Intel Core i3-9100F vs. Ryzen 5 1600 AF: Battle of the Budget CPUs

dirtyferret

TS Evangelist
Personally I would still rather save up and pay that, than get i3 9100F, CPU thst if rumors are correct about 10th gen will become new Pentium.
Why would you save up and pay $140 (at that time since lowered) for the Ryzen 1600AF when you could get the following on Amazon
Ryzen 2600 - $120
Ryzen 2600x - $140 ($80 at Microcenter last week)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lew Zealand

PEnnn

TS Guru
"This begs the question, why were Intel fans claiming the 9100F would dust the 1600 AF, when in that very review we included Core i5-7600K results? "

Let me venture a wild guess: Because some of them, as we have just witnessed, are suckers for punishment???
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Julio Franco

TechSpot Editor
Staff member
"Where you can't get the 1600 AF, the next best thing is the Ryzen 5 2600 at $200. That’s a hefty 53% increase in price though."

I assume that is a typo and Steve intended to put "Ryzen 5 3600 at $200" or "Ryzen 5 2600 for $120" ...
My mistake in editing, as Steve pointed out earlier, in the video review he mentioned both US and AU pricing while I just left US for more fluid reading -- but I made that mistake. The article has been updated to reflect the Ryzen 5 2600 is currently $120 on Amazon.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
I have to wonder how these benchmarks are being performed. I was just playing Hitman 2 last night (1440p, Ultra) on my lowly i5 4670K@4.5GHz, and I have to cap the frames at 72fps on my 75Hz monitor and that's with a 1070. Same with BF V, Battlefront 2 and BF1 (when I actually play them that is). Smooth gameplay, no stuttering whatsoever. Is this i3 really that much of a dud?
The answer is in your post. You play at 1440p while the benchmarks are at 1080p. At 1440p, you are removing the CPU as the bottleneck (for the most part).

Sounds great, but the author(s) haven't been checking prices on 1600AF's. Resellers are now selling them for well over $100, and that reported $85 cost hasn't been seen in about a month.

Good to know folks can virtually compare cpu gens by specs, but can't do a price check.
For starters, it is at $85: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-YD1600BBAFBOX/dp/B07XTQZJ28/

Second, reviews use MSRP. Except in rare cases, you don't base your review on a temporary price. Doing a simple price check doesn't take into consideration the duration that price will be in effect, which is extremely important for a review.
 

Sir Alex Ice

TS Enthusiast
Planning a serious upgrade to my mom's pc and got enthusiastic about the AF performance that I forgot to notice the lack of integrated graphics.

Fortunately I have an older Sapphire VGA laying around in a box to save my build.

Pretty sure she will still complain about how her pc is so slow even though it will be the most advanced one in the house. The others are based on Q6600 and 4690K respectively.
 

Lounds

TS Maniac
So seems my purchase of the R5 1600 back in 2017 was still a worthy investment. Have it set to auto over lock to 3.9Ghz so when I'm gaming I'm getting the maximum performance out of the chip, similar to the 1600X which looks to be on par with this 1600AF. Along with SMT giving 12 threads, I can have VMs and allsorts running without my system stressing. I'll probably upgrade to 3rd Gen Ryzen if 4th Gen isnt compatible with my Board.
 

Ludak021

TS Booster
I have to wonder how these benchmarks are being performed. I was just playing Hitman 2 last night (1440p, Ultra) on my lowly i5 4670K@4.5GHz, and I have to cap the frames at 72fps on my 75Hz monitor and that's with a 1070. Same with BF V, Battlefront 2 and BF1 (when I actually play them that is). Smooth gameplay, no stuttering whatsoever. Is this i3 really that much of a dud?
They compare 4 thread CPU (4 core, I know) to 12 thread CPU, because of the price. And when applicable (favor to AMD), they make sure to mention that it's a 4 core part. But only when that favors AMD.
There are a lot of comparisons made, but I don't expect them to be fair, unbiased and such. But as far as video games go, I am yet to come across a website with a reviewer that actually sees those benchmarks as anything but a chore. Understandably.
I am also yet to see a post or hear anyone saying i3 (of any kind) would smoke Ryzen 2600. I did hear that, as a 4 core part, it will "smoke" 2200G/2400G" at the time i3 (9100) wasn't even out, and 2200G was $90.
But I don't think any website would run such a test since it would infuriate AMD fans and AMD. It would show how even with 7nm, their core performance is not really that good, they need SMT AND lower prices to compete with "outdated" 14nm from intel.
However, I welcome those lower prices, it nudged intel and that's a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharmsD

grvalderrama

TS Addict
They compare 4 thread CPU (4 core, I know) to 12 thread CPU, because of the price. And when applicable (favor to AMD), they make sure to mention that it's a 4 core part. But only when that favors AMD.
Well, as you said, they compare a 6c/12t with a 4c/4t cpu because of the price point, which is normally what people do or want to do: to get the best out of their money... except for fanboys, off course, so no offense if your comment doesn't make any sense.
 

