The solution to that query would possibly appear glaring to lots of you, no longer least as a result of our Ryzen five evaluation mentioned the non-X style gave the look of a greater price. However, we did not in reality have a simple 1600 on-hand on the time, we simply assumed in keeping with what we noticed with the Ryzen 7 chips that the 1600 would overclock as smartly, or a minimum of just about in addition to the 1600X.
Although there is not more likely to be a dramatic efficiency distinction between the 2 chips, the $220 1600 comes bundled with the 95-watt ‘Wraith Spire’ cooler, whilst the $250 1600X does not include a cooler in any respect. If you upload the price of a elementary heatsink to the 1600X, the non-X model is round 20% inexpensive, but it should not be greater than 10% slower out of the field.
The ‘X-rated’ 1600X additionally options “XFR” or Extended Frequency Range, which is mainly a beefier model of Turbo that shall we the CPU overclock itself just a little tougher when attributes reminiscent of energy, present and thermals are inside appropriate levels. XFR is enabled through default on ‘X’ style Ryzen CPUs, although it is disabled when manually overclocking.
The 1600X has a base clock pace of three.6GHz, a spice up clock of four.zero GHz and a most XFR spice up pace of four.1GHz. However the ones figures are just a little deceptive.
For instance, spice up frequencies will handiest permit the 1600X to hit four – four.1GHz for single-threaded workloads, while the CPU may not in reality spice up upper than three.7GHz on multi-threaded workloads, or an insignificant three% building up over the bottom clock.
The 1600 alternatively operates at a base clock frequency of simply three.2GHz and is marketed to spice up as excessive as three.6GHz, although once more that spice up frequency will handiest be accomplished when taxing a unmarried core. However, in spite of promoting a spice up pace of three.6GHz, stressing a unmarried core typically additionally sees the 1600 show off XFR-like positive aspects, permitting it to succeed in three.7GHz. Interestingly, it kind of feels like every Ryzen CPUs function XFR.
The 1600’s most multi-thread frequency is three.4GHz, which implies that for heavy workloads it is going to handiest be clocked eight% not up to the 1600X. Of route, those figures might be other should you manually overclock, which is undoubtedly value making an allowance for for the reason that Ryzen CPUs are unlocked and the 1600 can also be driven somewhat arduous with the Wraith Spire field cooler.
We can already say that if you do not plan to overclock, the 1600X is the speedier CPU whilst the 1600 is the easier price because it cannot be greater than 10% slower and but it is a minimum of 20% more cost effective due to the integrated field cooler and decrease MSRP.
However, we are not certain if that tale stays true when overclocking, particularly if the 1600X gives extra headroom. Rumor is, the X-models are able to larger frequencies and now we have observed some proof of this with the 1700X and 1700, although for essentially the most section the margins had been skinny.
The 1600X chip we have now on-hand for checking out had no hassle hitting four.1GHz at simply 1.38 volts and it was once even conceivable to benchmark the device at four.2GHz after expanding the voltage to at least one.five, however AMD recommends a most of one.45 volts for sustained use.
Set on the similar 1.38 volts, the 1600 reached 4GHz — no longer dangerous — and lengthening the voltage a fragment extra to at least one.four allowed us to succeed in a solid overclock of 4050MHz, handiest 50MHz shy of what the 1600X controlled.
Of route, this can have very simply been round the wrong way. I simply came about to obtain a just right 1600X. I have observed a lot of reviewers and now customers restricted to 4GHz with the 1600X, in order at all times with overclocking, your mileage will range (4GHz does appear just about assured, although).
For single-threaded workloads, the guide overclock may not in reality be any sooner than the inventory four.1GHz XFR efficiency, however multi-threaded efficiency will have to be as much as 11% sooner for the 1600X and 21% sooner for the 1600.
Before shifting on, we will have to word that this is not an in-depth Ryzen five 1600 evaluation — in reality, it isn’t in point of fact a evaluation in any respect. That will come later together with protection of the quad-core 1400 style.
Instead, we concept it could be fascinating to take an in depth have a look at the efficiency variations between AMD’s six-core Ryzen five processors, assuming you’re fortunate sufficient to be out there for a brand new CPU priced between $200 and $250.
Test System Specs
Something I will have to word instantly is that even with G.Skill’s new FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 reminiscence, the Ryzen five 1600 was once restricted to working the reminiscence at 2933. This was once the similar limitation we confronted with the 1500X, so high-speed reminiscence make stronger continues to be dependent at the CPU. This will hand the 1600X a slight benefit, over the benefit it already had because of the ones upper clock speeds.
In any case, even with DDR4-2933 reminiscence the 1600 was once nonetheless just right for a reminiscence throughput of 35GB/s.
When checking out with Cinebench R15, the 1600X is 10% sooner within the multi-threaded check and 11% sooner within the single-threaded check, which is set what we might be expecting to peer out of the field. Remember the 1600X is clocked 11% upper for single-threaded paintings and nine% upper for multi, so those figures make sense.
7-Zip supplies a glimpse into actual international software efficiency with each the compression and decompression assessments the usage of all to be had threads at the 1600X and 1600. Here the 1600X was once round 7 to eight% sooner than the 1600, which is consistent with what was once prior to now observed in Cinebench and once more given the out of the field clock speeds those are the margins we anticipated to peer.
Testing recreation efficiency with Hitman we discover that the 1600X is solely four% sooner than the 1600 when evaluating both the common or minimal body charges. Obviously no longer an important distinction and it explains why we did not see many profitable positive aspects in maximum video games when overclocking Ryzen.
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is the remaining recreation I used to check the 1600 and 1600X. This time we see an insignificant 2 to a few% efficiency benefit in desire of the 1600X, so once more it seems like you’ll be expecting a deficient go back on funding when purchasing the 1600X for gaming.
When overclocked, efficiency is equalized at the Ryzen five CPUs. The 1600 fell simply 50MHz shy of the 1600X when the usage of affordable voltages — clearly a negligible distinction and as you’ll see each CPUs allowed the Titan XbigP to reasonable 88fps.
The Ryzen five 1600 is the most obvious selection as suspected. Between its $220 asking worth and bundled cooler, it gifts an excessive amount of of a worth proposition to offer the cooler-less 1600X a lot attention at $250.
All informed, with the 1600 CPU and its cooler fastened on an inexpensive B350 motherboard together with reminiscence reminiscent of G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4-2400 16GB equipment, you’ve got the core elements of a killer six-core/12-thread device for not more than $400.
How a lot does Intel’s Core i7-6800Ok price once more?
The 1600-based construct has much more enchantment while you understand that it will have to overclock to a minimum of 4GHz whilst our G.Skill RAM reached 2933MHz with comfy timings.
Looking at it that approach, the Ryzen five 1600 is a phenomenal price. As I discovered previous within the week, even in comparison to extra inexpensive CPUs such because the Core i5-7600Ok, the brand new six-core Ryzen chips are a significantly better purchase, irrespective of what it’s you intend to do with them.
However, there may be no longer a lot reason why for any person to buy the 1600X over the 1600 as you might be handiest paying extra for much less. You could be questioning why AMD would unencumber a 1600X in any respect and I would say it exists merely to maximise benefit.
AMD’s taking part in a identical recreation as Intel with those chips. The distinction being that they’re doing it with out utterly profiting from fans who wish to save just a little cash. When it involves the 1600, you might be being rewarded for doing all of your homework and just a little tinkering.
Find more at: Tech Cuber