Upgrading to Ryzen 5 5600 from Ryzen 5 1600: How Much Faster?

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,597   +2,562
8C/16T lost to consumer market quad cores right out of the gate.

"Intel Core i9-13900 ‘Raptor Lake’ Early CPU Sample Tested, Up To 50% Faster Than Core i9-12900 ‘Alder Lake’ at Just 3.7 GHz Clock Speeds"

The above would be impressive. 100% over 5 years when the first couple gens weren't great, not so much.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,183   +3,767
Thanks for the review and especially for including a 6600XT - imho, a graphics card in this performance class should be rather common, so having both a top end and lower mid range card in the mix is great.

One thing I am curious about is system power consumption for the two CPU - I guess it‘s similar but would still be nice to know.

Seeing how in my market, there‘s only a €10 difference between the 5600 non-x and x I‘d go for the latter but that‘s probably different per market.
 

takaozo

Posts: 203   +292
Also I decided it's time to let go i7 4790 and move on. Just ordered 5600x at 180 Euro.
A B550 MB + 16G 3200 Ram another 200.
I did want to go for AM5, but the prices are killer here right now for DDR5. I'm sure on launch CPU+MB will the same for next 6 months.
Waiting for the new toys
 

Strawman

Posts: 577   +294
How much faster is an 8700k compared to an 2600k? Or an i5 6600k compared to the i5 12600k? Those are also 5 years apart, and they probably offer more performance difference, especially in non gaming workloads
 

dangh

Posts: 662   +1,037
How much faster is an 8700k compared to an 2600k? Or an i5 6600k compared to the i5 12600k? Those are also 5 years apart, and they probably offer more performance difference, especially in non gaming workloads
But you can't just get 8700k CPU, you'd need at least a new MB. So we are talking about totally different operation and costs here.
 
How much faster is an 8700k compared to an 2600k? Or an i5 6600k compared to the i5 12600k? Those are also 5 years apart, and they probably offer more performance difference, especially in non gaming workloads
7500k vs 2500k in userbenchmark is 9%
If u compare a 2700k with 4c/8t from 10th gen it will be like <25% faster. Which is mostly from faster ram, ssd etc. No significant improvement in architecture till 12th gen.
If it weren't for amd we would still have 4c8t 14nm skylake in 12th gen.
 

Strawman

Posts: 577   +294
But you can't just get 8700k CPU, you'd need at least a new MB. So we are talking about totally different operation and costs here.
You can't, but for the price of the 5600 you can get a 10400f + a motherboard, instead of having to deal with a 5 year old out of warranty board.
 

Strawman

Posts: 577   +294
7500k vs 2500k in userbenchmark is 9%
If u compare a 2700k with 4c/8t from 10th gen it will be like <25% faster. Which is mostly from faster ram, ssd etc. No significant improvement in architecture till 12th gen.
Userbenchmark doesn't benchmark games, and there is no CPU called 7500k.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,604   +5,529
You can't, but for the price of the 5600 you can get a 10400f + a motherboard, instead of having to deal with a 5 year old out of warranty board.
That isn't for you to decide. I plan on dropping a 5800x3d on my b370 motherboard just because I don't want to deal with the hassle of taking it all apart. If the motherboard dies before I do a complete system rebuild then I'll just buy a newer one.

I'm not a teenager anymore, building computers isn't fun for me.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 796   +1,086
7500k vs 2500k in userbenchmark is 9%
If u compare a 2700k with 4c/8t from 10th gen it will be like <25% faster. Which is mostly from faster ram, ssd etc. No significant improvement in architecture till 12th gen.
If it weren't for amd we would still have 4c8t 14nm skylake in 12th gen.

I think you intended to to compare the intel 7600k vs 2500k

Speaking of which, the 1600/x was never a great gaming CPU. I recall people screaming to the high heavens when comparing the intel 7600k vs the 1600/x. An OC 7600k was a great gaming CPU for a short time (bad long term investment) while the 1600/x was never great. The 1600/x was OK and simply got slower over time like any other CPU just didn't drop off as fast as the 7600k.

That said the AMD 5600/x are great gaming CPUs.
 
Last edited:

yRaz

Posts: 4,604   +5,529
I'm not a teen also, need glasses for near, but the fun it's still there as on 286 days. Beside each take apart give you the chance to do it better. Only if you have enough free time and Beer!!! Also a friend can help.
Sharp plastic clips, cutting yourself on sheet metal, solder joints digging into your skin and playing with front IO pins? I'll pass.
 

dangh

Posts: 662   +1,037
You can't, but for the price of the 5600 you can get a 10400f + a motherboard, instead of having to deal with a 5 year old out of warranty board.
With a motherboard? I think I'd rather keep my solid MB without warranty, than getting a $50 motherboard for 10400f. Especially, given 10400f have more or less same performance as Ryzen 3600:
and 5600 is solid improvement over 3600.