Lounds

TS Maniac
They compare 4 thread CPU (4 core, I know) to 12 thread CPU, because of the price. And when applicable (favor to AMD), they make sure to mention that it's a 4 core part. But only when that favors AMD.
There are a lot of comparisons made, but I don't expect them to be fair, unbiased and such. But as far as video games go, I am yet to come across a website with a reviewer that actually sees those benchmarks as anything but a chore. Understandably.
I am also yet to see a post or hear anyone saying i3 (of any kind) would smoke Ryzen 2600. I did hear that, as a 4 core part, it will "smoke" 2200G/2400G" at the time i3 (9100) wasn't even out, and 2200G was $90.
But I don't think any website would run such a test since it would infuriate AMD fans and AMD. It would show how even with 7nm, their core performance is not really that good, they need SMT AND lower prices to compete with "outdated" 14nm from intel.
However, I welcome those lower prices, it nudged intel and that's a good thing.
I know someone who got an i5 7600 at the time I got my R5 1600 and I know who got the better deal.
 

JLKIII

TS Rookie
Quick question: Did you test both CPU using the boxed cooler and if so what were the temps / noise ?

Seeing for how little the 2700 series goes right now, that may even be a better alternative - budget allowing of course. Then again, you could always upgrade to that or a 3000 series (once they become even cheaper) later on.

Newegg has the 2700 for $149 and the 2700x for $169 but sadly that no longer includes the free game, only the three months X-Box subscription.
I have the Ryzen 1600 AF and the thermals are very good with the stock Wraith Stealth. I have the NZXT H510 case but added a 140mm fan to the top and moved the 120mm fan to the front of the case at the top. After two hours of 1080p gaming at ultra settings, by CPU peaked at 49 c.

Indeed my plan is to upgrade to the Ryzen 3600X when prices drop after the release of the Ryzen 4000 desktop chips. I do not plan to overclock myself so the X version seems a good way of getting a factory overclocked CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

JLKIII

TS Rookie
About the price, AMD is selling these at $85 in the US, but because of all the press the 1600 AF has garnered, demand has out paced AMD's ability to manufacturer them and supplies run out from time to time. Speculators noticed this and are buying up the $85 chips and selling them for just over $100. The $85 AF dried up in late December and again around the end of January but in both cases the $85 1600 AF returned. Right now it is available on Amazon for $85.
 

Karl Hungus

TS Enthusiast
The answer is in your post. You play at 1440p while the benchmarks are at 1080p. At 1440p, you are removing the CPU as the bottleneck (for the most part).
Yes, this I guess. My CPU usage in game (Afterburner - Hitman 2) is 29 - 45% on average, bumping as high as 79% the odd time. GPU usage is always around 95-98%. These article writers should avoid the hyperbolic statements that 'quad-core gaming is dead' and qualify it with the resolution you're playing at.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ludak021

fps4ever

TS Evangelist
Why would you save up and pay $140 (at that time since lowered) for the Ryzen 1600AF when you could get the following on Amazon
Ryzen 2600 - $120
Ryzen 2600x - $140 ($80 at Microcenter last week)
I'll go one step further. Buy the cheapest AMD at the number of cores you desire and do a modest overclock. You end up the same as the higher priced AMD cpu and can spend that extra money on more ram or and NvME drive....win, win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Cluckern

TS Rookie
FYI, the Ryzen is the better CPU but while the 1600 was selling for $85 on Amazon it quickly shot up to $140. Not sure if it's still at that price but that would change the playing field.
It was out of stock for a bit but the highest I saw it was $102 on Newegg but it seems like it'll continue to be a manufactured chip for awhile because it came back in stock a couple days ago

I'm guessing they are 2600s that don't meet certain manufacturing standards so they are rebranded as 1600s
 

trek554

TS Rookie
Those 1% lows, ooof.

OTOH, if those occured when a level loaded in and thta was it, it wouldnt really matter in the long run. My old i5 3570k seems to play modern games just fine at 4.2 GHz, with the only hitching being during the loading of a level.

