I agree. Although if someone's goal is 1080p@60fps then those unlocked i5s should still be enough for at least 3-4 years, but if for less/similar price there are unlocked r5 4c/8t and 6c/12t cpus which most likely are going to last longer with easier upgrade path since am4 will also support at the very least zen2 and 3 - then why bother with any i5? On top of that - B350 (for oc) mbs are A LOT cheaper than z270 ones. Not to mention that more cores/threads = a lot more fluid gameplay, (usually) higher minimum fps and no micro-stutter. The interesting thing is that ryzen is still unoptimized - there are going to be more bios/windows and game updates dedicated to it so the overall performance will only get better and quite frankly even now it's surprisingly good. The only reason i see to buy 6600k/7600k (with 'z' motherboard) would be if someone wants to play mostly some older games - pre 2014 which need a good single core (for example some MMOs, stalker series, etc). Now imagine the 'war' in the very near future. Intel and AMD are going to fight with each other offering lower prices, better cpus and bigger perf. boosts every new gen. Everybody will benefit. The era of intel's monopoly is finally over so i don't get it why intel's hardcore fans are so hostile towards amd and ryzen. It's like they like that intel was fucking everybody for the last 5-6 years with retarded prices for a 4 core cpus and laughable perf. increments every cpu gen. I guess that's the result of intel's 'brainwashing' with marketing and advertisement. Those people lost any abilities to judge two products by their pros and cons while looking a little bit into the future.
@Drunk Gaming GT I'm still on 2500k 4.8Ghz (since 2011) and if ryzen wouldn't exist i would sit on it till like maybe 2020/21 :). It's still surprisingly enough for the games i play and it doesn't bottleneck anything on 1080@60fps. I'm waiting for zen2 though. ;)
The 1600 and 1600X have 12 threads. Whereas the i5 has 4 threads. This is what games utilize when they are running. So in the future, Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X will be able to utilize more of their 8 extra threads and current generation i5's will be have "bit the dust" as games will require more multi-threaded support (like Battlefield 1).
Yeah, almost every benchmark with ryzen cpu has 'bigger than it should be' dislike bar. It's like intel hardcore fans are trying to say: " Fuck ryzen, fuck amd, we don't want any shitty amd cpus. Who needs any competition that would force intel to give us any bigger perf. boosts with better cpus and lower prices. We were liking intel's overpriced stuff and how they were milking us for years! Why changing that?! Come on people - give intel more money and don't buy anything from amd, let them go bankrupt. Monopoly is good! " It's truly hilarious how uninformed such people are without any needs to do a proper research of "how world works".
Theoretically, you may not be able to hit a stable 4.1 or 4.2 for it being a 65w tdp chip. Anyways, I will use the stock cooler, set the 1600 at 3.7 or 3.8 and be happy
KatGames _YT Yes. AFAIK developer dont like to use more cores. Most of the old and new games use lower cores because it performs better than multi core aslo because of their hardware. But i really do hope that theyll optimize the multi core+ for games. ( Correct me if im wrong here )
westyk52sparky FX users still waiting this "optimization"... I really hope they get it done so we can pay less for more, doesn't matter if you go with Intel or AMD!
It's more about game engines using more cores. The more modern the game the better that trend seems to be. Mass effect did very well in the video above and it is the newest one there I think. So going forward I think it should do well.
no games are optimized for amds new architecture. yet its going to take time for game developers to work it out. the engines are being updated all the time.
The 1600 is better than I could have imagined. I'm upgrading as soon as I can afford it. My i5 6500 is fine for gaming alone, but I really need those extra cores and threads for my streams.
TrainTruck my next build will be a ryzen build but my 6600k is still ample for the next few years. given I built it early 2016 it will have well served its purpose by the time I upgrade. As of right now, if all.yoyr doing is Gaming the 1600x is the best choice.
I have an 6600 and if I were building a new system today then I would definitely get the Ryzen 5 vs a Skylake i5. For gaming they have similar performance and the Ryzen is probably a better all rounder. It is also cheaper, comes with a cooler, has *good* cheaper motherboards and can most likely be upgraded later without swapping boards... where as Intel seem to make every new processor require a new platform. But is it enough of step up over an i5 to make the change? I'm not sure. A Ryzen 7 would clearly be a step up but they are not as good value compared to the coffee lake i5-8600K.
Mason Reed they are pretty neck and neck. I own an i5 6600k, but I bought it long before ryzen came out. I would switch in a heartbeat if money weren't a factor. Ever try streaming with a 6600k? Ok at 720p but definitely not 1080p.
Papa Burgundy Yeah they're neck and neck. But look who has lower clock speeds? Look who has been optimized. Look at the price range. Look at who has more experience with their architecture. Look at who's sweating balls, and who isn't it just to keep up. At this point, AMD easily takes the lead when all things are considered.
with proper game optimization for Ryzen in games, I don't see a reason to pay for an intel CPU especially that Ryzen "rendered" intel's CPU overpriced.
Neiva Where ever you live they're gouging if the 1600 is $120 more than a 6600. Take newegg for Instance(us). The R5 1600 is $219 and the I5 6600K is $239. Could you share a link to pricing where you live? Looking online I can't find anyone that is charging $120 more for a 1600 vs 6600K. Also take into consideration to OC the I5 you need a Z board. Intel doesn't offer a budget overclocking chipset like the Zen line does in both the B350 and X300. The mini prices are also lower for an OC AMD board ($70ish)
The GPU was not fully utilized in the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark. The Intel i5 was maxed out at 100% and the gpu could only be utilized up to 94%. On the other hand, the AMD r5 1600 was only using 50% of each core/thread and allowed for the GPU to reach 100% utilization. AMD has won, and by far.
Hey, i just wanted to tell you :) WELL DONE!! you are one of only a few that actually gave me the most important info. CPU USAGE!! fine you have like a GTX1060 and hit some X Fps with intel and like Y Fps with Ryzen. For me and for all (at least it should) the CPU USAGE is the important thing here :) For example in Project Cars, Intel hits 70-80% where as Ryzen 30-50% which means you not only get and 6 core with 16md L3 cache but also, you still have quite a bit of head room for streaming or just recording in x264 codec (if you so want, of course you are using shadowplay with the NVEC H.264 codec). In my opinion you did well in showing the CPU USAGE since we can compare it to the price and FPS and not only like in other benchmark videos price to FPS which to be honest doesn't mean much. WELL DONE.
HWLH Productions i live in Saudi Arabia (you cant get any hotter than here for sure) temperature of the CPU goes up to 70 under load in a very hot day but i have an AC running so...
Looks like the best bang for buck in the ryzen lineup. This video is quite informative, without OC and with a RAM frequency that most users will actually get (the compatibility issues will not magically disappear in the next few weeks/months).
just noticed you have cpu usage but almost nobody else shows it. this is very interesting to know! so what if the intel cpus sometimes run better the cpu usage is insanely high! hope to see you compare ryzen vs coffeelake cpus
Just be a fan of price to performance, geez Louis people are so lonely they actually have to take sides in something. You are loved! Stop looking for a group to be apart of lol. But yes AMD continues to slay daaayum.
I don't understand why you guys are saying that AMD won. I see more FPS on almost all games with intel. So who cares if the CPU has higher load. All I care is FPS. Not a fanboy of any company.
1) Higher fps on intel? Then not in this video, you didn't. Only outright win for Intel was in GTA5. (And Fallout, but that's sth with the GPU since it's not being utilized fully. Problem is with the engine, not the cpu's). In Project Cars, Andromeda and Witcher 3, the Ryzen did pull out ahead. The others were too close to even notice anything. 2) They're both at stock clocks. 3) The 1600 comes with a stock cooler, and is 35USD cheaper. So you get at least same performance for less, unless you're constantly playing GTA5. And your system won't panic when you alt-tab between your game, discord, twitch and youtube. (My dad's 6600K does)
The CPU usage difference is insane. On my i7 4770k I've noticed if I start browsing or watching youtube on my 2nd monitor while in certain games like Andromeda, the videos and sometimes just scrolling webpages will not be smooth. Especially if I start streaming to Twitch while playing at maxed out settings just doing too much 100% cpu usage occurs quite often. Maybe Ryzen is going to solve those types of multitasking issues for people. Considering selling my whole PC 4770k, 16gb ram, gtx 1070 for a ryzen 1600x or 1700x, gtx 1080 ti build. I wonder if the 1600 may not be enough and will cause a bottleneck though? My dad started a PC business early 2000's and swore by AMD. Maybe it's that time again.
Looks like it's a good Upgrade from my FX-8350 - I get about half that fps in GTAV in the same areas of the Benchmark lol (Also have the GTX 1060) Thanks for sharing these Tests!
for the almost same fps (at 4:37 forward), the workload on the amd is only at around 46% to 60% whereas intel reaches in certain moments the 100% marks. This is nuts.
levlobotomy higher fps ? sure . but why? because games are not optimized for ryzen. how much more fps? 5-10fps. does it matters? as long as it is more than 100fps , i dont thnink so. it only takes 40% of 1600x's power to beat similar priced i5 7600k .
esperCELL never said there was anything wrong with them but it being around for such a long time. Intel are ok with not pushing for more cores and still charging ridiculous prices for quad cores is absurd - this is why allot of gaming developers not making thier games optimized for more cores.
good to see AMD competing.. would like to see both at max OC. heard Ryzen 5 tops at 4ghz, while i5-6600k goes to 4.4ghz easy on air. Maybe that would even it out. if i were out to buy a cpu now, i would go with Ryzen.
Ohno_Nono Mmmhhh ... Look for independently gathered results? So launch day reviews of an OC 7600K? Won't be the best comparison (game updates) but hey ...
Yes, but k skew CPUs don't come with fans, plus you have to spend quite a bit more on Z170 motherboard. Whereas AMD offers dirt cheap B350 boards for overclocking, and has the CPUs come with overclocking capable fans (asides from the 1600x). But seriously, you could hit that 4ghz on a 1500x and such with the fan it comes with.
I love how the Intel CPU is generally pinned around 70%, consistently hitting 100% for quite some time. While the R5 chill around 30-40%, even dipping as low as 10. The 1600 at stock 3.2ghz though? That's nuts. I'm getting a 1600 myself, and just planned to overclock. Didn't think it would do this well at stock.
CPU utilization really says it all, Ryzen 5 is being under utilized far more then the core i5 6600k, developers optimizing their games for Ryzen will see large performance gains at 1920X1080.
It affects ryzen quite a lot, gaining 10% more fps by having ram that's a bit more expensive is a pretty good deal, in some games there's less difference in some games there's more. It affects intel cpus too but not on the same degree. Downside is there's still some issues with very high speed ram for ryzen but those should be sorted out soon
Thanks for showing the comparison non overclocked, its nice to see how they perform out of the box. Finally, perhaps now intel can stop overcharging for a boring quad core cpu.
I've seen this happen before, I'm not sure what causes it. But it seems like with more resources available, sometimes games will consume more memory. Black Ops 3, when I had 8gb would use about 6. Once I upgraded to 16, it hits 10 with no performance gain. Plus it's a newish game, might be a memory leak.
ok i do not know how to explain this: the movement feels a lot smoother on ryzen ( as long as you have 60 fps, regardless of which cpu gets higher fps) , watch mass effect demo and focus on the movement of flames on both sides , i feel that the flames displayed by ryzen is more fluid and more organized ,. i can make out which part of the flame is moving first or second and so on .. it is simply eye catching , unlike the i5 which is much more difficult to do so .
Hell yes, finally some competition from AMD! Really sick of Intel's incremental "improvements" the last 6 years. Going to support AMD this time around to fuel some competition. Intel's prices are already dropping, even if you hate AMD you should thank them for forcing Intel to drop their prices.
by watching the CPU load alone we could see how easy the ryzen is handling games and still makes a good score. imagine how great it's going to perform if the game developer's work on Ryzen optimization
I'm a Huge fan of ryzen but having the 6600k only run at 3.5 is stunting it when most people can easily run it at 4.5. All amd needs to focus on for future iterations of ryzen is getting clock speeds up. Ryzen seems to have close to the same performance as Intel clock for clock
There is still a catch, first you need a Z motherboard which is much more expensive. The Ryzen processor can also OC but at a less range (4Ghz I think is the typical maxed out for Ryzen 1600) , and you can even do that on an A320 motherboard. And then the possibility for upgrade (A typical A320 can now upgrade up to the Ryzen 3600 CPU) . If you bought the 6600k you have no next gen upgrade. Intel needs to be less greedy AND catch up as well.
Ryzen 1600 seems to run hotter than the i5 6600k. I know the temps are not a reason to worry, but I wanna know, were you using different coolers for this comparison?
Ryzen has risen . Intel has finally been defeated. The funny thing is that Intel fanboys are still on the fact that i5 is better. What most Intel fanboys dont realize is Ryzen 5 is either on par or better than i5 6600k.......with 2400hz RAM. Ryzen is a RAM dependent CPU and imagine with 3200hz RAM . Good bye Intel but AMD has dethroned you guys for real. They weren't playing around this time. Nice work on video comparison. Please make a ryzen 1600 vs i5 7600k (RX 480)
I wouldn't be so sure about intel being "defeated", tho. It's not like they'll go bankrupt over seeing a serious competitor jump back in the game. It's gonna go back and forth, and we'll benefit from this as consumers. Now THAT is the part I like about all of this.
Mark D which usable intel cost 500-600? 7700k for about 260$, its cheap. only an idiot would buy i5 for 240$ for example so do a fair comparison, and you see how fast intel really is. thos r5/7 vs i5 benchs are stupid, and only for advertising Ryzen. dont forget: AMD promised the same with their FX Processors. whats going on till today? they did NOTHING! yeah, 6/8 core amd still perform well for their age cause the higher core count, but in games where single core performance is also needed. a "bad", old i5/i3 overrun the 6 core. and i think the same will show us AMD with Ryzen. maybe not with R5, because the 1400 is really "cheap" for the performance, but 100% with more expensive r5 or r7 everybody should take what fits the best for their usage. but i think if we do video editing, we also should have the time to take 30% longer to render something. i can remeber when i was doin photomerge with PS CS3 with the Core 2 Duo. yeah you can do 1 coffe break and after it a smoking break and so if you merge 30 - 40x 10.1 MP photos, but i had time, so why buy a 300$ or more CPU i remember a time, there we get fast CPUs for 100$ so ryzen is overpriced also
Why is everybody buying the prime-a b350 board? The Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3 is just a bit more expensive but it has alot more gaming features and doesnt it support faster ram?
You're right, I think I read wrong because I thought it had Killer™ Ethernet E2500 and some other features but that was probably on a different board. At least heres some gaming features: *Realtek® GbE LAN with cFosSpeed Internet Accelerator Networking *GIGABYTE's EasyTune *Free 14 days XSplit Gamecaster + Broadcaster Premium License. *Free 1 month TriDef® SmartCam License. *ALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio with Smart Headphone Amp
Pig666eon CS Yes, that's because it is maxed out and can't handle the loads for very short times. The 1600 on the other hand has no problems with that, because it has more cores and isn't used at 100% the whole time.
Something I've noticed with Ryzen is even though the FPS doesn't go quite as high as intel with some games the fps stay fairly flat with very few spikes
Neiva The question is: Where do you live? You are everywhere spouting your claim but haven't mention anything about where you live. Why not link us some websites that from your area so we can have a look???
the 1600 has a cooler stock and the i5 7600k doesn't, this makes them pretty much same price. the stock cooler on 1600 has some headroom to overclock as its rated at 95 tdp and the 1600 is a 65tdp cpu stock
Heres the problem with intel, critics benchmarks and its high cpu usage. A normal pc user does more than play a video game at one time. When i have my favorite game going, i have spotify in the background, skype, browser tabs, maybe OBS if im streaming, i have program updating while i game, even steam games update while im playing, i have multiple clients open like gog galaxy, steam, battle net and so on... and im pausing and tabing through everything all the time. This whole lets benchmark cpus on a clean windows install with nothing running is not realistic real world scenario... thats a lets see whats better if everything is perfect... how many people game on a fresh windows install with no other programs open for every game they play? none.
Basically a tie but the R5 is better in productivity and will be more "future proof" as games require more cores and threads. The R5 1600 is currently $15 cheaper than the 7600K (slightly faster than a 6600K but virtually the same). Overall a win for the R5 without a doubt. Very nice.
Pretty impressive what AMD can handle with even half of CPU usage with more or less the same performance for a really cheaper price, definitely that would be a nice upgrade from my current A10 7890k.
Nah, it's definitely hitting high 90% just like the Intel chip but only on the cores the games are using. The % shown is an average across all cores + hyperthreads. The 1600 has 6 cores and 12 total threads. If a game was using 4 cores @ 100%, it would show up as 33% of the CPU being used. This can lead to situations where there's a low CPU percent shown as being used but the GPU is also pretty far from 100% usage: The GPU is actually waiting on the 4 CPU cores. If you want to run something in the background like recording & streaming software, antivirus scans, or keep your browser open etc. then there's plenty of space to do that with Ryzen, and pretty much 0 room for that from Intel chip in this case. Personally, I don't like to have stuff going on in the background while gaming except a browser, but I would still probably buy the AMD even if the price was the same. Intel switches sockets very often compared to AMD, so down the line Intel users need new motherboards to upgrade their CPUs, but AMD just released this new socket and will almost certainly have new CPUs coming out for it for a long time. Now that more than 4 cores is more common, hopefully more game developers will start adding scalability up to at least 8 cores. This would really be great for Ryzen, but that's always been the hope for AMD. The individual cores aren't far from Intel's this time though, so that's a major victory.
i5 6600k is now 219 on amazon, i see what you did there intel. This is a tough one, although i'd probably stick with intel just cause i have a lga 1151 motherboard
You know what guys I've had a change of heart, I may end up going with a ryzen 1600 and b350 motherboard to accompany it as my lga 1151 motherboard isn't capable of overclocking and my I3 6100 just ain't cutting it anymore.
Me Of course It'll be a nice investment. I got the Asus B350 mobo and R5 1600 (but the cpu arrives tomorrow). It's really a good time to sell your Intel stuff now as they still hold considerable amount of value. Transfer what you make out of the stuff you sell and build your new gaming rig.
The low CPU usage is impressive in the AMD ryzen. FPS is really not that important after 60fps, at a certain point you can't even notice how high it is.
if your saying one side is better then the other you are right in some ways.... the bit rate on this videos makes it really hard to tell so we really cant know until you turn up the bit rate not hating just constructive critisism.
Can someone tell me why ryzen had lower cpu usage than the intel one? Because i got myself a pc spec below : AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Corsair vengeance 3200mhz 2x4 gb EVGA 80+ 600w non modular GIGABYTE AB350-GAMING 3 GIGABYTE GEFORCE GTX 1050TI 4GB GDRR5 Casing NZXT S340 Black Glossy
Its because ryzen isn't 100% optimized yet and most games cant take full advantage of a total of 12 threads, that's why the i5 is almost maxed out because most of the games tested here can use up to 4 cores, meaning that the i5 is being completely used with little to know room to spare, while the r5 is only having a fraction of its cpu cores being used. AMD is still the way to go for now. hopefully Intel will hurry up and release their mid-range motherboards for the 8th gen cpu's.
What is not clear is temps. How an i5 at 95W and 73% usage is fresher than the R5 65W at 37% usage? I dont think the cooling solution is being fair. There is something really wrong about the test...
I watched countless Ryzen gaming tests, none of those games pushed any of those processors over 75% usage. while intel CPUs screaming over 80% in most cases means intel will bottleneck very soon and hell AMD is futureproof.
i5s, the 4 core ones, are end of life. and, im (not) so sorry for you, in 3-4 years, a r3-r7 and i7 from today will be at end of life like the i5 at the moment ;) so, no advantage of a expensive, brand new CPU ;) i paid less than a half for a used i7 Haswell, a 100$ mainboard, reused my already fast DDR3 ram, so no 100$ for ram like on ryzen, and i know i have the same power like ryzen until around 2019-2020. saved much money, DDR4 is relatively useless and expensive. My next PC will be, i hope so, DDR5 and i think a GTX 1070 i also can replace at this time. maybe this will be a good upgrade in 2-3 years. 2016 was a bad year to upgrade, 2017 much more! Competition is running, lets hope we get something better in future than the last years
esperCELL it's simple.People buy budget builds because it's FUCKING CHEAP.also I'm not talking about the fx CPUs load percentage,I'm talking abt this CPUs load percentage
is it cheap to get every 3 years a new PC???? lol.... i change my setup every 5-8 years, my Phenom II X6 also was outdated, it was a complete system for under 700$ in around 2010-2011 after 7 years (beginning 2017) i updated to a used i7, new GTX 1070 and reused parts like Case, PSU, SSD, RAM (cause 4790k is DDR3.... :) like always, i got cheap hi end performance, for the first time a used CPU, but anyways, new parts were way too expensive, also the ryzen ones are too expensive for my opinion. so i risked, i worried a long time, but i think this auction was a good idea. nearly 7700k performance for 130$ the CPU :) believe me, its not cheap to got a PC that can handly games for max 2-3 years playable, i already say "playable", no recommended hardware settings, better the minimums ;) cheap desktops also cost around 3-400$, for 200$ more, you can get a pretty fine gaming setup for at least 1 year+ usability. Ok, 600 $ for a whole gaming PC is hard to do today, but 2010, it was easy :) the costs were around (for brandnew parts!): CPU: midclass around 80-120$, 150$+ hi end consumer CPUs RAM: 20-50$ Mainboard: 40-50$ the cheapest crap boards, usable boards with better chipsets/OC compability for around 60-100$ HDDs: 30-50$ for high capacity ones graphicscard: 50-150$ for low to mid end GPUs, around 200$ for mid , more high end single gpu cards, 300$+ for(really) Hi end ones. if you calculate this main parts toghether, you will see, today such high performing hardware is impossible to get for this prices Also see this: around 2010 and before, Hi End Class was only a bit stronger than mid class, only the Low end/office hardware was ultimatively slow. today, midrange parts are in many cases wide away from the hi end parts performance. Like the GPU market, in 2010 you get a pretty fast GPU for 150$, and a little bit faster (hi end one) for 300$ for example. today, you get a way too expensive midclass-card for 200$, or you take 400-500$ and take nearly the doubled performance....also way too expensive, but for real gamers who want to play AAA titles, 1440p+, 60 fps+, mostly the only option. For AMD, ATi, nVidia and Intel its poker, and we have to pay for it ;)
Ryzen is using 40% of its capacity while i5 is using around 80%, ryzen still runs about 10 degrees hotter. AMD never fails to disappoint on temperatures.
You forgot something... This particular Ryzen uses a stock cooler while the i5k ships without it, so an aftermarket cooler is needed and that is why it definitely cools better.
This kids today...No respect what so ever..Look at the replies..."are yo blind" "its because of stock cooler' - like they know everything..Let them talk i'll se them what degree of school they'll finish that way...Being arrogant is easy..Be humble.. Its not hard!
Nice video... But I don't see a reason why you kept the textures and overall quality to low/medium when you can push all the way to ultra with that rig
Damn this Ryzen is a killer! Guys, what is the minimum standard power supply for Ryzen 5 PC without third party GPU..? I'm planning on building a low power consumption gaming pc..
So basically if you dont have the cash for a i7 7700k with a zboard and a aftermarket cooler get the R5 1600 with a $90 am4 mobo and use the stock cooler. not bad.
Building a new rig after about 8 years. I'm looking for something that'll last me just as long... I also want to add that the rig would be solely for gaming. Case - NZXT S340 Elite Black/Red PSU - 630W Thermaltake Smart SE GTX - MSI GTX 1070 GAMING X 8G CPU - AMD Ryzen 5 1600 + Stock Cooler MB - Asus Prime B350 Plus RAM - 2x8GB 3200MHz Corsair Vengance HDD - 7200 2TB WD Black SSD - 240GB Sandisk Ultra II Thoughts? And also i am planning to OC the CPU.
Notice how much more of the CPU is being used on the Intel side. By the time games start getting this Ryzen chip to break a sweat, the i5 will be sitting at a constant 100% use on all cores, bottlenecking something fierce.
Is it just the X models that have the 20 degrees offset, or is it for all of them? For only being used 40% by most games, the 1600 still seems to run hotter than I5.
I don't see a reason to get i5 now.
Maybe only if you already have a lga 1151 board
Or wanna get a mini itx build
I agree.
Although if someone's goal is 1080p@60fps then those unlocked i5s should still be enough for at least 3-4 years, but if for less/similar price there are unlocked r5 4c/8t and 6c/12t cpus which most likely are going to last longer with easier upgrade path since am4 will also support at the very least zen2 and 3 - then why bother with any i5? On top of that - B350 (for oc) mbs are A LOT cheaper than z270 ones. Not to mention that more cores/threads = a lot more fluid gameplay, (usually) higher minimum fps and no micro-stutter.
The interesting thing is that ryzen is still unoptimized - there are going to be more bios/windows and game updates dedicated to it so the overall performance will only get better and quite frankly even now it's surprisingly good.
The only reason i see to buy 6600k/7600k (with 'z' motherboard) would be if someone wants to play mostly some older games - pre 2014 which need a good single core (for example some MMOs, stalker series, etc).
Now imagine the 'war' in the very near future. Intel and AMD are going to fight with each other offering lower prices, better cpus and bigger perf. boosts every new gen. Everybody will benefit. The era of intel's monopoly is finally over so i don't get it why intel's hardcore fans are so hostile towards amd and ryzen. It's like they like that intel was fucking everybody for the last 5-6 years with retarded prices for a 4 core cpus and laughable perf. increments every cpu gen. I guess that's the result of intel's 'brainwashing' with marketing and advertisement. Those people lost any abilities to judge two products by their pros and cons while looking a little bit into the future.
Matush yep although im still getting the i5 4690k for 2 months :)
@Drunk Gaming GT I'm still on 2500k 4.8Ghz (since 2011) and if ryzen wouldn't exist i would sit on it till like maybe 2020/21 :). It's still surprisingly enough for the games i play and it doesn't bottleneck anything on 1080@60fps. I'm waiting for zen2 though. ;)
these game aren't even optimized for this chip and it still runs better imagine how good it will look with good optimization
The 1600 and 1600X have 12 threads. Whereas the i5 has 4 threads. This is what games utilize when they are running. So in the future, Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X will be able to utilize more of their 8 extra threads and current generation i5's will be have "bit the dust" as games will require more multi-threaded support (like Battlefield 1).
Same temps too lol
That was intelligence at its finest
by the time games are optimised in 4 or 5 years, the ryzen will be obsolete in enthusiast/gamer terms.
Yeah, but in 4-5 years time there will be newer iterations of Ryzen on the AM4 platform...
Intel fanboys will dislike this video
Lucas Maldo yes ggg
Yeah, almost every benchmark with ryzen cpu has 'bigger than it should be' dislike bar. It's like intel hardcore fans are trying to say:
" Fuck ryzen, fuck amd, we don't want any shitty amd cpus. Who needs any competition that would force intel to give us any bigger perf. boosts with better cpus and lower prices. We were liking intel's overpriced stuff and how they were milking us for years! Why changing that?! Come on people - give intel more money and don't buy anything from amd, let them go bankrupt. Monopoly is good! "
It's truly hilarious how uninformed such people are without any needs to do a proper research of "how world works".
we don't have thas much dislike and mostly a happy commentary, :)
it's usually happens when amd fanbase is triggered, intel fans not so aggressive)
why? because there is an AMD competitor for this intel CPU at similar performance and price? Who is the fanboy?
Ryzen 5 1600 Surprisingly better.
Thanks u for testing. Now i choice AMD Ryzen R5 1600X. Thank u so much!
Mr11ESSE111 For what?!?!?! 😂😂😂
Theoretically, you may not be able to hit a stable 4.1 or 4.2 for it being a 65w tdp chip. Anyways, I will use the stock cooler, set the 1600 at 3.7 or 3.8 and be happy
Akh Il In stock cooler you can only clock to 3,7 if you do higher, cpu will crash when you use in high load.
ryzen r5 1600 ;)
Mr11ESSE111 Ok. Thx
Please tell me im not the only one.. the fucking cpu usage in ryzen is 40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because most games don't utilize all 6 cores...yet
Meaning, there are still more room for optimization?
KatGames _YT Yes. AFAIK developer dont like to use more cores. Most of the old and new games use lower cores because it performs better than multi core aslo because of their hardware. But i really do hope that theyll optimize the multi core+ for games. ( Correct me if im wrong here )
And higher temps :L
Well it appears he's using the stock cooler for the Ryzen chip, but a third-party cooler on the Intel
think of how good the 16oo will be with optimization
westyk52sparky ikr
Until it happens, it hasn't happened. :/
westyk52sparky FX users still waiting this "optimization"... I really hope they get it done so we can pay less for more, doesn't matter if you go with Intel or AMD!
It's more about game engines using more cores. The more modern the game the better that trend seems to be. Mass effect did very well in the video above and it is the newest one there I think. So going forward I think it should do well.
no games are optimized for amds new architecture. yet its going to take time for game developers to work it out. the engines are being updated all the time.
