance, the other charges a fortune for 6 cores).
Well, the other doesn't cost a fortune, although it is expensive.
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
Well, the other doesn't cost a fortune, although it is expensive.
It does cost rather a lot really, once you take account of the cost of a decent motherboard, and since it can use them you really want 4 memory sticks. After spending all that you don't even get the best single threaded performance either (you're better off with an i7700K for that I think right now).

Hence I suppose if I were to buy Intel, then my wish list is a 6 core K chip that fits on mainstream motherboards, ideally with a huge cache like the i5775c instead of an integrated gpu to further boost single threaded performance. Maybe Ryzen competition might just force Intel to make the effort... Equally I am quite happy to buy AMD if they can boost single threaded performance sufficiently.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
It seems like the 1600X will make some of the R7 chips a poor buy, if it clocks as high as they do.
If the 1600 follows the pattern, and clocks as high as the 1600X, then the 1600X will also be a poor buy.

Looking from this distance, I think the 1600 is possibly going to be the sweet RyZen chip?

For overclockers, probably. But If I buy Ryzen I prefer to pay the extra for the chip that was binned and factory-tested to run at the 1600X/1800X speeds.