Ryzen 5 7600 vs. Ryzen 5 5600: CPU and GPU Scaling Benchmark

[Badelhas]

I understand these articles and benchmarking take a long time but would have been better to have had the Ryzen 3600 in the list to as I imagine it would be a better representative of a worthwhile upgrade to 7600 with a faster GPU. My favourite article Steve did was the 4 years of Ryzen which helped me with my decision to upgrade my R5 1600 to the 3600 as I was buying a 3060ti.

I totally agree with you, the 3600 would be a better expression of what most people who would buy a 7600 own now. But only one correction: the 3060ti was released 2 years ago, not 4

 

[m3tavision]

I think it is also worth taking into considerations that user requirements are different. It's all good and dandy that my rig is capable of 97 FPS...but if my screen is 60Hz, it doesn't matter all that much, does it. I do enjoy these articles (in fact, these articles I enjoy the most! - Thanks a ton Steve! ), however, before we go to war over CPU/GPU botlenecks and what is the one and only true road ahead, let's just consider the use(r's) case.

For instance, I'm happy with 60FPS + Vsynch (because I mostly play on my big a** TV ). I know. Gasp. And I bet there are many more out there with similar expectations. High(er than 60) refresh rate is great, but it is not the only way. I'm still using a 3600 with a 3070, and for my needs, it is a fine pair. I'm always considering to get a (2nd hand) 5700x/5800x/5800x3D/5900x, but then I ask myself: what will I notice in my gameplay? Not much: both current components are more than capable of a rock steady 60FPS, and a new CPU couldn't improve on that. So I just keep postponing the upgrade...until I reach the point where there is actual benefit for me...

The point is, if the CPU/GPU of choice is comfortably(!!) delivering the required (or available) screen refresh rate (at your desired/available resolution), it doesn't matter how much extra/reserve performance we are not taping into. If you want 144hz, sure, go for it & enjoy: then that's your baseline, regardless of platform (for both CPU and GPU, btw). If 60 is your target (like me), then that...if 240, then chose CPU/GPU for that...simple (Just my 2 cents )

I find your post saddening... bcz you limit your gameplay based on an old TV and have grown happy with mediocrity.

I can guarantee you that you would not be happy with your system anymore, after playing on a native 120Hz TV at 160+ frames.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Honestly, I think that the AM4 CPUs are only for people who already have an AM4 platform because nothing else can match the value of a Ryzen 5000-series CPU for someone who already has an AM4 motherboard, even an A320.

I was helping someone over on TH who wanted a good platform for a beginner's gaming build and the difference in price between AM4 or LGA 1700 and AM5 made it impossible to recommend anything other than AM5 because it was under $500.

This was the CPU:
Ryzen 5 7600 - $229
This was the motherboard:
GIGABYTE B650M DS3H mATX - $160
This was the RAM:
AData DDR5-4800 CL40 (2x16GB) - $90
Total: $479

For a gamer who doesn't already have an AM4 motherboard, that combination would be the best all-around value. This combination has 32GB of DDR5, a B650 motherboard and the R5-7600 comes with an included cooler. You also get a free copy of Star Wars: Jedi Survivor.

On the other hand:
Ryzen 5 5600 - $130
MSI Pro B550M PRO-VDH WIFI - $120
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series DDR4-3200 (2 x 16GB) - $78
Total: $328

$479-$328=$151

So you'd be saving all of $151 by buying the R5-5600, a savings that would be more than nullified when the time came to upgrade because you'd be buying a new motherboard and RAM as well as the CPU. The R5-7600 is also 33% faster than the R5-5600 from the beginning, making that extra $151 even less of an issue. Then, assuming that you care, you're also getting that $70 game for free.

At this point, a completely new AM4 build just isn't worth it because AM5 is no longer prohibitively expensive.

 

[Badelhas]

Honestly, I think that the AM4 CPUs are only for people who already have an AM4 platform because nothing else can match the value of a Ryzen 5000-series CPU for someone who already has an AM4 motherboard, even an A320.

I was helping someone over on TH who wanted a good platform for a beginner's gaming build and the difference in price between AM4 or LGA 1700 and AM5 made it impossible to recommend anything other than AM5 because it was under $500.

This was the CPU:
Ryzen 5 7600 - $229
This was the motherboard:
GIGABYTE B650M DS3H mATX - $160
This was the RAM:
AData DDR5-4800 CL40 (2x16GB) - $90
Total: $479

For a gamer who doesn't already have an AM4 motherboard, that combination would be the best all-around value. This combination has 32GB of DDR5, a B650 motherboard and the R5-7600 comes with an included cooler. You also get a free copy of Star Wars: Jedi Survivor.

