• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ryzen 1600X 95W

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
Since the 1600X is the same chip as the 1600, does it "always" run warmer at 95W or does that spec mean it 'can' run at 95W when pushing out higher IPS as it reaches higher GHz?

I don't know about undervolting but presume you can undervolt and overclock simultaneously. And somehow keep everything stable.


Thanks,

Mac
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
Since the 1600X is the same chip as the 1600, does it "always" run warmer at 95W or does that spec mean it 'can' run at 95W when pushing out higher IPS as it reaches higher GHz?

I don't know about undervolting but presume you can undervolt and overclock simultaneously. And somehow keep everything stable.


Thanks,

Mac
Technically all 1k series Ryzen chips are the same chip. But anyways, if using the same cooler in the same system where the only difference is the particular chip (1600x vs 1600) the 1600x will run warmer. This is because the 1600x has a higher power setting and more power equals more heat. Whether this means that you get higher FPS (I assume that is what you meant) all depends on your video card.

Well overclocking and undervolting can work together. It's about finding a compromise between clock speed and power usage. But generally I would consider undervolting to fall into the lowering of current power usuage rather then an avenue for overclocking since AMD's Turbo system even on Gen 1 Ryzen typically is taking the silicon near it's limit.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,309
1,224
126
1600X is a quite better binned chip, in the most demanding load for those Zen 1 SR CPUs at stock a 1600 consume 66W@3.2GHz while the 1600X is at 77W@3.6GHz.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
I was under the impression that the 1600X only draws more power when it needs to, from reading I've done. But your explanation makes sense because using 1-2 cores, the 1600X is faster. So it must draw more power. But I was speaking of IPS and how hard it runs.

Anyhow, I think I want the 2600 instead as I live in FL and the performance + 65W will help. I could OC and match the stock 2600 on paper but the improvements in memory utilization jives w/people saying it is better at gaming and encoding.

Thanks.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
52,284
7,091
126
This is for a new rig, not yet build? By FAR, get the R5 3600, the newest 3000-series. It is built on 7nm process technology, and while it has SOME "teething pains", it's a solid CPU, and has much better IPC than Zen 1st/2nd-Gen, and better boost algorithms. Also should be lower-power (I think!). Cooling can be an issue though.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
Ahh, but money's not unlimited and I have to balance pieces. Plus I've read a 1600 alone would give me all the performance I need. Problem is prices for a 1600X and 2600 have bounced around today. Now 2600 appears to be back up. I'm crafting a way to get near a Microcenter.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
52,284
7,091
126
If budget's an issue, then pick up a cheap R5 1600, either on Newegg or ebay, for around $105-120. Then overclock it to 3.80Ghz on the stock cooler, should be doable unless you live in a desert.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
52,284
7,091
126
I was pointing out, thought, that bang-for-buck wise, if you're going to spend extra on the "X" model of the 1600, which is around $150 USD last time I checked, then you're still far better off splashing out the extra $50 (IF possible) for the R5 3600. Performance-wise, it's THAT worth it. You DON'T have to buy an X570 board right off to support it. Most of the popular B350 and B450 and X370 and X470 boards have BIOS flashes supporting the 3000-series Ryzen CPUs.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
I was under the impression that the 1600X only draws more power when it needs to, from reading I've done. But your explanation makes sense because using 1-2 cores, the 1600X is faster. So it must draw more power. But I was speaking of IPS and how hard it runs.

Anyhow, I think I want the 2600 instead as I live in FL and the performance + 65W will help. I could OC and match the stock 2600 on paper but the improvements in memory utilization jives w/people saying it is better at gaming and encoding.

Thanks.
If its not doing anything then both use relatively the same amount of power. But the way turbo on CPU's and a lot of high performance NVME drives work is to be quick to finish. That means they ramp up absolutely as high as they can as quickly as possible to get as much work done as soon as possible before throttling down to an average performance. You don't see it much on the 1k series because assuming decent cooling its clock speeds are much more predictable. But on the 2k and certainly on the 3k series it certainly works that way in a very visible fashion. What that means is that the 1600x if its doing anything its pretty much always using more power then the 1600.

I am with Larry though. If you can find a way into a 3600 it is so much better in clocks and in work done per clock. That its really worth the difference.

This is the second time you use IPS. Can you define that for me? IPS is a monitor tech and not a performance metric as far as I know of.
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,931
3,891
136
Personally I'd pick Ryzen 1k only when OCing manually. Its turbo is based on a fixed boost table meaning that once there are more processes running the chip will seldom have the chance to put one core into a high boost frequency on its own. Ryzen 2k and 3k both have more flexible boosting behavior, making a manual OC much less advantageous compared to stock behavior.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
Personally I'd pick Ryzen 1k only when OCing manually. Its turbo is based on a fixed boost table meaning that once there are more processes running the chip will seldom have the chance to put one core into a high boost frequency on its own. Ryzen 2k and 3k both have more flexible boosting behavior, making a manual OC much less advantageous compared to stock behavior.
Yeah but whats the usefulness of "being able to overclock" if the result of the OC is still a ways away in performance?
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,931
3,891
136
Yeah but whats the usefulness of "being able to overclock" if the result of the OC is still a ways away in performance?
Of course the resulting performance better be worth the price. If not drop it and pick something else with a better price/performance ratio.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
Well I can get the 1600X for $105. Yesterday the 2600 dropped to $120 for less than 24 hrs, now it's back up to $130. Unless I wait in order to get to Microcenter.

