First benchmark in games of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 processor, it aims to be a processor with good performance in games, although we lack a comparison with Intel processors.
The thing is about leaks. After seeing the first benchmarks of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 processor under synthetic benchmarks such as the Cinebench R15 and R11.5, the user Jefferson Lamin, who seems to work on the Brazilian computer store Connect Informatica, has made a new leak, this benchmark view with games. It is not compared to other processors, but several games have been played under the processor's stock frequency, which is 3.2GHz and the stable Boost frequency of 3.6GHz.
Regarding the equipment used, apart from the processor, the ASRock AM4 X370 Killer SLI motherboard has been used, two modules of 8GB each of DDR4 G.Skill Trident Z RAM working at 3200MHz, a Raid 0 of SSD Corsair Neutron GTX of 120GB each, an EVGA 850 G2 power supply and an MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X graphics card. Regarding the software, Windows 10 Pro v1607 and GeForce WHQL 378.92 drivers have been used.
Within the video, which we will leave you at the end of the post, we can see all the settings of the games, something that is of little interest at the moment. What interests us is that it performs quite well. The graphics are without comparison with another processor and all with 1080p resolutions, the most common resolution at the moment in the gaming world and apparently it performs quite well.
We see that with a small 'overclocking' the difference in FPS is 2-5FPS in most cases, except in the Deus Ex which remains the same despite the 'overclocking' and in the Counter Strike the difference is quite large, but This game is not precisely that it consumes excessive resources, therefore it is not excessively relevant. It remains to see a comparison with other processors, but it points to be a tough problem for Intel.
UPGRADE
We have been looking for reviews of the Intel i7 7600K of the Kaby Lake family and we have found a quite similar one in the middle PCGamer, of some of the games that are shown in the benchmark performed in the video and the truth is that the thing is quite interesting.
They render almost the same except in the Doom, perfect, totally poorly optimized, without using the logic cores well and all that. Guaranteed purchase of the R5 1600
You must not have seen it well, only in the Deus Ex the AMD processor is above, in the rest it is below, quite clearly in some cases. They are good processors, yes, but for the price, I don't know if the AMD is worth it.
File transfer my Ryzen 1700x @stock beats my Core i7 by a landslide [email protected] In less than 15% of the time it is a beast, now in games it must lose because I don't have programs that see numbers but let's assume as the reviews say except in some others that it defeats the 7700k oceaned at 5ghz added to ddr4 3200 memories against a ryzen 1700 with ddr4 2133 memories, and in everything else such as video rendering, 3d design etc Ryzen is superior to many of Intel's extreme high line
The 6700k doesn't have more cores, that's why it wins. There's no doubt that it's a rehash of the FX, and how strange is that the 1800x can't handle Adobe programs open at the same time.
Well, this is far from being a rehash of the FX, it's a totally different architecture, it seems you don't know much about hardware.
I know the hardware, I have the Ryzen 1800x, this change to the 4790k, I dedicate myself to graphic design
Unless you studied computer architecture there, I don't think you know how hardware works in its internal part. It is one thing to know a name and to know what they do (another is to know how they work, how they transmit the information through the bus interacting between each nucleus, storing in the memory chache and the ram). This is still very complex and varies a lot depending on the architecture, even for those of us who are IT professionals (although I am dedicated to IT security, not programming).
Knowing how they work is the least I can do, I studied electronics and communications.
It is not the same to study electronics as computer science, you only handle the hardware part and ignore how the software influences it. This I know from working with many electronics engineers when it comes to data networks (radio link antennas and fiber optics). They have a very deep understanding of electronic components but they don't handle the different layers of software.
You have no fucking idea
The architecture is totally different, the FX 8000 were not really 8-core processors, but rather 4 "modules" with 8 threads, as can be seen since they shared an FPU among other resources.
The AMD Ryzen are processors with two CCX of 4 cores and 8 threads, together forming a processing unit with 8 cores and 16 real threads, since they do not share resources with each other, other than the level 3 cache.