On the other hand:
Ryzen 5 5600 - $130
MSI Pro B550M PRO-VDH WIFI - $120
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series DDR4-3200 (2 x 16GB) - $78
Total: $328

$479-$328=$151

So you'd be saving all of $151 by buying the R5-5600, a savings that would be more than nullified when the time came to upgrade because you'd be buying a new motherboard and RAM as well as the CPU. The R5-7600 is also 33% faster than the R5-5600 from the beginning, making that extra $151 even less of an issue.

At this point, a completely new AM4 build just isn't worth it because AM5 is no longer prohibitively expensive.

Completely agree. I own for almost years now a MSI b450 tomahawk max, 16gb ram and a 3080 and did my final upgrade on this platform, went from the 3600 to the 5800x3d. It should last me for a few more years.
But if I was buying everything new it made no sense opting for the AM4 platform.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Completely agree. I own for almost years now a MSI b450 tomahawk max, 16gb ram and a 3080 and did my final upgrade on this platform, went from the 3600 to the 5800x3d. It should last me for a few more years.
But if I was buying everything new it made no sense opting for the AM4 platform.

Yep, I'm in the same boat with an ASRock X570 Pro4, R7-5800X3D and a 6800 XT. My final upgrade was actually to double my RAM to 32GB since DDR4-3200 is dirt cheap. I'll be glad I have it years from now because it's one less limitation on my AM4 platform's longevity. I'd recommend you do the same because when a certain kind of RAM stops being in production, the prices often skyrocket compared to what they were.

You can get 16GB of DDR4 CL16 (2x8GB) for just $41 right now:
Silicon Power 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 CL16: $41

That's just $2.52 per GB and with it you'll never run out of RAM. Many people (including Steve Walton) say that 16GB should be considered the bare minimum for modern games and will probably not be enough a few years from now. I can tell you from experience that there's nothing more maddening than running out of RAM or VRAM when the rest of your system is good. It's like running out of drive space, you're just like "OH FFS!!!".

 

[Badelhas]

Yep, I'm in the same boat with an ASRock X570 Pro4, R7-5800X3D and a 6800 XT. My final upgrade was actually to double my RAM to 32GB since DDR4-3200 is dirt cheap. I'll be glad I have it years from now because it's one less limitation on my AM4 platform's longevity. I'd recommend you do the same because when a certain kind of RAM stops being in production, the prices often skyrocket compared to what they were.

You can get 16GB of DDR4 CL16 (2x8GB) for just $41 right now:
Silicon Power 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 CL16: $41

That's just $2.52 per GB and with it you'll never run out of RAM. Many people (including Steve Walton) say that 16GB should be considered the bare minimum for modern games and will probably not be enough a few years from now. I can tell you from experience that there's nothing more maddening than running out of RAM or VRAM when the rest of your system is good. It's like running out of drive space, you're just like "OH FFS!!!".

I agree. That's one last upgrade I could do for cheap indeed. But isn't it recommended to buy exactly the same model of RAM I already have to avoid incompatibility? And can I fill the 4 slots without running into issues on my motherboard?
Cheers

 

[Avro Arrow]

I agree. That's one last upgrade I could do for cheap indeed. But isn't it recommended to buy exactly the same model of RAM I already have to avoid incompatibility? And can I fill the 4 slots without running into issues on my motherboard?
Cheers

Recommended and necessary aren't the same thing. I have two slots filled with Team Vulcan and two slots filled with AData XPG. As long as they're the same speed and CL, there should be no issue. As a matter of fact, I was actually going to slot in my Team Dark RAM from my X370 Killer SLI but that's DDR-2400 and while it did work, it caused my Team Vulcan 3200 to clock down to 2400. I figured that since it was so cheap, I'd just get the right speed. Well, Canada Computers had some open-box deal on some AData XPG DDR4-3200 CL16 and I dropped it in. The beast fired up the first time without and issues and has been good ever since.

 

[Badelhas]

Recommended and necessary aren't the same thing. I have two slots filled with Team Vulcan and two slots filled with AData XPG. As long as they're the same speed and CL, there should be no issue. As a matter of fact, I was actually going to slot in my Team Dark RAM from my X370 Killer SLI but that's DDR-2400 and while it did work, it caused my Team Vulcan 3200 to clock down to 2400. I figured that since it was so cheap, I'd just get the right speed. Well, Canada Computers had some open-box deal on some AData XPG DDR4-3200 CL16 and I dropped it in. The beast fired up the first time without and issues and has been good ever since.

