The answer to this question may seem obvious to many of you, not least because our Ryzen 5 test showed that the non-X model looks like a better value. At that point, however, we didn't have a simple 1600 on hand. We just assumed that the 1600 would overclock as well or at least almost as well as the 1600X.
Although there is likely to be no dramatic difference in performance between the two chips, the $ 220- $ 1600 will come with the 95-watt cooler & # 39; Wraith Spire & # 39; shipped while the $ 250 1600X contains no cooler at all. If you add the cost of a simple heatsink to the 1600X, the non-X version is about 20% cheaper, but shouldn't be more than 10% slower.
The & # 39; X-Rated & # 39; 1600X also has "XFR" or Extended Frequency Range. This is basically a more powerful version of Turbo, which allows the CPU to overclock itself a bit more if attributes like performance, current and thermal are within acceptable ranges. XFR is on Ryzen model & # 39; X & # 39; Enabled by default, but disabled when manually overclocking.
The 1600X has a base clock rate of 3.6 GHz, a boost clock of 4.0 GHz and a maximum XFR boost speed of 4.1 GHz. However, these numbers are somewhat misleading.
For example, boost frequencies only allow the 1600X to reach 4 to 4.1 GHz for single-threaded workloads, while the CPU does not increase more than 3.7 GHz or only 3% more than the base clock for multi-threaded workloads.
The 1600, on the other hand, works with a base clock frequency of only 3.2 GHz and is said to increase up to 3.6 GHz, although this increase frequency is only achieved when a single core is taxed. Despite the promotion of a boost speed of 3.6 GHz, the 1600 also has XFR-like reinforcements in most cases when a single core is loaded, so that it can reach 3.7 GHz. Interestingly, all Ryzen CPUs seem to have XFR.
The 1600's maximum multithreaded frequency is 3.4 GHz, which indicates that it is clocked only 8% lower than the 1600X when the workload is high. Of course, these numbers differ when you manually overclock. This is certainly worth considering, as Ryzen CPUs are unlocked and the 1600 can be pushed pretty hard with the Wraith Spire box cooler.
We can already say that the 1600X is the faster CPU if you don't want to overclock, while the 1600 is the better value because it can't be more than 10% slower and still be cheaper thanks to the at least 20% including box cooler and lower RRP.
However, we're not sure if this story remains true when overclocking, especially if the 1600X offers more headroom. Rumor has it that the X models are capable of higher frequencies, and we've seen some evidence of this on the 1700X and 1700, although the edges were mostly thin.
The 1600X chip that we have available for testing had no problems reaching 4.1 GHz at just 1.38 volts, and it was even possible to measure the system at 4.2 GHz after the voltage was on 1.5 was increased. However, AMD recommends a maximum of 1.45 volts for permanent use.
At the same 1.38 volts, the 1600 reached 4 GHz – not bad – and increasing the voltage by a fraction to 1.4 allowed us to achieve a stable overclocking of 4050 MHz, only 50 MHz less than the 1600X.
Of course, this could very easily have been reversed. I just got a good 1600X. I've seen a lot of reviewers and now users with the 1600X are limited to 4 GHz. As always when overclocking, your mileage will vary (however, 4 GHz seems almost guaranteed).
For single-threaded workloads, manual overclocking is no faster than standard 4.1 GHz XFR performance, but multithreaded performance should be up to 11% faster on the 1600X and 21% faster on the 1600.
Before we proceed, we should note that this is not a detailed Ryzen 5 1600 test – in fact, it is not a test at all. This will be done later along with the coverage of the quad-core 1400 model.
Instead, we thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at the performance differences between the AMD Ryzen 5 processors with six cores, provided you are lucky enough to be on the market for a new CPU that costs between $ 200 and $ 250 lies.
Test system specifications
I should immediately note that the Ryzen 5 1600, even with G.Skill's new FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, was limited to running the 2933 memory. This was the same limitation we faced with 1500X high-speed memory. Support continues to depend on the CPU. This gives the 1600X a slight advantage over the advantage it already had due to these higher clock speeds.
Even with DDR4-2933 memory, the 1600 was definitely still good for a memory throughput of 35 GB / s.
When testing with Cinebench R15, the 1600X is 10% faster in the multithread test and 11% faster in the single-thread test, which is roughly what we would expect from the start. Keep in mind that the 1600X is 11% faster for single-threaded work and 9% higher for multi-threaded work. Therefore, these numbers make sense.
7-Zip provides insight into real-world application performance in both compression and decompression testing using all available threads on the 1600X and 1600. Here the 1600X was about 7 to 8% faster than the 1600, which is the same as the previous one in Cinebench seen and given the ready-to-use clock rates, these are the margins that we expected.
When testing game performance with Hitman, we find that the 1600X is only 4% faster than the 1600 when comparing either the average or the minimum frame rate. Obviously no significant difference, and it explains why we haven't seen many rewarding wins overclocking Ryzen in most games.
Ashes of Singularity: Escalation is the last game I've compared 1600 and 1600X to. This time we only see a performance advantage of 2 to 3% in favor of the 1600X. So it looks like you can expect a poor return on investment when you buy the 1600X for gaming.
When overclocking, the performance of the Ryzen 5 CPUs is balanced. The 1600 fell only 50 MHz behind the 1600X when using appropriate voltages – obviously a negligible difference, and as you can see, both CPUs allowed the Titan XbigP to achieve an average of 88 fps.
The Ryzen 5 1600 is the obvious choice, as suspected. Between the price of $ 220 and the bundled cooler, it offers too much promise to pay much attention to the cooler-less 1600X at $ 250.
All in all, with the 1600 CPU and its cooler, which are mounted on an affordable B350 motherboard, as well as memory such as the FlareX DDR4-2400 16 GB kit from G.Skill, you have the core components of a killer six-core / 12 thread machine no more than $ 400.
What does Intel's Core i7-6800K cost again?
The 1600-based build is even more appealing when you find that it should overclock to at least 4 GHz, while our G.Skill RAM reached 2933 MHz with relaxed timings.
Seen in this way, the Ryzen 5 1600 is an exceptional value. As I noted earlier this week, the new six-core Ryzen chips are a much better buy even compared to cheaper CPUs like the Core i5-7600K, regardless of what you do with them.
However, there is not much reason for someone to buy the 1600X over the 1600 as you only pay more for less. You may be wondering why AMD would release a 1600X in the first place, and I would say that it only exists to maximize profit.
With these chips, AMD plays a similar game to Intel. The difference is that they do this without taking full advantage of the enthusiasts who want to save a little money. When it comes to 1600, you will be rewarded for your homework and a little handicraft.