The two architectures have absolutely nothing in common.
From ignorance… The speed in terms of reading and writing files has nothing more to do with the speed of the hard disk? I think another thing would be to compress or decompress files, right?
Clear! It is always a better option to pay the inflated prices of the Intel platform,… even if they are in a technical tie.
hahahaha Baurk opened your eyes you have been blinded and you don't want to see reality
I see it very clearly. AMD needs more cores and still can't handle Intel processors. It's that sad, really.
But dude, the 1000 bucks Intel processor with 8/16 cores/threads can't even compete against the 7700k in gaming, so Intel is selling you crap for 1000 euros, right? GOOD THING 😉 and have a good day
Processors of the same or similar price are being compared. AMD said that the AMD Ryzen came to compete with Intel's mid-range, such as the i5. Looking at the data of the Ryzen 5 1600, with more cores and threads, we see that it cannot with a mid-range processor from Intel. Mix what you want processors that do not correspond to the claims of the brands or for functions that are not those of gaming. The Ryzen 7 no one said that they were a priority for gaming, in fact, they can be used, but they are more intended for rendering utilities and heavy computing tasks. You love talking for the sake of talking and taking things to the field that you really want. The data is the above and the data, they make everything very clear.
I'm not ashamed to say that AMD has released good processors, which is a reality, but it's abundantly clear that they are premature and that AMD has lacked optimization, since they have internal latency issues and have seen BIOS problems because they launched them prematurely and manufacturers haven't been able to work their motherboards so that these processors work well from day one. Even Windows 10 has had problems with these processors.
Okay, and now suppose for a moment that I do not defend any brand and I am just trying to explain that on this website it is only compared vs 1k in gaming, and I am saying that the processors are not being compared precisely, basically because the 7700k also They are below 6900k in games, that people here do not know
The Intel platform has been the same for 7 years, it is normal that it is so refined. Instead AMD is a new architecture.
Don't you see the differences?
If you play 1080p there are differences, although today that the 2600 is, these differences are reduced to 1080p and 1440p onwards are insignificant because it is the graph that does not give more, on the other hand I have an 8700k and the reality is that The 2600 6 cores 12 threads is 150 euros less, if you add that you do not have to buy a heatsink and on top of that, a 150 euro x470 plate will give you great performance, which intel invite you to see a deu8er video that compares Z370 in a range from 100 to 140 euros and there are some that do not even give the 4300mhz that theoretically give the 6 nuclei of interest, so I do not know that it is not worth it, obviously if you are left over well yes, even so I do not see justified that intel count 150 euros more, with your colgate (I've done delid)
I have the B350 Tomahawk with BIOS 1.1, the performance has improved quite a bit. You have to see how it is and what memory configuration is compared to those Core i5s. There are inflated reviews. The thing is to look at Guru3d, which is more serious.
Bios 1.3 is out and supports more ram memory.
Ryzen 5 1600 in stock at €235 xtremmedia
I buy it for sure.
The DDR4 memories are at 3200 or could they install and recognize them at that speed !! ???, on the other hand I see that in appearance the Ryzen 5 is located between the core i5 and the i7 in performance !! .. the data will have to be organized under the same configuration in the rest of Hardware to compare it, because at the moment I do not know why there is still no data that can be considered as reliable when including the direct comparison in the graphs!
Everywhere you see intel fan people trying to throw amd with its tangents, being a new technology the most normal thing is that it has failures, it is seen everywhere, even investigating they can realize that it happened to intel but nobody brings that up, on the other hand, how it hurts people with fanaticism on both sides. They are rooted in the fact that one is better than another 1000 times, they are making comparisons of a platform that is a rehash such as Intel's 7th and a platform just taking off like amd RYZEN, give a couple of months to have what happens when ryzen is stable.
other people tend to stick to any bench to talk, that up to now is very circumstantial, until you have a confrontation in conditions it is better to wait!
The Kaby Lake are a rehash, but even so, with fewer cores, it goes over the AMD Ryzen. As you say, they have architecture failures and have problems in integration with the operating system, games, motherboard and RAM, in these last two cases, because you have launched a platform ahead of time and the manufacturers did not have the BIOS ready and there was hardly any stock , both processor and motherboards and by the way, heatsinks and heatsink adapters. Let's say it all.
Those of you who like to mix everything are some of you who do not know how to distinguish between utilities. AMD Ryzen processors in gaming, against Intel's counterparts in gaming, such as Kaby Lake and Skylake cannot be a reality, you have the data in the main hardware websites and we did an exhaustive analysis of the Ryzen, even, speaking of its architecture, something that you will not find anywhere else in Spain.
When we talk about synthetic benchmarks, I find it a mockery to compare eight-core processors with quad-core processors. AMD right now in multithreaded and multithreaded tasks competes with the Broadwell-E, waiting for the Skylake-X and the Kaby Lake-X to arrive, which will easily pass over the Ryzen 7 1700, 1700X and 1800X. Imagine if AMD knows this that it has launched to manufacture Ryzen 7 HEDT processors with 16 and 12 cores, which are nothing more than two Ryzen 7 1800X processors in the same DIE and even so, it remains to be known how the new AMD processors perform.
It would be nice if they said everything and not just what we want.
Let's see if I understand, the intel I7-6950 that has a lot more cores than the I7 7700K (MADE FOR GAMER) but it doesn't even come close to this in game review, wouldn't it be worth it? , What is there to see the performance or the number of cores? Just look at single-wire operation? What about performance-price? Are we talking about consumption? As soon as Windows releases its patch (we already know the Windows-INTEL agreements that relegated AMD) and game developers design taking advantage of these mike monsters, we'll see. Resign yourself man, the RYZEN 1700x and 1800X eat EVERYONE in their range in multi-thread and mono-thread, at a looooot lower price and with less consumption ……… that if it has many cores hahahahaha
AMD has already said that Windows isn't to blame for the Ryzen's performance. And there are some French and English pages that demonstrate why. Although they're very arduous because they're full of technicalities. And... about the developers... They were already struggling to release games optimized for a quad... And I'm talking about Maria Castaña's time (Q6600, for example)... I'd better sit and wait to see AMD's unleashed performance. If you do it standing up, you'll get tired anyway. Just look at how an Intel hexa or octa core performs as well as, or almost as well, an i7. And in the sheer number of games where octa and hexa cores outperform them (irony). And this hasn't happened since the launch of Ryzen; it already happened a few years ago among Intel itself. Back then, people used to say... If you're going to play, go for an i5. If you have money to spare, go for an i7. And if you're going to work with it, go for a hexa or octa core. Now with Ryzen, do we all need an R7 to play games, check Facebook, read email, browse, and listen to music? At least I don't. You're complete conspiracy theorists, not to mention fanboys.
Nothing nothing, buy your Intel man, even if they give you less for more.
It's what I did a year ago and I would do it again knowing the use I'll give my PC and knowing that it will give me more fps.
Congratulations, you have 10 FPS more than your eye will not notice, but the important thing is that you are happy with your purchase, nothing to reproach, at the end of the day we are all free.
Whether my eyes (any of the three) notice or fail to notice the difference for or against 10, 15, or 20 fps isn't an objective fact. Whether the R5s perform less or the same as a 6700 or 7700k is. Then there may be a couple of games that have actually been programmed to parallelize fantastically and take full advantage of the Ryzen's cores and threads. But I won't enter that debate. It's been going on since the days of Intel's first Core Duo and Quad processors. And it took years before developers changed the chip. From what I understand, it boils down to how arduous parallel programming is. It doesn't stop me. And no, Windows or its task manager are to blame for that lower performance. Said by Lisa (not the one from The Simpsons, the other one). Ergo... If I get 10 more fps with my i7 that none of my three eyes will ever notice... What's the problem? I'm happy. As you say, it's my free will. And objectively... It's true.