So if they are both 3200mhz CL 16 I can just activate the XMP on the BIOS and they will both work at 3200mhz, even if not from the same brand? That's what you did?
The one you suggested is indeed cheap, I currently have Crucial Ballistix LT 3200 CL16 but they cost almost double from the ones you suggested...
Cheers

 

[Lounds]

I totally agree with you, the 3600 would be a better expression of what most people who would buy a 7600 own now. But only one correction: the 3060ti was released 2 years ago, not 4

I'm referring to this article and as you can see the Ryzen 3600 manages to just about keep up with the RTX 3070 in Steve's Benchmarks, so I upgraded my Ryzen 5 1600 as I was planning on getting a 3060ti, the Ryzen 5 5600X was £350 at the time so I couldn't justify the cost.

4 Years of Ryzen 5, CPU & GPU Scaling Benchmark

We want to see how the Ryzen 5 1600X, 2600X, 3600X and 5600X compare in half a dozen games using the GeForce RTX 3090, RTX 3070, Radeon...

www.techspot.com

 

[Avro Arrow]

So if they are both 3200mhz CL 16 I can just activate the XMP on the BIOS and they will both work at 3200mhz, even if not from the same brand? That's what you did?
The one you suggested is indeed cheap, I currently have Crucial Ballistix LT 3200 CL16 but they cost almost double from the ones you suggested...
Cheers

Honestly, I never actually bothered to activate XMP in my BIOS. I'll check that out tonight!

 

[VoidTheWarranty]

Honestly, I never actually bothered to activate XMP in my BIOS. I'll check that out tonight!

The XMP profile on my current set of ram is complete trash.. Good chance you can run better if XMP doesn't pan out. Oddly enough when I overclocked my ram from 3200 to 3600 just for fun and figured out my main timings it was better than the XMP options I think more stable. But YMMV especially if they aren't on your QVL list.

 

[Badelhas]

Honestly, I never actually bothered to activate XMP in my BIOS. I'll check that out tonight!

How did you put it at 3200mhz, then? Manually?

 

[LoveLamp]

Would've been nice to see 7900xtx in here to rule out nvidia driver issue

 

[Biostud]

4090 and a 7600 seems a laughable combo, who would run that let alone a 5600 and 4090? I get the 1080p testing, but I don't get using such a ridiculously expensive GPU on a 7600X. 4090 is an aberration in the current GPU world (in a good way). Also, why no 7900 data points?

Owners of 5600 would be much more likely to have 6600/6700/3060/3070, so I would focus the scaling in that mid-tier maybe up to 3080/6900 given the good second hand prices.

Maybe watch this video to understand?

 

[Avro Arrow]

The XMP profile on my current set of ram is complete trash.. Good chance you can run better if XMP doesn't pan out. Oddly enough when I overclocked my ram from 3200 to 3600 just for fun and figured out my main timings it was better than the XMP options I think more stable. But YMMV especially if they aren't on your QVL list.

Well, I enabled XMP in my BIOS and, no problem.

How did you put it at 3200mhz, then? Manually?

No, the RAM is rated at 3200MHz. I never bothered turning XMP on because there was no need. Windows had the RAM running at 2400MHz and it was fine so why would I change the RAM speed when I didn't need to? That's just a waste of juice. Anyway, I enabled XMP in my BIOS and checked my Task Manager. It now says that my RAM is running at 3200MHz. It's as stable as it was at 2400MHz, all 32GB of it. I really wasn't all that concerned to be honest.

I would upload a screenshot of my Task Manager but unfortunately, Techspot doesn't seem to support that feature. You'll just have to take my word that it's showing me 32GB running at 3200MHz.

I'm going to set it back to XMP auto and let Windows run it at 2400MHz again because that was more than fast enough for Cyberpunk 2077 and it uses less electricity. I know it's not a lot of electricity but I'm still paying for it so what's the point? I can always re-enable it later if I need to. I've now proven to myself that it works so, good enough!

 

[Badelhas]

Well, I enabled XMP in my BIOS and, no problem.

No, the RAM is rated at 3200MHz. I never bothered turning XMP on because there was no need. Windows had the RAM running at 2400MHz and it was fine so why would I change the RAM speed when I didn't need to? That's just a waste of juice. Anyway, I enabled XMP in my BIOS and checked my Task Manager. It now says that my RAM is running at 3200MHz. It's as stable as it was at 2400MHz, all 32GB of it. I really wasn't all that concerned to be honest.

I would upload a screenshot of my Task Manager but unfortunately, Techspot doesn't seem to support that feature. You'll just have to take my word that it's showing me 32GB running at 3200MHz.

I'm going to set it back to XMP auto and let Windows run it at 2400MHz again because that was more than fast enough for Cyberpunk 2077 and it uses less electricity. I know it's not a lot of electricity but I'm still paying for it so what's the point? I can always re-enable it later if I need to. I've now proven to myself that it works so, good enough!

The electricity that ram uses is almost none. The performance increase when running at 3200mhz is not. I would run them at 3200mhz, no doubt.

Cheers

 

[yannus]

One article "How we test CPUs" that explains why testing CPUs in 1080p. Correct.

Next article CPU and GPU scaling : 1080p. Not correct.
It's cpu AND gpu. I'm not on Nvidia's side but everybody knows that the 4090 often loses against the 7900xtx in 1080p but not in higher res.

Still I don't know if it would affect the conclusions but the 4090 losing against the 6950xt, it could lead people to thinking that the bottleneck was the CPU.

Also in the past reviewers always showed the motherboard and RAM brands and timings at the beginning of the article, I just can't find it.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The electricity that ram uses is almost none. The performance increase when running at 3200mhz is not. I would run them at 3200mhz, no doubt.

Cheers

I know that there's a performance increase but remember that the most intensive thing I do is gaming. I game on a 4K/60Hz display and as long as I get those 60fps at 1440p, anything else I do to increase performance will have literally no effect.

I mean, sure the RAM is now 33% faster but that doesn't make my PC 33% faster. It feels exactly the same to me. I'm sure that I'd appreciate it more if I were to enable it if I ever need a speed bump but at the moment, that just isn't the case.

Take it from me, it's a far better thing to only use extra PC abilities when they're needed because you actually enjoy them. As it is, I have a blazingly-fast CPU and GPU which have yet to encounter a situation in which faster RAM has any noticable effect, especially since I game exclusively with NVMe drives. Well, noticable to me anyway.

 

[Avro Arrow]

One article "How we test CPUs" that explains why testing CPUs in 1080p. Correct.

Next article CPU and GPU scaling : 1080p. Not correct.
It's cpu AND gpu. I'm not on Nvidia's side but everybody knows that the 4090 often loses against the 7900xtx in 1080p but not in higher res.

Still I don't know if it would affect the conclusions but the 4090 losing against the 6950xt, it could lead people to thinking that the bottleneck was the CPU.

Also in the past reviewers always showed the motherboard and RAM brands and timings at the beginning of the article, I just can't find it.

In that situation, they're demonstrating that Radeon drivers have less CPU headroom than GeForce drivers. They allow the CPU to make more draw calls per second than GeForce drivers. They're not comparing the RX 7900 XTX and RTX 4090 in that list because everyone knows that the RTX 4090 is faster. None of us are that stupid.

 

[DHON JOE]

Holy cowz, you tested the i3-13100, yet somehow did not include that i3 in the Cost per Frame chart!!!

 

[DHON JOE]

$90 i3-12100F
$95 Asrock B660M Pro RS
$40 16GB DDR4-3600

$225




but TechSpot won't show the i3-13100 in the Cost per Frame chart!!!

it's OBVIOUS that the i3-13100 will crush the ryzen 5

 

[SAYEDMOHD]

Yes? People who purchase 4090 aren't gonna play on a 1080p monitor unless they're going for extreme high FPS for competitive games and they will not be on 7600 then lol.

People who have 5600 aren't gonna be interested in extreme high FPS so they're gonna be fine with 60 and I'm sure lots are curious how it's gonna fare on higher resolutions even if 1080p is still ubiquitous today.

I owen 5600X and I really interested in extreme high FPS. I will upgrade to Ryzen 5 8600

 

[Burty117]

it's OBVIOUS that the i3-13100 will crush the ryzen 5

From the review:

In any case, now the Ryzen 5600 is 12% faster than the Core i3-13100 when comparing average frame rates and just 8% faster when comparing 1%

Link below:

Intel Core i3-13100 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 5600

The previous generation version of the Core i3-13100 was one of our favorite budget CPUs, so we're keen to see what this updated 13th-gen version has to...

www.techspot.com

And here's a YouTube video comparing them:

As you'll see, not only does the Ryzen win in all scenario's but in some games, it's substantially quicker.