The 1600 is better than I could have imagined. I'm upgrading as soon as I can afford it. My i5 6500 is fine for gaming alone, but I really need those extra cores and threads for my streams.
lol in gta 5 look at the cpu usage lmao thank god i havent bought the i5 6600k now im buying the ryzen 1600 thx for benchmarks
TrainTruck my next build will be a ryzen build but my 6600k is still ample for the next few years. given I built it early 2016 it will have well served its purpose by the time I upgrade. As of right now, if all.yoyr doing is Gaming the 1600x is the best choice.
I have an 6600 and if I were building a new system today then I would definitely get the Ryzen 5 vs a Skylake i5. For gaming they have similar performance and the Ryzen is probably a better all rounder. It is also cheaper, comes with a cooler, has *good* cheaper motherboards and can most likely be upgraded later without swapping boards... where as Intel seem to make every new processor require a new platform.
But is it enough of step up over an i5 to make the change? I'm not sure. A Ryzen 7 would clearly be a step up but they are not as good value compared to the coffee lake i5-8600K.
Another Ryzen victim :(
RIP i5 6600k :(
Mason Reed intel fanboy
poor intel i5 6600k, RIP
rip intel
Mason Reed they are pretty neck and neck. I own an i5 6600k, but I bought it long before ryzen came out. I would switch in a heartbeat if money weren't a factor. Ever try streaming with a 6600k? Ok at 720p but definitely not 1080p.
On the long go ryzen wins games like battlefield 1 and V use more core cores and threads so pretty much i5 lost in this moment
Amd wins...
Papa Burgundy Yeah they're neck and neck. But look who has lower clock speeds? Look who has been optimized. Look at the price range. Look at who has more experience with their architecture. Look at who's sweating balls, and who isn't it just to keep up.
At this point, AMD easily takes the lead when all things are considered.
Jes Don Wish Ryzen was released like 4months ago. Could have gotten me a 1700/1700x instead of my 6700k
yeah and z270 motherboards wont support coffeelake
2400mhz baby just upgarde to 3200mhz and see he magic for ryzen
Cody 0013 did you look at the frame rate?
Ryzen 1600 needs to get nerfed, too op
I think you should stop clash royale
It's very real in some games like pubg just Oly 20% omg
I Think You're Hate AMD...
with proper game optimization for Ryzen in games, I don't see a reason to pay for an intel CPU especially that Ryzen "rendered" intel's CPU overpriced.
I would leave that to you ;)
Neiva Where ever you live they're gouging if the 1600 is $120 more than a 6600. Take newegg for Instance(us). The R5 1600 is $219 and the I5 6600K is $239.
Could you share a link to pricing where you live? Looking online I can't find anyone that is charging $120 more for a 1600 vs 6600K.
Also take into consideration to OC the I5 you need a Z board. Intel doesn't offer a budget overclocking chipset like the Zen line does in both the B350 and X300. The mini prices are also lower for an OC AMD board ($70ish)
Yeah because spending an extra 10$ on a i5-7600 is just to much to ask.
It is, its 4 core, no excuses for a 4 core in 2017.
Godlyhank thats why there are hyperthreaded CPUs from intel, you know already?
Well done man, very useful, straight to the point, great video
The GPU was not fully utilized in the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark. The Intel i5 was maxed out at 100% and the gpu could only be utilized up to 94%. On the other hand, the AMD r5 1600 was only using 50% of each core/thread and allowed for the GPU to reach 100% utilization. AMD has won, and by far.
Hey, i just wanted to tell you :) WELL DONE!! you are one of only a few that actually gave me the most important info. CPU USAGE!!
fine you have like a GTX1060 and hit some X Fps with intel and like Y Fps with Ryzen.
For me and for all (at least it should) the CPU USAGE is the important thing here :)
For example in Project Cars, Intel hits 70-80% where as Ryzen 30-50% which means you not only get and 6 core with 16md L3 cache but also, you still have quite a bit of head room for streaming or just recording in x264 codec (if you so want, of course you are using shadowplay with the NVEC H.264 codec).
In my opinion you did well in showing the CPU USAGE since we can compare it to the price and FPS and not only like in other benchmark videos price to FPS which to be honest doesn't mean much.
WELL DONE.
Wow , the cpu usage on Ryzen 5 1600 is low compared to i5
but the tamperature is higher
the temperature is slightly higher which is nothing to be complaining about tbh
K you sure it’s nothing to complain about? What about on a hot summer day. My room gets quite warm you can feel it should that matter?
@HWLH Productions Are u kidding? U seen the CPU usage and the frames of the ryzen? ITS GREAT for only 5/10º more man, are u consoler? XD
HWLH Productions
i live in Saudi Arabia (you cant get any hotter than here for sure) temperature of the CPU goes up to 70 under load in a very hot day
but i have an AC running so...
Looks like the best bang for buck in the ryzen lineup. This video is quite informative, without OC and with a RAM frequency that most users will actually get (the compatibility issues will not magically disappear in the next few weeks/months).
i never used an amd cpu but i think in my next pc build ( in this summer) i will go to the ryzen 1600, more cpu cores, less usage, more performance
this is the most appreciable comparison video I've seen so far with ryzen thx
They were both better than each other.
More cores, less cost, and easier overclocking. I'm so glad I went with Team Red here.
The intel doesn't have much more fps and on the gta it isn't going under 90% on the CPU usage. The ryzens like yeah I'll use half.
Why did you have everything set to low or medium???? I would like to see how they perform with everything on ultra.
The results are surprising. AMD chips can really hold their own now! I'm very impressed! And no, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I own an i7 7700k.
just noticed you have cpu usage but almost nobody else shows it. this is very interesting to know! so what if the intel cpus sometimes run better the cpu usage is insanely high! hope to see you compare ryzen vs coffeelake cpus
Now I'm proud that I'm an AMD fanboy.
Just be a fan of price to performance, geez Louis people are so lonely they actually have to take sides in something. You are loved! Stop looking for a group to be apart of lol. But yes AMD continues to slay daaayum.
@@deceaseda7x22 mans really said geez Louise💀💀
@@yourmomsleftcheek1471 mans really has a naruto avatar pic 💀💀
@@deceaseda7x22 yeah and???
@@yourmomsleftcheek1471 💀💀💀💀mans really said “yeah and??” LMAO 🤣
Wonderful side by side test. well done!
I don't understand why you guys are saying that AMD won. I see more FPS on almost all games with intel. So who cares if the CPU has higher load. All I care is FPS. Not a fanboy of any company.
very smart boy!!
1) Higher fps on intel? Then not in this video, you didn't. Only outright win for Intel was in GTA5. (And Fallout, but that's sth with the GPU since it's not being utilized fully. Problem is with the engine, not the cpu's).
In Project Cars, Andromeda and Witcher 3, the Ryzen did pull out ahead. The others were too close to even notice anything.
2) They're both at stock clocks.
3) The 1600 comes with a stock cooler, and is 35USD cheaper.
So you get at least same performance for less, unless you're constantly playing GTA5. And your system won't panic when you alt-tab between your game, discord, twitch and youtube. (My dad's 6600K does)
The CPU usage difference is insane. On my i7 4770k I've noticed if I start browsing or watching youtube on my 2nd monitor while in certain games like Andromeda, the videos and sometimes just scrolling webpages will not be smooth. Especially if I start streaming to Twitch while playing at maxed out settings just doing too much 100% cpu usage occurs quite often. Maybe Ryzen is going to solve those types of multitasking issues for people. Considering selling my whole PC 4770k, 16gb ram, gtx 1070 for a ryzen 1600x or 1700x, gtx 1080 ti build. I wonder if the 1600 may not be enough and will cause a bottleneck though? My dad started a PC business early 2000's and swore by AMD. Maybe it's that time again.
Ryzen 5 1600 is my favorite CPU atm. Good job AMD.
Looks like it's a good Upgrade from my FX-8350 - I get about half that fps in GTAV in the same areas of the Benchmark lol
(Also have the GTX 1060)
Thanks for sharing these Tests!
ryzen can do wat intel can do at a lower speed ..better ipc..and half the cpu usage..
ryzen for the win !!!
for the almost same fps (at 4:37 forward), the workload on the amd is only at around 46% to 60% whereas intel reaches in certain moments the 100% marks. This is nuts.
20-40% cpu on 1600x and 80-100% on i5. RIP i5
I think it's because it has 6 cores and 12 threads against 4 cores of I5, it stays short
yes but they priced similarly and this is 2017, why do quad cores even still exists for heaven sakes?
It's loading the GPU more. Hence i5's higher fps in those scenes
levlobotomy higher fps ? sure . but why? because games are not optimized for ryzen.
how much more fps? 5-10fps.
does it matters? as long as it is more than 100fps , i dont thnink so.
it only takes 40% of 1600x's power to beat similar priced i5 7600k .
esperCELL never said there was anything wrong with them but it being around for such a long time. Intel are ok with not pushing for more cores and still charging ridiculous prices for quad cores is absurd - this is why allot of gaming developers not making thier games optimized for more cores.
What a monster
good to see AMD competing.. would like to see both at max OC. heard Ryzen 5 tops at 4ghz, while i5-6600k goes to 4.4ghz easy on air. Maybe that would even it out. if i were out to buy a cpu now, i would go with Ryzen.
We'll just have to look around for OC comparisons.
Klobi for President i have.. most OC comparisons lock both at 4ghz.
Ohno_Nono Mmmhhh ... Look for independently gathered results? So launch day reviews of an OC 7600K? Won't be the best comparison (game updates) but hey ...
Yes, but k skew CPUs don't come with fans, plus you have to spend quite a bit more on Z170 motherboard. Whereas AMD offers dirt cheap B350 boards for overclocking, and has the CPUs come with overclocking capable fans (asides from the 1600x). But seriously, you could hit that 4ghz on a 1500x and such with the fan it comes with.
I have on I5-6600k 5.0ghz stable
I love how the Intel CPU is generally pinned around 70%, consistently hitting 100% for quite some time. While the R5 chill around 30-40%, even dipping as low as 10. The 1600 at stock 3.2ghz though? That's nuts. I'm getting a 1600 myself, and just planned to overclock. Didn't think it would do this well at stock.
LESS CPU USAGE MORE FPS......!!!
PFFF
JUST AWESOME....!!!
NO MATTER THE CORES-THREADS......!!!!
THAT"S JUST KICKING ASS MAN....!!!
i like how the 1600 cpu usage stays below 50% in many games
CPU utilization really says it all, Ryzen 5 is being under utilized far more then the core i5 6600k, developers optimizing their games for Ryzen will see large performance gains at 1920X1080.
Well, the R5 has two free cores. This would definitely benefit streamers in terms of getting a smooth performance out of their system.
I just bought a PC, and I’m so glad I went with the 1600 over an i5 I was so worried that if I didn’t get an i5 or higher it wasn’t going to be good.
imagine if u used 3200 ram. gg ez game
I'm newbie, does the RAM speed affect to the performance?
mrPlus
Yes, but not that drastic, it cost a lot too!
It affects ryzen quite a lot, gaining 10% more fps by having ram that's a bit more expensive is a pretty good deal, in some games there's less difference in some games there's more. It affects intel cpus too but not on the same degree. Downside is there's still some issues with very high speed ram for ryzen but those should be sorted out soon
Fast ram is not expensive at all lol.. 2 4gb sticks of ddr4 2400 from corsair is like 60 bucks just overclock it to 3000 or 3200,
The very few ram sticks that actually work at 3000+ for one's specific ryzen motherboard might be very expensive though.
Thanks for showing the comparison non overclocked, its nice to see how they perform out of the box. Finally, perhaps now intel can stop overcharging for a boring quad core cpu.
Can you explain the almost 1GB more RAM usage on Ryzen 5 1600 in ME: Andromeda? Cuz that kind of extra usage never happened in your previous tests.
kronauer88 good question. 👍
I've seen this happen before, I'm not sure what causes it. But it seems like with more resources available, sometimes games will consume more memory. Black Ops 3, when I had 8gb would use about 6. Once I upgraded to 16, it hits 10 with no performance gain. Plus it's a newish game, might be a memory leak.
ok i do not know how to explain this: the movement feels a lot smoother on ryzen ( as long as you have 60 fps, regardless of which cpu gets higher fps) , watch mass effect demo and focus on the movement of flames on both sides , i feel that the flames displayed by ryzen is more fluid and more organized ,. i can make out which part of the flame is moving first or second and so on .. it is simply eye catching , unlike the i5 which is much more difficult to do so .
Hell yes, finally some competition from AMD! Really sick of Intel's incremental "improvements" the last 6 years. Going to support AMD this time around to fuel some competition. Intel's prices are already dropping, even if you hate AMD you should thank them for forcing Intel to drop their prices.
John Connor im sick of not soldering their cpus
theres a reasons for why Haswell called Hotswell XD
True bro . i hate 4 core , they sell it again and again .
by watching the CPU load alone we could see how easy the ryzen is handling games and still makes a good score. imagine how great it's going to perform if the game developer's work on Ryzen optimization
I'm a Huge fan of ryzen but having the 6600k only run at 3.5 is stunting it when most people can easily run it at 4.5. All amd needs to focus on for future iterations of ryzen is getting clock speeds up. Ryzen seems to have close to the same performance as Intel clock for clock
There is still a catch, first you need a Z motherboard which is much more expensive. The Ryzen processor can also OC but at a less range (4Ghz I think is the typical maxed out for Ryzen 1600) , and you can even do that on an A320 motherboard. And then the possibility for upgrade (A typical A320 can now upgrade up to the Ryzen 3600 CPU) . If you bought the 6600k you have no next gen upgrade.
Intel needs to be less greedy AND catch up as well.
The exact video I was waiting for
my fx 6350 is feeling its age i think is time to upgrade to ryzen 1600 as soon as possible
I was thinking of buying the 6600k to replace my i5 3470 but thanks to this video I've decided to get the ryzen
Great achievement from AMD, the R5 lineup has definitely been the most interesting category!
Ryzen 1600 seems to run hotter than the i5 6600k. I know the temps are not a reason to worry, but I wanna know, were you using different coolers for this comparison?
Ryzen has risen . Intel has finally been defeated. The funny thing is that Intel fanboys are still on the fact that i5 is better. What most Intel fanboys dont realize is Ryzen 5 is either on par or better than i5 6600k.......with 2400hz RAM. Ryzen is a RAM dependent CPU and imagine with 3200hz RAM . Good bye Intel but AMD has dethroned you guys for real. They weren't playing around this time. Nice work on video comparison. Please make a ryzen 1600 vs i5 7600k (RX 480)
I wouldn't be so sure about intel being "defeated", tho. It's not like they'll go bankrupt over seeing a serious competitor jump back in the game.
It's gonna go back and forth, and we'll benefit from this as consumers. Now THAT is the part I like about all of this.
Neiva yes but who wants to pay
$£500-600 for cpu just to get an extra 15 20 fps when ryzen has already got more than enough
Mark D which usable intel cost 500-600?
7700k for about 260$, its cheap.
only an idiot would buy i5 for 240$ for example
so do a fair comparison, and you see how fast intel really is.
thos r5/7 vs i5 benchs are stupid, and only for advertising Ryzen.
dont forget: AMD promised the same with their FX Processors.
whats going on till today? they did NOTHING!
yeah, 6/8 core amd still perform well for their age cause the higher core count, but in games where single core performance is also needed. a "bad", old i5/i3 overrun the 6 core.
and i think the same will show us AMD with Ryzen.
maybe not with R5, because the 1400 is really "cheap" for the performance, but 100% with more expensive r5 or r7
everybody should take what fits the best for their usage.
but i think if we do video editing, we also should have the time to take 30% longer to render something.
i can remeber when i was doin photomerge with PS CS3 with the Core 2 Duo. yeah you can do 1 coffe break and after it a smoking break and so if you merge 30 - 40x 10.1 MP photos, but i had time, so why buy a 300$ or more CPU
i remember a time, there we get fast CPUs for 100$ so ryzen is overpriced also
Thomas Steiner i was refering to the upcoming intel cpus which will probably cost that
esperCELL so is the 1500x not worth getting then
good old times
you used the BIOS 0604 in the Ryzen?
i have the i5 6600k at the min. so im going to hold out for ryzen 2. we might see some 4.5 overclocks with optimization.
Why is everybody buying the prime-a b350 board? The Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3 is just a bit more expensive but it has alot more gaming features and doesnt it support faster ram?
EdvinMaster - what gaming features?
You're right, I think I read wrong because I thought it had Killer™ Ethernet E2500 and some other features but that was probably on a different board. At least heres some gaming features:
*Realtek® GbE LAN with cFosSpeed Internet Accelerator Networking
*GIGABYTE's EasyTune
*Free 14 days XSplit Gamecaster + Broadcaster Premium License.
*Free 1 month TriDef® SmartCam License.
*ALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio with Smart Headphone Amp
Why is great audio or an easy overclocking unit useless may I ask?
Wubudubu iksde But can the bed sleep crysis?
Wubudubu iksde game ôtô hoạt
Stopped watching at GTA bench when the van lights were only on one of the trucks proving the settings were changed.
is it me or does the 6600k looks jittery esp in the fallout bench?
Pig666eon CS Yes, that's because it is maxed out and can't handle the loads for very short times. The 1600 on the other hand has no problems with that, because it has more cores and isn't used at 100% the whole time.
Pig666eon CS Only game where it's other way round is gta V in this benchmark.
Pig666eon CS
That bloody rise of the tomb raider game and it's fps drops. Will a ryzen 5 fix this?
CPU usage 25% in Mass Effect and Intel =75%. Wtf? 0_o. Someone please make review in streaming!
Stem Cord Streaming is already too much for Intel. Teamspeak and 5 Browser Tabs and Intel will fuck up. Maybe.
You guys arguing in the comments. Seriously... Look at the actual gameplay and tell me honestly you can see a clear difference between them.
1600 i5 in the streets I7 in the sheets.
Something I've noticed with Ryzen is even though the FPS doesn't go quite as high as intel with some games the fps stay fairly flat with very few spikes
Stock speeds?
yes
+Testing Games Awesome, same performance in games, and two times more performance in render, for almost 50 bucks less, AMD win again after years...
Neiva The question is: Where do you live? You are everywhere spouting your claim but haven't mention anything about where you live. Why not link us some websites that from your area so we can have a look???
the 1600 has a cooler stock and the i5 7600k doesn't, this makes them pretty much same price.
the stock cooler on 1600 has some headroom to overclock as its rated at 95 tdp and the 1600 is a 65tdp cpu stock
That CPU usage...If game devs would finally take full advantage of multi thread CPU's these Ryzen chips would be fantastic.
Heres the problem with intel, critics benchmarks and its high cpu usage. A normal pc user does more than play a video game at one time. When i have my favorite game going, i have spotify in the background, skype, browser tabs, maybe OBS if im streaming, i have program updating while i game, even steam games update while im playing, i have multiple clients open like gog galaxy, steam, battle net and so on... and im pausing and tabing through everything all the time.
This whole lets benchmark cpus on a clean windows install with nothing running is not realistic real world scenario... thats a lets see whats better if everything is perfect... how many people game on a fresh windows install with no other programs open for every game they play? none.
Basically a tie but the R5 is better in productivity and will be more "future proof" as games require more cores and threads. The R5 1600 is currently $15 cheaper than the 7600K (slightly faster than a 6600K but virtually the same). Overall a win for the R5 without a doubt. Very nice.
94 intel fanboys show their face on dislike button...
San Ace actually 254 now and I am one of them😂😂😂
Pretty impressive what AMD can handle with even half of CPU usage with more or less the same performance for a really cheaper price, definitely that would be a nice upgrade from my current A10 7890k.
Look at how much headroom Ryzen has.. Its barely touching the throttle.
Nah, it's definitely hitting high 90% just like the Intel chip but only on the cores the games are using. The % shown is an average across all cores + hyperthreads. The 1600 has 6 cores and 12 total threads. If a game was using 4 cores @ 100%, it would show up as 33% of the CPU being used. This can lead to situations where there's a low CPU percent shown as being used but the GPU is also pretty far from 100% usage: The GPU is actually waiting on the 4 CPU cores.
If you want to run something in the background like recording & streaming software, antivirus scans, or keep your browser open etc. then there's plenty of space to do that with Ryzen, and pretty much 0 room for that from Intel chip in this case. Personally, I don't like to have stuff going on in the background while gaming except a browser, but I would still probably buy the AMD even if the price was the same. Intel switches sockets very often compared to AMD, so down the line Intel users need new motherboards to upgrade their CPUs, but AMD just released this new socket and will almost certainly have new CPUs coming out for it for a long time.
Now that more than 4 cores is more common, hopefully more game developers will start adding scalability up to at least 8 cores. This would really be great for Ryzen, but that's always been the hope for AMD. The individual cores aren't far from Intel's this time though, so that's a major victory.
Turn the settings down to low? Crank it up lets see a real fight!
i5 6600k is now 219 on amazon, i see what you did there intel. This is a tough one, although i'd probably stick with intel just cause i have a lga 1151 motherboard
Competition is good for the customers :D
Giuliano Lopez Raffo True. However I already have an lga 1151 motherboard.
You know what guys I've had a change of heart, I may end up going with a ryzen 1600 and b350 motherboard to accompany it as my lga 1151 motherboard isn't capable of overclocking and my I3 6100 just ain't cutting it anymore.
Me Of course It'll be a nice investment. I got the Asus B350 mobo and R5 1600 (but the cpu arrives tomorrow). It's really a good time to sell your Intel stuff now as they still hold considerable amount of value. Transfer what you make out of the stuff you sell and build your new gaming rig.
The low CPU usage is impressive in the AMD ryzen. FPS is really not that important after 60fps, at a certain point you can't even notice how high it is.
RYZEN IS GOOD, THE BEST RYZEN, BAD INTEL
Look at that CPU usage. It's clear that if games can use even more cores the 1600 will be even better.
RAM should have been at 3000-3200 Mhz. The 1600 and the 6600K should have been given overclocks.
if your saying one side is better then the other you are right in some ways.... the bit rate on this videos makes it really hard to tell so we really cant know until you turn up the bit rate not hating just constructive critisism.