It's not an objective fact, it's an UNQUESTIONABLE fact. You'll never be able to tell between two PCs which one runs at 150 FPS or 160 FPS, obviously unless you're not human. I insist again, buy what you like, it doesn't matter if you pay more for the same thing or less. A quality product is one that meets the buyer's needs regardless of its price. And I recommend that if you want an exclusive PC for gaming and don't mind paying, the i7 7700K is without a doubt the best. I have no trouble admitting it.
It may not be noticed, it is possible. I never played 150 or 160. You have to understand what the bench shows. I mean ... this mic, with these memories, with this ssd, with this graphic, in this game ... maximum and minimum fps. Later, when configuring your computer ... you will not be able (I speak for me) to buy that 1080 that in the bench they analyzed with the processor you bought. Depending on the possibilities of each one ... he will take advantage of the graphics, buy a new one and it will be more or less powerful, but almost never a 1080, as in the bench. And then ... what happens happens. I play with a 1060, 480, 290x, 390, 960 with a stable 60 fps almost always, occasional dips at 45 in some places. So I say that in those cases, the common man who can not buy a 1080, mount sli or crossfire etc ... without making it longer, would have to buy a 6700 or 7700k as you say. Because together with current mid-range graphics or one or two generations ago, it will take some more extra fps ... and thus minimize scratches. And yes, okay, you don't notice the difference between 150 or 160. But the rails from 45 to 60 are, right? So ... those 10 fps do make sense.
It is clear, send money, if we have left over… .hehe
If you have money to buy a 7700k you have money to spend on a better chart, so that argument is not very valid.
It's not my case. Not that of many read in many forums. Which is better, investing in processor or graphics? It is clear, who can not choose and there will be people who will have an unlimited budget when choosing configuration. There will be other people with a tighter budget who will weigh some components over others.
If you are going to configure a PC gamer, of course you will put a good processor, but as we all know, almost no game takes advantage of more than 4 cores, with which, that is not so important and if it charges a better graphics instead of a better one. processor, so if you can get a 7700k, then you buy a lower one and a better graphics. Always knowing the orientation of the PC in question
Yes, without going into details, right. But if you opt for a worse graphics and a better processor, you make sure that when you change graphics it does not suffer from the micro bottleneck. I pass with a c2d and a c2q. A processor with more cores withstands the passage of time better than a top-of-the-range graphics. And to play at good 1080 fps you don't need a graphics cucumber. And at least the passage from 960 to 1060 represented a good pull in that regard. As I think I remember, the 960 in some games were somewhat short. The 1060 I think not. He stressed the I think. But the change from 960 was remarkable.
A top-of-the-range processor can handle two or three graphics card changes during its lifetime before you have to worry about bottlenecks. A top-of-the-range graphics card from one year to the next is "outdated." Understand the quotation marks. Compare the performance of a 980 vs. a 1080. And look at the jump from a 960 to a 1060. These are two cases of "I want to, but I can't." But at least I'm clear on which one I'd go with, given the leap that processors experience from generation to generation and comparing this with the leap that graphics cards experience.
You have a ryzen that is clear, quality / price maybe amd will win, I do not know what conspiracies you see, that you want the developers to make games for fx, which are a chusta, anyway today that I answer you there are already the ryzen 2000 for what are closer but at 1080p resolution it is still lower amd and 4k even an i3 works like an 8700k, I don't know if you know what the processor has to do, physics and drawings as the graphics send it, so at that resolution practically up to a pentium would walk
How much does it consume?
Less than 100W, apart from being super cool
with more mature bios updates for windows patch for games the beast is unleashed I only hope to see that they release the 12, 14, 16 cores for the desktop and they will see how the core I7-Extremes bite the dust (extremes in clear price)