My only real hesitation is a) I read, maybe incorrect info, that series 1 isn't as good w/higher speed memory and b)the heat generated. The 1600X is better bang for the buck vs. $130 but I couldn't grab a 2600 yesterday due to auction issues w/the 1600X. Torn now. Tech envy makes me think $120 is worth the 2600.

I'm getting an aftermarket cooler for lower noise and will dip my toe in overclock land when gaming but at $105 the 1600X is a better buy (assuming ~10% better performance from the 2600). But one thing I wanted for this build was lower heat so not sure how much more air I'll have to move.

Problem is I really don't want to wait til next month for a trip to MC but I'm in limbo on my mobo due to out of stock for imported choices plus their prices.

@moinmoin: Yeah, in a way it's simple to just use the 2600 and not touch settings. Or squeeze the extra from a 'better binned' chip that on paper goes higher. Sorta don't understand how a 2600 can OC higher but that's what I read.

Either chip will be enough for me, and I'll get a 3600 down the line. I'm more concerned about memory and microcode improvements so to speak, than the extra heat but both are a factor.
 

tomatosummit

Member
Mar 21, 2019
98
62
61
Well I can get the 1600X for $105.
Do check if that 1600x is coming with a cooler and if you need to purchase one that could mitigate any cost savings you're making. The initial launch had all the X skus come bare without coolers and the 1600/1700 have the decent wraith spire. 2600 comes with the piddly wraith stealth cooler that is barely fit for purpose.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,309
1,224
126
Perfs wise and using the 1600 as 100 basis the 1600X/2600/2600X are at 107/111.7/120.6 in applications and 104/110.8/116.1 for games.

Power comsumption wise with all threads loaded at 100% in X264 (where the chip use more power than with Prime 95..) and at stock numbers for the 1600/1600X/2600/2600X are 66/78/75/110W.

Obviously the 2600 is the R5 of choice, also it s worth noting that AMD has been quite conservative with voltages margins, and the 2000 serie has been granted relatively high voltages values in respect of the 12nm silicon possibilities.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
Nope, 1600X comes plain jane.

@Abwx: Yeah, pretty close re: performance. I'm thinking w/an OC that 1600X is going to bake my room.

Thanks for the replies everyone.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,282
824
126
You may want to pick the 2600 for the better memory compatibility. 1st gen Ryzen is very picky with everything above stock 2400MHz.

Performance wise, 2600 is equal to the 1600X.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
@Topweasel #9 post: IPS - Instructions Per Second, sorry should've used IPC.

After finding more complete info it seems the 1600X will be cool enough at stock, but again if I oc to 3.8 heat will be a factor here in FL. The only thing holding me back from grabbing the 1600X is memory compatibility, like Insert_Nickname mentions.

But the Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 I ordered is supposed to easily run at 3200 for series 1, 2 or 3 Ryzen so I may opt for the 1600X.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,309
1,224
126
If overclocking is expected then the 1600X is nowhere close to a 2600, the latter can be overclocked at 3.7@70W and 4.0@85W (powers with Prime 95).


They state that for Summit Ridge (1600X) for all cores overclocking a quite big voltage jump was required from 3.7 to 3.8 , basically the 1600X should be considered as good up to 3.7, and even at this frequency it is not as efficient as a 2600 wich require 8% lower voltage@3.7.

Edit : At stock setting the 2600 run at 3.65GHz in Prime 95, and likely at 3.7+ with usual MT loads...
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
18,208
7,100
136
Even the best-binned Summit Ridge chips had some trouble getting to 4 GHz. Moving to Pinnacle Ridge gets you maybe 200-300 MHz in clockspeed headroom.
 

rancherlee

Senior member
Jul 9, 2000
707
18
81
Many of the recent 1600's hit 4.0 pretty easy. I've built 2 recently and both did 3.8 @ default 1.21v and 4.0 @ 1.325 all core. Cheap Microcenter builds for family members. Also the newer 3000/3200 (AES in the Part number) Crucial memory works great with the 1st gen Ryzen, no issues running 3200 out of the box.
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
But, crucially, StoreMI wasn't improved significantly for Pinnacle so the only difference is IPC/speed/heat, on 12nm, and microcode allowing for better cache latency and memory latency AFAIK. And the mobo bios updates eventually caught up so memory speeds of faster ram work w/Summit Ridge same as Pinnacle Ridge.

A. Or are there still reasons to buy a 2600 over a 1600 besides speed? Does the "improvement" in infinity fabric significantly improve how data is fetched under certain applications?

B. Are there still combinations of mobo + ram + Summit Ridge that don't play well together? Can't reach 3200MHz? Can't boot, BSODs?

Really like to know those questions, especially A.


Thanks,

Mac
 

Mac29

Member
Jun 2, 2010
124
10
81
@rancherlee: Yes, that's what I'm doing , building a cheap Ryzen box and will upgrade later. Everybody's telling me 'gotta buy the 3600 if you can' as they always do. Like 'you must buy an M.2, you'll never go back'. Well, I don't want my OS on an M.2 for 2 reasons. Someone who doesn't know I switch out drives isn't going to know that.

I should have no issues w/ram since my Crucial kit is supposed to work w/series 1, 2 and 3. But the StoreMI/memory 'useage'/everything feels smoother is what I've been posting about on various forums for days. Nobody knows. All I've been able to research is the 'cache and memory latencies' mentioned. So what I originally read may have been FUD.

Otherwise, I believe if I oc a 1600X I can get cheap, that it'll match a 2600. Base speed is higher. Little more heat but even that, from what I've read, is dependent on what code is being crunched.

Well, gotta get to work : (


Cheers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY