Unfortunately, this deal is no longer valid
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz Hexa Core (Socket AM4) CPU - £92.74 @ CCLOnline
343° Expired

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz Hexa Core (Socket AM4) CPU - £92.74 @ CCLOnline

17
Posted 2nd Nov

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

Price drop on this Ryzen CPU. Down from £98.91.

Every AMD Ryzen processor is multiplier-unlocked from the factory, so you can personalize performance to your taste. AMD provides the AMD Ryzen Master utility to access this powerful advantage. AMD Ryzen Master provides for up to four profiles to store custom clocks and voltage adjustments for both the Ryzen CPU and DDR4 memory. You can park cores and adjust memory timings, too. Accurate hardware status updates are vital, so AMD Ryzen Master has you covered with both real-time monitoring and a histogram of per-core clock rates and temperature, including average and peak readings. AMD introduces SenseMI technology, a set of learning and adapting features that help the AMD Ryzen processor customize its performance to you and your applications. Finally: performance that thinks. Cool and quiet processor operation using a sophisticated grid of smart sensors. Fine-tuned processor performance adjusted in real time to meet the performance demands of your game or app. Automatic extra performance boost for enthusiasts with premium systems and processor cooling. Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently. Learning algorithms that predict and pre-load needed data for fast and responsive computing.

Main Features

- 3.2 GHz clock rate with 3.6 GHz Precision Boost
- AMD Wraith Spire cooler
- 65 Watt TDP

Key Features:

- Base: 3.2GHz, Turbo: 3.6GHz
- Hexa Core, 12 Threads
- Socket AM4
- 65W TDP
- Heatsink & Fan Included
Community Updates
CCLOnline Deals

Groups

Top comments
Surely you'd pay about £10 more and get the 2600?
17 Comments
Cracking price, 2600 will be sub £99 soon. Black Friday will be very interesting for us PC gamers!
Surely you'd pay about £10 more and get the 2600?
Chaep as Chips ... actually it IS chips.
Jamal_Mahroof02/11/2019 14:34

Surely you'd pay about £10 more and get the 2600?


I would think so if it were my money. Ryzen 2000 series was a fairly sizeable leap up in performance over 1000 series.
kwl14702/11/2019 15:14

I would think so if it were my money. Ryzen 2000 series was a fairly …I would think so if it were my money. Ryzen 2000 series was a fairly sizeable leap up in performance over 1000 series.


Comparing stock versus stock, sure, because they were clocked higher out of the box. There's really not much between them at all once you overclock though.



You could space them out a little more than that if you push the 2600 further (the one I used to have topped out at 4.15GHz), but it's still nothing major. Zen 2 was a huge leap clock for clock though of course.
Aretak02/11/2019 15:23

Comparing stock versus stock, sure, because they were clocked higher out …Comparing stock versus stock, sure, because they were clocked higher out of the box. There's really not much between them at all once you overclock though.[Video] You could space them out a little more than that if you push the 2600 further (the one I used to have topped out at 4.15GHz), but it's still nothing major. Zen 2 was a huge leap clock for clock though of course.


I was thinking how likely it would be that someone would overlock. I’m more of the mindset that unless you really need the extra power and speed, why overlock? It’s not like the extra speed changes your daily life lol
Jamal_Mahroof02/11/2019 14:34

Surely you'd pay about £10 more and get the 2600?


Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a big step up and will be more 'future proof' heading into the new generation of games, while still being very cheap.
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 2nd Nov
Seanspeed02/11/2019 16:43

Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a …Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a big step up and will be more 'future proof' heading into the new generation of games, while still being very cheap.


I think at that point you can keep going by saying "spend £x more and you'll get an even better one for only £x more" and before you know it you're looking at super expensive CPUs haha
Jamal_Mahroof02/11/2019 16:48

I think at that point you can keep going by saying "spend £x more and …I think at that point you can keep going by saying "spend £x more and you'll get an even better one for only £x more" and before you know it you're looking at super expensive CPUs haha


True and that's a slippery slope when it comes to pc components but bearing in mind the next-gen consoles will contain 8 core zen 2 ryzen chips, the step up to 8 cores may be more important when it comes to cross-platform games. That being said, you can't imagine 6 cores will be insufficient for the next few years.
kwl14702/11/2019 15:46