So yes, If I'd have to choose between getting a 5600 for $180 to my old pc and simply swap a die, or getting 10400f for $125 with some cheapest mb possible, answer is very simple. And yeah, if my mb lasted 5 years then it will be fine for at least 5 more. And I will have bit better performance.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 796   +1,086
Sharp plastic clips, cutting yourself on sheet metal, solder joints digging into your skin and playing with front IO pins? I'll pass.

I agree and for all the reasons you mention. Unfortunately, I'm cheap and like to pick my own parts so I guess I'll continue building for now...
 

dangh

Posts: 662   +1,037
Sharp plastic clips, cutting yourself on sheet metal, solder joints digging into your skin and playing with front IO pins? I'll pass.
I think you haven't built anything in recent years, and probably never with decent components;) you mount everything on a mb try outside, clicking it in the case without worry, whole operation takes like 20 minutes, and then you're set. All you need is steady hand and minimum amount of manual understanding.
I got myself recently a meshilicious and no company will offer a better performing, smaller form factor out of a shelf, for similar price than what I was able to put together, with pleasure;)
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,604   +5,529
I think you haven't built anything in recent years, and probably never with decent components;) you mount everything on a mb try outside, clicking it in the case without worry, whole operation takes like 20 minutes, and then you're set. All you need is steady hand and minimum amount of manual understanding.
I got myself recently a meshilicious and no company will offer a better performing, smaller form factor out of a shelf, for similar price than what I was able to put together, with pleasure;)
I build a several computers a year, you should see my server room
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,574   +3,136
TechSpot Elite
It really depends on one's current configuration. For example, my work partner has a PC that he uses principally for gaming and it has an R5-1600X at its heart. However, he would see no gaming benefit from this upgrade because his card isn't fast enough. He finally upgraded his card last week from a GTX 1060 to an RX 6600 XT (his first ATi GPU).

My card is an RX 6800 XT and it gets 160FPS at 1440p in Witcher III while my R5-3600X gets 150fps. There would be no benefit for me to upgrade my CPU because what is a jump from 150 to 160fps going to do for me, even if I have a high-refresh monitor (which I don't).

I have to give some constructive criticism to TechSpot in this situation because I had to go to Guru3D.com to find charts that matched up. It doesn't help to do CPU gaming tests at 1080p while the GPU tests are all at 1440p and above because upgrading can introduce a bottleneck that totally destroys any performance uplift.

In this situation, the R5-1600X gets 269fps at 720p, 200fps at 1080p and 150fps at 1440p while the RX 6800 XT gets 160fps at 1440p. While I understand that there's little value in benchmarking a card as potent as the RX 6800 XT above 1080p, benchmarking CPUs at 1440p allows people to get a good idea of whether or not a CPU upgrade would leave the system with a GPU bottleneck or vice-versa. There's also the fact that if you have a standard 1080p 60hz monitor which, let's face it, most people do, upgrading your CPU or GPU when both already offer a minimum fps of above 60fps in all games is a waste of money.

My screen's a 2160p display so I MIGHT get a bit of a boost at 2160p but it's really not worth it.
 

dangh

Posts: 662   +1,037
I build a several computers a year, you should see my server room
I would really like to see it, it is usually a nice experience to see some other setups and find other people ideas.
But it's pity you do not enjoy this part of your job, then. For me, putting pc stuff together is like playing with lego. Sure, sometimes separating those £$%£$ is pain, but hey, my Apollo rocket looks avesome ;)
 

Kam7r

Posts: 75   +146
7500k vs 2500k in userbenchmark is 9%
If u compare a 2700k with 4c/8t from 10th gen it will be like <25% faster. Which is mostly from faster ram, ssd etc. No significant improvement in architecture till 12th gen.
If it weren't for amd we would still have 4c8t 14nm skylake in 12th gen.
you should inform yourself about userbenchmark... it's a scummy site and their results should not be taken into consideration
 
You should probably mention that not all B350 boards got the BIOS update required to run 5000 series CPUs. I have an Asrock B350 Gaming K4 that hasn't received any BIOS updates since October 2020. I upgraded to a 3000 series after AMD said B350 boards weren't able to support the 5000 series. Then a year later they figured it out (magically when Intel got competitive again), but only certain boards actually got the update.