Still this next gen may be the eventual death of quad cores for multiplayer gaming. Would have been nice to see a ryzen 3 chip to see how AMD's quad cores handle the same load, and if it is just a intel problem or a quad core problem.
You sure have have some very low standards thinking a 3570k plays modern games just fine. That cpu will be at 100% in pretty much any modern game with any decent gpu. And a 3570k cant even average 60 fps in some games much less maintain it. In a game like Mafia 3 you could not even pan around without it being a stuttery mess on your old 4 core cpu. Hell my oced 4770k could not keep 60 fps in some games and even it was hitting 100% in most newer games and/or also being limited by IPC. In Watch Dogs 2 my min fps literally doubled in some spots going from oced 4770k to stock 9900k. I had taken screenshots and done plenty of benchmarks before upgrading so I could compare in the same spots so I am not just talking out of my rear end. The MINIMUM needed for perfectly smooth gameplay in all modern games going forward is a modern 6 core/ 12 thread cpu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Ludak021

TS Booster
I know someone who got an i5 7600 at the time I got my R5 1600 and I know who got the better deal.
if we ask you, you did, if we ask him, he did. I know who got less headache tho. And more FPS, and it's not you. :)
 
Last edited:

dirtyferret

TS Evangelist
I know someone who got an i5 7600 at the time I got my R5 1600 and I know who got the better deal.
From a qualitative perspective, it depends on the user. You can have a Ryzen 3700x owner pissed with their performance. You have a legion of I5-2500k laughing like hyenas every time they launch a new new game at medium settings.

From a quantitative perspective it depends on the specific game but Steve did a comparison of the two CPUs recently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ludak021

Ludak021

TS Booster
I know it depends on the user, and usage. But we all know what game will appreciate more threads I don't need to look at Steve's results. We also know that whoever bought 7600 or 1600 doesn't use 2080.

PS. I think 3700x is great. And 1600 is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharmsD

Gus Fring

TS Enthusiast
Make an A to Z complaint directly to Amazon customer service if that happens to you. Our company sells on Amazon and I can tell you Amazon backs the customer up 9 times out of 10 on A-Z complaints.
I am the one in ten / a statistical reminder of a world that doesnt care .......Lalala
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtyferret
I know it depends on the user, and usage. But we all know what game will appreciate more threads I don't need to look at Steve's results. We also know that whoever bought 7600 or 1600 doesn't use 2080.

PS. I think 3700x is great. And 1600 is not.
Comparing just the performance of these 2 CPUs, yes the 3700x is clearly the better product. However comparing what you need to pay for the 1600AF at $85 vs the 3700X at $310 makes the 3700X look relatively overpriced for the performance improvements it delivers. It's probably worth it for video content creators but less so for gamers or more casual users.

And let's be clear, the 3700x is a great chip at a good price. It's just that the 1600AF is a good chip at an insanely cheap price. Pretty much everything loses to it in a price/performance comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

erickmendes

TS Evangelist
Well, down here in Brasil Ryzen is being a pretty good deal for sometime. Intel cpu's with same performance is pricier, even motherboard for Intel is more expensive here, so AMD is a no-brainer down here. I started with a Ryzen 1600 now I'm with a 2600 and prob I'm going to a 3000/4000 in the next couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

ubronan

TS Rookie
Those 1% lows, ooof.

OTOH, if those occured when a level loaded in and thta was it, it wouldnt really matter in the long run. My old i5 3570k seems to play modern games just fine at 4.2 GHz, with the only hitching being during the loading of a level.

Still this next gen may be the eventual death of quad cores for multiplayer gaming. Would have been nice to see a ryzen 3 chip to see how AMD's quad cores handle the same load, and if it is just a intel problem or a quad core problem.
Actually I admit I never ever wanted these small cpu ever besides for the business applications, many office and multimedia small intel boxes been used to feed people info and simple programs to fill in forms and such. The real workhorses where and still are the 4 core + ht and higher cpu which dominated the rest of the machine park.
I actually was pretty quick to go for more (real core) machines pretty quick, it made my work much more pleasant performance wise. I admit for my gaming I also chose the i5 or i7 until amd release the first 8 cores which did well but simply could not compete with intel due the not working sharing cache.
Anyway that did not hold me back using them in any way, but its a fact that these days if you want to have performance and do alot at the same time like me reading my mails looking at the 6 database to check if that or this has been done or not and the like 30 browser pages open with all needed info and making meanwhile a huge backup file packed with rar. And having a game open to relax when I can pause. I do not even dare to sum up what programs I have open at these normal days, I counted 47 but normally that is on the low side.
So yes multi core is a must, even though the 4c+ht machines still do well, the need for more is very actual and a fact. For gaming its actually not really true, those games which do run with 8 core plus do seldom push the 8+ core to big hights those I seen do hardly hit 20% on the cores.
So saying that game need more cores is still not really relevant, but it might change pretty fast when big core cpu become standard.
But I admit to think that will be at least another decade from now before that really happens.
But with current prices you are a fool not to jump onto the massive core cpu already.
 

BerserkGuts

TS Rookie
Fortnite, Apex /multiplayer games missing
Big mistake because this show what difference but zipping showed relative performance xD
(but BFV lucky keeped it in test and here look 9100f cant hold fixing/keep FPS BiG up 110 and DowN ☻↓ 50 soso this is terrible rollercosting 50-100)
Most part Singleplayer game still enough 9100f 4cores
 
Last edited: