Two Years Later, Who Won? Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Core i5-7600K

[Strawman]

I like this comparison, 4core/4 thread vs 6core/12 thread that is cheaper (minus all the money wasted on different memory kits to find out which works as intended) and lo and behold, ryzen can match the 4 core 4 thread stale tech cpu intel has been milking for 10 years.Even faster in some titles. Kudos to AMD. I do appreciate them stepping up the game and nudging intel a little bit, but I did expect better. It is still not fully mature tech even today. Did someone say "WattMan"? 500mb driver updates? Ehh...

I am not hating, I am just pointing out to things that people willingly turn the blind eye to.

Bunch of nonsense.

The number of cores is irrelevant. Whether Ryzen has 1 core or 50, what matters is that it was cheaper than the 7600k and offers twice the minimum framerates.

Nobody cares about how many cores and at what frequency a product runs. What matters is how it performs and how much it costs.

 

[Fuzzy Dunalap]

Nice article @Steve.

I was a 1st gen early adopter and built an R5 1600 system with 2400MHz DDR4 RAM because of the early BIOS issues with faster RAM.

2 years down the line and the system continues to deliver as promised. However, I think it would be false economy for someone in my circumstances (B350 chipset) to just swap out the CPU, even though it's possible. Spending money on faster RAM to make the most of the new CPU might offset the value benefits. What do others think?

Im one of the early adopter to but I dug deep and got some DDR4 3000 ram before memory prices got crazy. Is it worth it, if you can get it, yes, you will see improvements and ram is cheaper now then when I brought some.

DDR4 3000 is going to get cheaper too. Get some if you can along with processor upgrade. Or just get some now (new/amazon always have a brand on sale just about all the time) and wait on the new Zen to come out.

 

[Ludak021]

I like this comparison, 4core/4 thread vs 6core/12 thread that is cheaper (minus all the money wasted on different memory kits to find out which works as intended) and lo and behold, ryzen can match the 4 core 4 thread stale tech cpu intel has been milking for 10 years.Even faster in some titles. Kudos to AMD. I do appreciate them stepping up the game and nudging intel a little bit, but I did expect better. It is still not fully mature tech even today. Did someone say "WattMan"? 500mb driver updates? Ehh...

I am not hating, I am just pointing out to things that people willingly turn the blind eye to.

Bunch of nonsense.

The number of cores is irrelevant. Whether Ryzen has 1 core or 50, what matters is that it was cheaper than the 7600k and offers twice the minimum framerates.

Nobody cares about how many cores and at what frequency a product runs. What matters is how it performs and how much it costs.

I care about all that. I especially care that I have to enable gaming mode on AMD (with threadripper for example) to disable cores/threads if I don't want to loose performance in games due to too many cores. I also care that almost every intel has IGP, ryzen does not (and IGP adds to price) quicksync and so on.
The main reason ryzen is selling as much as it does is a bit lower price and many more cores/threads (that it needs to catch up to intel). So. saying that core count doesn't matter is actually nonsense. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, it matters to me and everyone that actually needs more cores for productivity. It also matters for AMD performance. Performance per core also matters. So does single core performance. Again, maybe not to you, but it does matter to a lot of people.

What you are saying (I get it) that it doesn't matter if AMD needs 1 or 50 cores as long as it performs like intel xyz and costs less. I assure you, in the long run, it costs the same.

 

[Strawman]

I like this comparison, 4core/4 thread vs 6core/12 thread that is cheaper (minus all the money wasted on different memory kits to find out which works as intended) and lo and behold, ryzen can match the 4 core 4 thread stale tech cpu intel has been milking for 10 years.Even faster in some titles. Kudos to AMD. I do appreciate them stepping up the game and nudging intel a little bit, but I did expect better. It is still not fully mature tech even today. Did someone say "WattMan"? 500mb driver updates? Ehh...

I am not hating, I am just pointing out to things that people willingly turn the blind eye to.

Bunch of nonsense.

The number of cores is irrelevant. Whether Ryzen has 1 core or 50, what matters is that it was cheaper than the 7600k and offers twice the minimum framerates.

Nobody cares about how many cores and at what frequency a product runs. What matters is how it performs and how much it costs.

I care about all that. I especially care that I have to enable gaming mode on AMD (with threadripper for example) to disable cores/threads if I don't want to loose performance in games due to too many cores. I also care that almost every intel has IGP, ryzen does not (and IGP adds to price) quicksync and so on.
The main reason ryzen is selling as much as it does is a bit lower price and many more cores/threads (that it needs to catch up to intel). So. saying that core count doesn't matter is actually nonsense. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, it matters to me and everyone that actually needs more cores for productivity. It also matters for AMD performance. Performance per core also matters. So does single core performance. Again, maybe not to you, but it does matter to a lot of people.

What you are saying (I get it) that it doesn't matter if AMD needs 1 or 50 cores as long as it performs like intel xyz and costs less. I assure you, in the long run, it costs the same.

What I'm saying is that your argument "it needs 6 cores to reach intel's 4" is irrelevant, cause they cost the same (actually, AMD is cheaper). So, I don't really care if it need 4 6 or 188 cores.

Furthermore, 2400g has an IGP. Regarding Threadripper, do you even have one? Nobody buys that **** to play games, seriously.....

 

[m3tavision]

AMD owner's clearly won...!
Anyone who bought an AM4 motherboard isn't stuck with an outdated i5-7600..!

 

[dalpilot]

It's pretty simple, I just upgraded from my 5 year old FX-8300 (8 Core Piledriver) to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 for only 109.99, an Asrock AB450M Pro 4 MB for $60, and $32 for 8 GB of DDR 2800 RAM. Kept my RX-470 Graphics card (not a big gamer), and SATA SSDs. I have more than doubled my throughput for my main task - video editing of ripped movies for barely $200. Can't even get a decent MB and CPU from Intel for that price. Glad to see AMD have finally rewarded my patience although the FX-8300 did yeoman work for many, many years.

 

[Arbie]

What a shitty article just to keep the talk about the poorly end-user adopted ryzen which failed to beat on what it was promising to beat. it failed then and every day since then and even if you do another article after 3 years it will still be the same

I think I found the INTEL fanboy or INTEL shareholder.

Fanboy, doesn't sound smart enough to be a shareholder.

+1 although I'm not sure Intel shareholders are very smart either.

 

[Arbie]

(minus all the money wasted on different memory kits to find out which works as intended)

I bought a Ryzen 1800X at launch, looked at the QVL to find compatible memory, plugged in 64GB and that was that.

I suspect that a large percentage of the trouble reports were from people who either didn't pay attention or were trying to push the envelope from the start. Doing that with Ryzen simply wasn't as easy as with Intel - but there was NO difficulty in finding RAM that worked. Can't even imagine how you went through several kits...

In any case this "problem" only existed for a short time in 2017. Yet the Intel fanboys still constantly bring it up, as if it is some fundamental Ryzen / AMD flaw. Like, umm, all the Intel security holes.

 

[Themub]

(minus all the money wasted on different memory kits to find out which works as intended)

I bought a Ryzen 1800X at launch, looked at the QVL to find compatible memory, plugged in 64GB and that was that.

I suspect that a large percentage of the trouble reports were from people who either didn't pay attention or were trying to push the envelope from the start. Doing that with Ryzen simply wasn't as easy as with Intel - but there was NO difficulty in finding RAM that worked. Can't even imagine how you went through several kits...

In any case this "problem" only existed for a short time in 2017. Yet the Intel fanboys still constantly bring it up, as if it is some fundamental Ryzen / AMD flaw. Like, umm, all the Intel security holes.

İ dont know how many people had issues but well damn I bought the 1600at the launch and a msi x370 board , and 4 x 4 crucisl ram I could find the cheapest 2400 mhz , heck I did even overclocked them at 2933 mhz with lover timings.people talk and talk just so they can justify themselves

 

[Ludak021]

İ dont know how many people had issues but well damn I bought the 1600at the launch and a msi x370 board , and 4 x 4 crucisl ram I could find the cheapest 2400 mhz , heck I did even overclocked them at 2933 mhz with lover timings.people talk and talk just so they can justify themselves

So QVL lists don't exist. No company ever made ryzen certified memory line etc. Good to know that I am the one who is delusional.

 

[Zoobit681]

AMD owner's clearly won...!
Anyone who bought an AM4 motherboard isn't stuck with an outdated i5-7600..!

But why would anyone keep their old motherboard for 3 years and upgrade anyway? You'd be stuck with a processor that has no use or is worth like $40 on ebay...whoop de do. Not saying the first gen ryzen processors were slouches or anything but I'm not going to ask my old, outdated hardware to try and keep up with new equipment regardless. I don't know anyone that's still running systems this old as their primary gaming rig, either, unless they're into lighter gaming anyway.

 

[Zoobit681]

Fanboy, doesn't sound smart enough to be a shareholder.

This is why buying stock in brands you like is poor strategy compared to proper analysis. Despite AMDs excellent offerings in the CPU space currently, they simply lack the manufacturing capacity to make big moves in the market. Intel is outsourcing on top of their own fabs. AMD is relying on TSMC's very high demand 7nm for their cores and GloFo for their 12nm IO to make their CPUs and GloFo's 14 for chipsets. Granted GloFo doesn't have a lot of demand but TSMC for cores will keep AMD from being able to ship 1/4 of what Intel can make in house.

In the last 6 months, AMD is up 20% vs Intel's 24%. AMD's stock isn't really making moves so trying to use stock ownership as an insult is pretty pointless.

 

[Lew Zealand]

But why would anyone keep their old motherboard for 3 years and upgrade anyway? You'd be stuck with a processor that has no use or is worth like $40 on ebay...whoop de do. Not saying the first gen ryzen processors were slouches or anything but I'm not going to ask my old, outdated hardware to try and keep up with new equipment regardless. I don't know anyone that's still running systems this old as their primary gaming rig, either, unless they're into lighter gaming anyway.

Lots of people are gaming with R3 1200s like lots of people are gaming with i5 7400s. Why wouldn’t someone with a 1200 upgrade to an R5 3600 or R7 3800x 3 years later? The i5 owner has no such options but the Ryzen owner does. Please explain what part of CPU performance a 3600 or 3800x will not deliver on a B350 board compared to a current B450 or X570. PCIe4 on X570 offers negligible improvements at this time.

 

[Arbie]

But why would anyone keep their old motherboard for 3 years .. with a processor that has no use or is worth like $40 on ebay ... I don't know anyone that's still running systems this old ... unless they're into lighter gaming anyway.

I built a Ryzen 1800X system when it came out, and later added a 1080ti for gaming at 2560 x 1440.. This easily runs titles like Battlefield V, at high settings. Not "light" gaming by most standards. I'm certainly not going to toss this out and start over for a few more FPS! Nor is the CPU "of no use"!! It's still one of the more powerful chips available and - as with graphics - moving to something later and faster will have no significant effect on what I do. And BTW it's not three years old, but less than 2.5.

 

[m3tavision]

But why would anyone keep their old motherboard for 3 years and upgrade anyway? You'd be stuck with a processor that has no use or is worth like $40 on ebay...whoop de do. Not saying the first gen ryzen processors were slouches or anything but I'm not going to ask my old, outdated hardware to try and keep up with new equipment regardless. I don't know anyone that's still running systems this old as their primary gaming rig, either, unless they're into lighter gaming anyway.

So you are saying, that regardless.... You buy a new mobo every time you buy a new CPU, even if that CPU uses the same socket...?