Can someone tell me why ryzen had lower cpu usage than the intel one? Because i got myself a pc spec below :
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Corsair vengeance 3200mhz 2x4 gb
EVGA 80+ 600w non modular
GIGABYTE AB350-GAMING 3
GIGABYTE GEFORCE GTX 1050TI 4GB GDRR5
Casing NZXT S340 Black Glossy
Muhammad Naufal Alauddin cause it has 12 threads while the i5 has 4
Muhammad Naufal Alauddin 600w geez that's a lot of money wasted
Sam Ramos why ?
Its because ryzen isn't 100% optimized yet and most games cant take full advantage of a total of 12 threads, that's why the i5 is almost maxed out because most of the games tested here can use up to 4 cores, meaning that the i5 is being completely used with little to know room to spare, while the r5 is only having a fraction of its cpu cores being used. AMD is still the way to go for now. hopefully Intel will hurry up and release their mid-range motherboards for the 8th gen cpu's.
What is not clear is temps. How an i5 at 95W and 73% usage is fresher than the R5 65W at 37% usage? I dont think the cooling solution is being fair. There is something really wrong about the test...
ryzen 5 1600 are like a I7 5820k
samet yasar or i7 6800k or i7 6850k or i7 5980k
at 5:11, the 1600 is using half of the CPU usage, and has over 20 more fps. Take that, intel.
Which one is running smoother? Thats the only thing i wanna know
José Feliciano i wish he had the frametimes on
Check 2:39~2:41 Ryzen fps drops from 80 to 35 heres your answer.
But... GPU load = 2%(in that moment), ita an answer.
Smoothness is something that cannot be measured by benchmark or frame rate. That's why i'm looking for impressions.
that is 1 incident but i say that is pretty good for a new platform with 0 optimization
I watched countless Ryzen gaming tests, none of those games pushed any of those processors over 75% usage. while intel CPUs screaming over 80% in most cases means intel will bottleneck very soon and hell AMD is futureproof.
intel is end of life
esperCELL i dont support any company but amd is better lmao look at the cpu load
i5s, the 4 core ones, are end of life.
and, im (not) so sorry for you, in 3-4 years, a r3-r7 and i7 from today will be at end of life like the i5 at the moment ;)
so, no advantage of a expensive, brand new CPU ;)
i paid less than a half for a used i7 Haswell, a 100$ mainboard, reused my already fast DDR3 ram, so no 100$ for ram like on ryzen, and i know i have the same power like ryzen until around 2019-2020. saved much money, DDR4 is relatively useless and expensive. My next PC will be, i hope so, DDR5 and i think a GTX 1070 i also can replace at this time. maybe this will be a good upgrade in 2-3 years.
2016 was a bad year to upgrade, 2017 much more!
Competition is running, lets hope we get something better in future than the last years
esperCELL it's simple.People buy budget builds because it's FUCKING CHEAP.also I'm not talking about the fx CPUs load percentage,I'm talking abt this CPUs load percentage
is it cheap to get every 3 years a new PC???? lol....
i change my setup every 5-8 years, my Phenom II X6 also was outdated, it was a complete system for under 700$ in around 2010-2011
after 7 years (beginning 2017) i updated to a used i7, new GTX 1070 and reused parts like Case, PSU, SSD, RAM (cause 4790k is DDR3.... :)
like always, i got cheap hi end performance, for the first time a used CPU, but anyways, new parts were way too expensive, also the ryzen ones are too expensive for my opinion. so i risked, i worried a long time, but i think this auction was a good idea. nearly 7700k performance for 130$ the CPU :)
believe me, its not cheap to got a PC that can handly games for max 2-3 years playable, i already say "playable", no recommended hardware settings, better the minimums ;) cheap desktops also cost around 3-400$, for 200$ more, you can get a pretty fine gaming setup for at least 1 year+ usability. Ok, 600 $ for a whole gaming PC is hard to do today, but 2010, it was easy :)
the costs were around (for brandnew parts!):
CPU: midclass around 80-120$, 150$+ hi end consumer CPUs
RAM: 20-50$
Mainboard: 40-50$ the cheapest crap boards, usable boards with better chipsets/OC compability for around 60-100$
HDDs: 30-50$ for high capacity ones
graphicscard: 50-150$ for low to mid end GPUs, around 200$ for mid , more high end single gpu cards, 300$+ for(really) Hi end ones.
if you calculate this main parts toghether, you will see, today such high performing hardware is impossible to get for this prices
Also see this: around 2010 and before, Hi End Class was only a bit stronger than mid class, only the Low end/office hardware was ultimatively slow.
today, midrange parts are in many cases wide away from the hi end parts performance.
Like the GPU market, in 2010 you get a pretty fast GPU for 150$, and a little bit faster (hi end one) for 300$ for example.
today, you get a way too expensive midclass-card for 200$, or you take 400-500$ and take nearly the doubled performance....also way too expensive, but for real gamers who want to play AAA titles, 1440p+, 60 fps+, mostly the only option.
For AMD, ATi, nVidia and Intel its poker, and we have to pay for it ;)
And these are at 2400 MHz ram speeds with no overclocks, get 3200 and put that 1600 to 3.8+ ghz and you'll see at least a 5-10%+ performance gain.
Ryzen is using 40% of its capacity while i5 is using around 80%, ryzen still runs about 10 degrees hotter. AMD never fails to disappoint on temperatures.
You forgot something... This particular Ryzen uses a stock cooler while the i5k ships without it, so an aftermarket cooler is needed and that is why it definitely cools better.
wtf? It will be because the Ryzen 1600 has 6 cores? lol
Indeed, that's not bad temps for a stock cooler.
This kids today...No respect what so ever..Look at the replies..."are yo blind" "its because of stock cooler' - like they know everything..Let them talk i'll se them what degree of school they'll finish that way...Being arrogant is easy..Be humble.. Its not hard!
Ryzen also reports 20 degrees hotter but ya 10 degrees of fuck were goners
Nice video... But I don't see a reason why you kept the textures and overall quality to low/medium when you can push all the way to ultra with that rig
Didn't know it'd be THAT good for the price. I'll be getting the 1600x soon
Damn this Ryzen is a killer! Guys, what is the minimum standard power supply for Ryzen 5 PC without third party GPU..? I'm planning on building a low power consumption gaming pc..
So basically if you dont have the cash for a i7 7700k with a zboard and a aftermarket cooler get the R5 1600 with a $90 am4 mobo and use the stock cooler. not bad.
In Project Cars you can use replays. Then you can benchmark exactly the same scene.
Building a new rig after about 8 years. I'm looking for something that'll last me just as long... I also want to add that the rig would be solely for gaming.
Case - NZXT S340 Elite Black/Red
PSU - 630W Thermaltake Smart SE
GTX - MSI GTX 1070 GAMING X 8G
CPU - AMD Ryzen 5 1600 + Stock Cooler
MB - Asus Prime B350 Plus
RAM - 2x8GB 3200MHz Corsair Vengance
HDD - 7200 2TB WD Black
SSD - 240GB Sandisk Ultra II
Thoughts? And also i am planning to OC the CPU.
Really solid build but if you want to OC, I wouldn't use the stock cooler.
Excellent work !
Why is the i5 doing over 200fps in the vs ryzen 7 video but hangs around 150fps in this one?
Notice how much more of the CPU is being used on the Intel side. By the time games start getting this Ryzen chip to break a sweat, the i5 will be sitting at a constant 100% use on all cores, bottlenecking something fierce.
Is it just the X models that have the 20 degrees offset, or is it for all of them? For only being used 40% by most games, the 1600 still seems to run hotter than I5.
question, can you benchmark player unknowns battlegrounds?