Not everyone wants to buy a processor to game on. @BetaRomeo, I have seen a few comments about how an overclocked old processor can keep up with or beat xxxx processor from AMD. The same can be said of an older processor keeping up with the latest and greatest that Intel offer. I find it kind of disappointing that so many articles online look to be downplaying the AMD offerings, saying they can't do this or that, or can't beat this or that. We (the consumer) should be happy at the new competition. I have seen some comments online from folk that you would think they were major shareholders in Intel. It's almost like how people become so territorial over Apple and Samsung handsets for things that they ultimately have no vested interest in.
jaydeeuk1
11 Apr 176#2
Voted hot on an AMD CPU deal. Thats never happened before.
Oneday77
11 Apr 175#21
As a deals site. I'd like to think that taking a used 2500k for £70 and a Z77 motherboard. And getting £400, factoring in newer Motherboard and DDR4 RAM, worth of performance out of it was still relevant.
If anyone can get an i5-750 close to Ryzen then that's another story. The real point is in 6 years not much has changed.
While I applaud AMD for finally catching up. I don't think the performance for the money is right yet.
The fact a 2500k can still be tested against a 7700k too shows the market gains have stagnated.
CoeK
11 Apr 173#10
He said some comments online made him think they were intel shareholders, i don't think he meant yours.
All comments (49)
paddy.stone
11 Apr 171#1
Might want to add Amazon to the topic title
jaydeeuk1
11 Apr 176#2
Voted hot on an AMD CPU deal. Thats never happened before.
DanManchester
11 Apr 173#3
Yep hot here too, been waiting for this and ordered! Will sell the Wraith spire cooler on ebay and use my trusty Noctua NH-D15 instead. Free AM4 mounting kit from Noctua: AM4 mounting kit
Oddly, the 1600X didn't pull far ahead of an overclocked i5-2500K for gaming. There were times when the difference may have been appreciable - frame-times beyond 16.7ms were rare on Ryzen, but less so on the 2500K (OC), and there was an occasional FPS boost (Crysis 3 was the only one to leap far ahead - 124FPS vs 88 on the 2500K), but generally it wasn't really a big difference. Indeed, GTAV did better on the i5-2500K. As they say:
Hardly an exhaustive suite of games, though, to be fair! Hopefully they'll add more. Arma 3 would be a good one to see. :smile:
But to paraphrase another HUKD member: none of these benchmarks are important, BIOS updates and patches mean testing is pointless, everything is subjective, everyone should just buy AMD.
Spod
11 Apr 17#5
Fixed that for ya! :stuck_out_tongue::smirk:
HacKage
11 Apr 1714#6
Not everyone wants to buy a processor to game on. @BetaRomeo, I have seen a few comments about how an overclocked old processor can keep up with or beat xxxx processor from AMD. The same can be said of an older processor keeping up with the latest and greatest that Intel offer. I find it kind of disappointing that so many articles online look to be downplaying the AMD offerings, saying they can't do this or that, or can't beat this or that. We (the consumer) should be happy at the new competition. I have seen some comments online from folk that you would think they were major shareholders in Intel. It's almost like how people become so territorial over Apple and Samsung handsets for things that they ultimately have no vested interest in.
BetaRomeo to HacKage
11 Apr 17#8
I do apologise for referring to a review that comments on Ryzen 5 performance in games on a Ryzen 5 deal. I did think it would go without saying that if you're not buying a processor to game on, then games benchmarks would not be of interest. Apparently not. :smile:
I did vote Hot on this deal - and it is hot, even from a gaming perspective, despite not being a tempting upgrade for people with a decent system already (and the same could be said for any i5 - but this isn't an i5 deal!). For new buyers for gaming, it seems quite clear that it's a choice between the Ryzen 5 1600 at ~£300+ for chip + motherboard, or the 7700K from ~£410 for chip + motherboard.
I'm curious, though - if you think my quoting and referencing comments from Ryzen reviews makes it look like I'm a "major shareholder in Intel", I assume that you think the same of all the reviewers? :confused:
CoeK
11 Apr 17#7
I would rather buy a new processor than an old processor and would rather go AMD than intel personally.
bluepeter11 to CoeK
11 Apr 17#18
Also, using an older processor would typically mean using older components as well, the biggest issue for me though is power draw.
BetaRomeo
11 Apr 17#9
Oh, I forgot to mention: anyone with a Hyper 212 cooler, or some of the other Coolermaster HSFs, can get a free AM4 mounting plate to use it with a new Ryzen chip:
Out of stock at the moment. When they were in stock, I took one to the checkout, and the shipping fee was US$7 - I haven't seen today's exchange rate, but I imagine that's about £7.
CoeK
11 Apr 173#10
He said some comments online made him think they were intel shareholders, i don't think he meant yours.
myOpinion2
11 Apr 17#11
Interestingly it looks to be within 10% if the 1700 on cpubenchmark although only 2 samples so early days.
The_rand0m1
11 Apr 17#12
So far all the benchmark shows a difference between ~10% or so when compared to a 7600k or 7700k in terms of gaming (with the odd few games being on par). But when you consider the cost of this + mobo, editing performance and so on, this is definitely a great chip that is still being improved with updates. Just waiting for a 1600X deal around ~£220 before i start building my next computer. :stuck_out_tongue:
HacKage
11 Apr 17#13
I never said that your comments were, I was more passing comment on the link that you posted and how it ties in with other comments I had seen online. Again not directly pointed at you, but I wonder in how many posts about a new i5 or i7 processor have people posted an article about how a 6 year old CPU overclocked to almost 5GHz performs against it.
k31ron
11 Apr 17#14
what motherboard are people buying to go with this?
aj1soad to k31ron
11 Apr 17#19
think ive decided to go for the asrock x370 gaming k4. seems to get the best reviews
tahir_owen
11 Apr 17#15
This R5 1600 is the one to get out of the four. This one comes with a decent cooler to and the 1600x doesn't come with one at all.
The 1600x chip will be better binned though so will have slightly better performance per watt, but most people won't care about that.
EndlessWaves
11 Apr 17#16
It's passmark, of course it's wierd.
It's a shame the 4 core models are comparatively expensive, I was expecting something at i3 pricing. This 1600 looks like a cracking deal for anyone after a high end but not extravagant CPU though.
xxkichaxx
11 Apr 17#17
If you gonna compare i5s and this one, you need to take into account that pretty much non of the games are optimized for Ryzen yet, but they will be (ashes of singularity released a patch that improves performance by about 30%). But while i5s can max handle GTX1070, and there not much headroom is left, R5 1600 with optimisation on the way have lots of headroom left and is futureproof! And taking into account that R7 1700 has pretty much the same performance as R7 1700x I see no point paying more for XFR, if you can overclock it by yourself anyway.
Gkains
11 Apr 17#20
Voted hot. That's a very competitive price from Amazon (and from AMD too). Considering the AMD stock cooler is actually quite good and that the Intel i5 7600K is at least £215 (£226 from Amazon) and doesn't come with any cooler, plus B350 boards being cheaper than Z270 ones makes this quite a good alternative to the i5. For non-gaming use the 6C/12T are going to be way ahead. For games, not so much so but with some games starting to near max utilisation on 4C/8T i7's the i5's days as the recommended gaming CPU are over.
Ignoring everything else you wrote there... But Crysis's CPU scaling is very impressive for a 2012 game. Seen it as an outliner before in Intel HEDT and the Ryzen 7 reviews it seems to love cores.
Oneday77
11 Apr 175#21
As a deals site. I'd like to think that taking a used 2500k for £70 and a Z77 motherboard. And getting £400, factoring in newer Motherboard and DDR4 RAM, worth of performance out of it was still relevant.
If anyone can get an i5-750 close to Ryzen then that's another story. The real point is in 6 years not much has changed.
While I applaud AMD for finally catching up. I don't think the performance for the money is right yet.
The fact a 2500k can still be tested against a 7700k too shows the market gains have stagnated.
Uncommon.Sense to Oneday77
11 Apr 171#22
Good luck finding a decent Z77 board second hand for less than £100 + P&P
CoeK to Oneday77
11 Apr 171#30
They have stagnated because of a lack of competition. Pretty much the reason I'm going to go AMD.
revolver31 to Oneday77
11 Apr 171#41
This is my biggest issue the quality of the boards are poor on both sides right now asus, msi etc. are cheaping out and overpricing even the b350 are not worth the cost they're asking and they look awful, yes we get better power consumption which matters to me alot, but z270 H+B boards & x370 B+A boards are wayyyyy over priced for what there are and what's on them and what's not on them, premium boards priced at £300 with no Wi-Fi or RGB (Ok that one's fine with me) no Wi-Fi on the asus hero @ £240 but there's a space there for it, we live in a Wi-Fi world how can you not put one on these boards, for all they cost.
That's what stops me buying any new system and has done for a few yrs now, the improvement over old chips is not drastic, the z87/97 were better made platforms less board issues less cheap Chinese crap and better priced, it's just not worth it shopping new, the used market is crazy right now, people selling old rigs for more than they paid new, bonkers how much were being ripped off here, and sadly this is what stops the selling of new cpu's, skylake, kabylake and now ryzen all suffer the sales loss due to greedy board manufacturers and scalpers for high speed RGB flashy heatsink whoop whoop ddr4 and super duper psu's that cost as much as the mobo, oh and anything with flashing lights that sells too, more flashy things that's what's important, who wants life span in there mobo's lets just stick with the cheap AF dead in a few yrs Chinese parts and give me flashy things :confused:
Heat for the deal though it's a good chip but I won't be buying giving the cost of everything around the platform.
CampGareth
11 Apr 17#23
Seconding that. Got a workstation with dual xeon E5-2670s at home so 16 physical sandybridge cores with hyperthreading all ticking over at 3GHz under load. As much as I love it and its 80 PCI-E lanes it doesn't support NVMe drives nicely, it doesn't support Thunderbolt 3, and the memory bandwidth is a little low. Given their price second hand they give amazing bang for your buck on the CPU side, but they're let down by the lack of modern peripherals, there just aren't enough PCI-E to random-new-standard cards out there!
Deal over Amazon has jacked the price back to RRP, probably sold enough stock to hurt other retailers. :wink:
HacKage
11 Apr 17#26
For anyone looking to buy one of the Ryzen 5 chips, have a read at this article from the always stellar and usually impartial AnandTech. Basically for any DX11 or older gaming, go for Intel. For any programs that are predominantly single-threaded, go for Intel. For anything multi-threaded, for DX12 games, or future proofing, go for AMD.
is it worth upgrading from my i7 2600k? Using it mostly for video work and gaming with a gtx780
abaxas to flukeskywalker
11 Apr 17#28
Not really. Plenty more life left in that system.
pooley1977 to flukeskywalker
11 Apr 17#29
this ryzen5 6c/12t cpu will be a big improvement for production over your 2600k it also will be for gaming too.. im upgrading from a [email protected] to one of these which seems like ive had for ever haha
Gkains to flukeskywalker
11 Apr 17#32
Do you have it clocked to the limit (well say 4.8GHz)?
If yes, then for gaming probably not although 6C/12T should be better for minimum rather than average FPS which is the more important measure (wish more websites measured and showed min FPS rather than average all the time).
For your video work assuming you encode with the CPU not the GPU, then yes that should make a huge difference.
Only found two sites who reviewed the 1600 and have 2600K results though and then only for Handbrake (easy for sites to bench rather that Premier or Las Vegas): https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_amd_ryzen_5_1400_konkurent_intel_core_i5_7400?page=0,8
Though that site used to bench overclocked but maybe they only do that for GPU and game benches. https://www.computerbase.de/2017-04/amd-ryzen-5-test/2/
Their overall apps includes handbrake, but better yet their charts are dynamic: chose 'Bearbeiten, hit 'Keine' do deselect everything then check the test(s) you are interested in and it will re-calculate it for you. By default it doesn't show 2600K but there's a '+27 Einträge' button and if you hit that it will include the 2600K (along with 26 others).
Anyway, on CB for Handbrake this Ryzen is over twice as fast (81 vs 38), for X265 is almost (74 vs 40). All at stock though and max OC for your old Sandy Bridge is higher.
fishmaster
11 Apr 17#31
It's difficult to answer as we don't know the typical workload you're giving your system, meaning we'd need to know if multiple threads have a positive effect on your workload, so what software are you using for video production? Is the workload heavily affected by your GPU as in does it rely on CUDA for example?
It's easy for people to answer yes as they're thinking yup Ryzen is a workstation powerhouse, however I would answer I don't know as I don't know enough about your workload, it might well be that Ryzen is entirely pointless for the tasks you're currently undertaking.
welsh_andy
11 Apr 171#33
you would have thought the intel fans be jumping for joy at ryzen, this in turn will force intel to respond with better cpus. pretty obvious really.or would they prefer intel to do nothing, crazy. though they continue to bash ryzen why? bitterness maybe
Gkains to welsh_andy
11 Apr 171#34
Well on GPU threads, there often are comments along the lines of 'wish AMD would bring something out to compete with GTX1080* so I can by the Nvidia card cheaper'.
* or some other model, as this argument is old.
The_Hoff
11 Apr 17#35
You're buying in to a platform, which will be updated until at least 2020. Ryzen+ will sit on AM4, so consider this a 3 year chip before you hop to Ryzen+
Until Intel release X299 everything out there is pretty much EOL socket wise.
Oneday77
11 Apr 17#36
Maybe I should sell my spare Asus Z77 LX board. Never got round to doing a build with it or swapping out my P8P87 Pro.
Uncommon.Sense
11 Apr 17#37
Indeed, I would before they loseamost of their value due to these new Ryzen chips making second hand Intel kit significantly less relevant.
ShroomHeadToad
11 Apr 17#38
Sold i7-4770 for a good price. :laughing:
The_Hoff to ShroomHeadToad
11 Apr 17#39
Sold my 4770k a few months back too, which Ryzen you buying?
aj1soad
11 Apr 17#40
Deal has gone up in price now
The_Hoff
11 Apr 171#42
You're aware that when you say "chinese" in a derogatory fashion that you're actually talking about semi-conductors almost exclusively manufactured in Taiwan, right? The exact same places this stuff has been manufactured since day 0.
B350 boards are fine, especially when paired with an R5 but equally so for R7 on a budget, crossfire support, unlocked and good quality BIOS. The only distinction with X370 barring SLI, is additional I/O and "bells and whistles" as you would call it, if you want X370 and WIFI, get a Asrock Taichi.
BetaRomeo
12 Apr 17#43
Errr... it's become a running joke that the subsequent i5s and i7s never really pull ahead of their predecessors, and it gets mentioned again, and again, and again, and rightly so. Before Skylake, the difference would not have been noticeable at all for most people! Even now, as gets pointed out on deals regularly, it's not really worth replacing an i5 with a newer i5, or an i7 with a newer i7.
This being a new CPU (reviews have been live for less than 24 hours), it seems more relevant, rather than less.
Comments like "I find it kind of disappointing that so many articles online look to be downplaying the AMD offerings, saying they can't do this or that, or can't beat this or that" - well, what do you want the reviewers to do? Lie, and say Ryzen does beat chips when it doesn't? Simply not include any benchmarks where Ryzen isn't top? I'm sure your brand war is very important to you, but most of us are more interested in the hardware itself.
The irony is you complaining about reviewers reporting on the areas where Ryzen doesn't actually come out on top, and then go on to refer to other people as being territorial about their preferred brand. :confused:
I found the Ryzen 1600 at the same site (based in Czech Republic) for £206.90 here, tried to submit the deal but the site is not approved by HUKD so got automatically removed.
You can get a free £5 discount code for signing up to their newsletter.
taras
12 Apr 17#46
for those who have said ryzen was rushed out - it wasn't. live versions of the b350 class mobos where out in 2016. What ever was the cause of the delay it allowed amd to do another respin of ryzen and bump it up to 3.6ghz.
Gaming on the ryzen should get better and better as new games come onto the market
The_Hoff
12 Apr 17#47
I wouldn't use Alza personally, for the sake of £10. CCL with 1% Quidco is not much more expensive.
BigP50000
12 Apr 17#48
i was thinking of getting the 1600 but truly only for surfing/gaming a quad core does the job...i wish pc's were optimized like consoles to push games at using full 6/8 cores but i guess it is what it is as the consoles were built for that reason only for perfect gaming experience
The_Hoff to BigP50000
12 Apr 17#49
I wouldn't say consoles were a perfect gaming experience (as an XB1 owner), if you want to run 720p-900p in 30fps they're pretty perfect though :smiley:
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Review links: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/official-ocuk-amd-ryzen-5-review-thread.18775905/
Top comments
If anyone can get an i5-750 close to Ryzen then that's another story. The real point is in 6 years not much has changed.
While I applaud AMD for finally catching up. I don't think the performance for the money is right yet.
The fact a 2500k can still be tested against a 7700k too shows the market gains have stagnated.
All comments (49)
Oddly, the 1600X didn't pull far ahead of an overclocked i5-2500K for gaming. There were times when the difference may have been appreciable - frame-times beyond 16.7ms were rare on Ryzen, but less so on the 2500K (OC), and there was an occasional FPS boost (Crysis 3 was the only one to leap far ahead - 124FPS vs 88 on the 2500K), but generally it wasn't really a big difference. Indeed, GTAV did better on the i5-2500K. As they say:
Hardly an exhaustive suite of games, though, to be fair! Hopefully they'll add more. Arma 3 would be a good one to see. :smile:
But to paraphrase another HUKD member: none of these benchmarks are important, BIOS updates and patches mean testing is pointless, everything is subjective, everyone should just buy AMD.
I did vote Hot on this deal - and it is hot, even from a gaming perspective, despite not being a tempting upgrade for people with a decent system already (and the same could be said for any i5 - but this isn't an i5 deal!). For new buyers for gaming, it seems quite clear that it's a choice between the Ryzen 5 1600 at ~£300+ for chip + motherboard, or the 7700K from ~£410 for chip + motherboard.
I'm curious, though - if you think my quoting and referencing comments from Ryzen reviews makes it look like I'm a "major shareholder in Intel", I assume that you think the same of all the reviewers? :confused:
http://www.cmstore.eu/cooling/amd-am4-upgrade-kit-rr-accy-am4b-r1/
Out of stock at the moment. When they were in stock, I took one to the checkout, and the shipping fee was US$7 - I haven't seen today's exchange rate, but I imagine that's about £7.
The 1600x chip will be better binned though so will have slightly better performance per watt, but most people won't care about that.
It's a shame the 4 core models are comparatively expensive, I was expecting something at i3 pricing. This 1600 looks like a cracking deal for anyone after a high end but not extravagant CPU though.
Ignoring everything else you wrote there... But Crysis's CPU scaling is very impressive for a 2012 game. Seen it as an outliner before in Intel HEDT and the Ryzen 7 reviews it seems to love cores.
If anyone can get an i5-750 close to Ryzen then that's another story. The real point is in 6 years not much has changed.
While I applaud AMD for finally catching up. I don't think the performance for the money is right yet.
The fact a 2500k can still be tested against a 7700k too shows the market gains have stagnated.
That's what stops me buying any new system and has done for a few yrs now, the improvement over old chips is not drastic, the z87/97 were better made platforms less board issues less cheap Chinese crap and better priced, it's just not worth it shopping new, the used market is crazy right now, people selling old rigs for more than they paid new, bonkers how much were being ripped off here, and sadly this is what stops the selling of new cpu's, skylake, kabylake and now ryzen all suffer the sales loss due to greedy board manufacturers and scalpers for high speed RGB flashy heatsink whoop whoop ddr4 and super duper psu's that cost as much as the mobo, oh and anything with flashing lights that sells too, more flashy things that's what's important, who wants life span in there mobo's lets just stick with the cheap AF dead in a few yrs Chinese parts and give me flashy things :confused:
Heat for the deal though it's a good chip but I won't be buying giving the cost of everything around the platform.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four
If yes, then for gaming probably not although 6C/12T should be better for minimum rather than average FPS which is the more important measure (wish more websites measured and showed min FPS rather than average all the time).
For your video work assuming you encode with the CPU not the GPU, then yes that should make a huge difference.
Only found two sites who reviewed the 1600 and have 2600K results though and then only for Handbrake (easy for sites to bench rather that Premier or Las Vegas):
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_amd_ryzen_5_1400_konkurent_intel_core_i5_7400?page=0,8
Though that site used to bench overclocked but maybe they only do that for GPU and game benches.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-04/amd-ryzen-5-test/2/
Their overall apps includes handbrake, but better yet their charts are dynamic: chose 'Bearbeiten, hit 'Keine' do deselect everything then check the test(s) you are interested in and it will re-calculate it for you. By default it doesn't show 2600K but there's a '+27 Einträge' button and if you hit that it will include the 2600K (along with 26 others).
Anyway, on CB for Handbrake this Ryzen is over twice as fast (81 vs 38), for X265 is almost (74 vs 40). All at stock though and max OC for your old Sandy Bridge is higher.
It's easy for people to answer yes as they're thinking yup Ryzen is a workstation powerhouse, however I would answer I don't know as I don't know enough about your workload, it might well be that Ryzen is entirely pointless for the tasks you're currently undertaking.
* or some other model, as this argument is old.
Until Intel release X299 everything out there is pretty much EOL socket wise.
B350 boards are fine, especially when paired with an R5 but equally so for R7 on a budget, crossfire support, unlocked and good quality BIOS. The only distinction with X370 barring SLI, is additional I/O and "bells and whistles" as you would call it, if you want X370 and WIFI, get a Asrock Taichi.
This being a new CPU (reviews have been live for less than 24 hours), it seems more relevant, rather than less.
Comments like "I find it kind of disappointing that so many articles online look to be downplaying the AMD offerings, saying they can't do this or that, or can't beat this or that" - well, what do you want the reviewers to do? Lie, and say Ryzen does beat chips when it doesn't? Simply not include any benchmarks where Ryzen isn't top? I'm sure your brand war is very important to you, but most of us are more interested in the hardware itself.
The irony is you complaining about reviewers reporting on the areas where Ryzen doesn't actually come out on top, and then go on to refer to other people as being territorial about their preferred brand. :confused:
You can get a free £5 discount code for signing up to their newsletter.
Gaming on the ryzen should get better and better as new games come onto the market