I was thinking how likely it would be that someone would overlock. I’m m …I was thinking how likely it would be that someone would overlock. I’m more of the mindset that unless you really need the extra power and speed, why overlock? It’s not like the extra speed changes your daily life lol


I've got a B350 motherboard and I just set my motherboard to auto oc voltage and just set the multiplier to x39 and it's running at 3.9Ghz stable when I've benchmarked it but because it's set to auto it only clocks to 3.9Ghz when it needs it it, quite often on the desktop it's 2-3Ghz sometimes as low as 1.6Ghz. When gaming it runs at about 54c but compared to stock most games I see a 10-20% bump in FPS. For me the 2600 wasn't worth the upgrade over my 1600 at 3.9Ghz, I plan on buying a 3600 when they're cheaper.
Lounds02/11/2019 17:50

I've got a B350 motherboard and I just set my motherboard to auto oc …I've got a B350 motherboard and I just set my motherboard to auto oc voltage and just set the multiplier to x39 and it's running at 3.9Ghz stable when I've benchmarked it but because it's set to auto it only clocks to 3.9Ghz when it needs it it, quite often on the desktop it's 2-3Ghz sometimes as low as 1.6Ghz. When gaming it runs at about 54c but compared to stock most games I see a 10-20% bump in FPS. For me the 2600 wasn't worth the upgrade over my 1600 at 3.9Ghz, I plan on buying a 3600 when they're cheaper.


Ah not heard of auto oc voltage. Then again I was using a x470 Asus board for a 1700x when overclocking. Albeit this was in a warm environment, it couldn’t sustain x40 over clock. Think my voltage was too low as it would spike above the limit I put in when I started benchmarking and monitoring voltage.

I picked up a 3600 early at 169ish when it came on here. Still yet to use it as needed to buy a new motherboard, then update it, then install it etc. Lot of faff.
Seanspeed02/11/2019 16:43

Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a …Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a big step up and will be more 'future proof' heading into the new generation of games, while still being very cheap.


Nothings future proof in PC gaming, 6 months your out of date. Games haven't taken advantage of 3 year old hardware yet never mind today's.
GP8y102/11/2019 20:31

Nothings future proof in PC gaming, 6 months your out of date. Games …Nothings future proof in PC gaming, 6 months your out of date. Games haven't taken advantage of 3 year old hardware yet never mind today's.


This isn't the 1990's anymore. Hardware is not 'out of date' within 6 months. lol

I also think you're not quite grasping the implications of next gen consoles and what that's going to do to requirements for games on PC, particularly as cross-gen titles die off within a year or so of launch. And with how long people are keeping their CPU's around nowadays, looking towards the future is extremely worthwhile.

Eight core CPU's are going to age a lot better than six core CPU's heading into the early 2020's - I can guarantee it. When you can make that upgrade for an extra £50-60, it's well worth it.
Jamal_Mahroof02/11/2019 16:48

I think at that point you can keep going by saying "spend £x more and …I think at that point you can keep going by saying "spend £x more and you'll get an even better one for only £x more" and before you know it you're looking at super expensive CPUs haha


No, that's not really the case. My recommendation is specifically because an eight core CPU will age much better than a six core CPU, at least if you're planning to game on it. This will be a notable difference in a few years as next gen titles get rolling. You will not find that same difference spending another £50-60 on top of that.

I'm not saying this simply to say, "Just spend more and get better", I'm trying to give forward thinking advice in an age when people regularly hold onto their CPU's for 4-7 years.
Edited by: "Seanspeed" 3rd Nov
Seanspeed03/11/2019 12:42

No, that's not really the case. My recommendation is specifically because …No, that's not really the case. My recommendation is specifically because an eight core CPU will age much better than a six core CPU, at least if you're planning to game on it. This will be a notable difference in a few years as next gen titles get rolling. You will not find that same difference spending another £50-60 on top of that. I'm not saying this simply to say, "Just spend more and get better", I'm trying to give forward thinking advice in an age when people regularly hold onto their CPU's for 4-7 years.


The question is will having 6 cores vs 8 cores make much difference to how long you keep your CPU? I am still rocking an fx 8350 well past it's due date and its doing just fine for me but most people I dont think go past the point of a CPU making games unplayable anyway. A lot will also depend on your requirements as a gamer. I like to play competitively so any game I play is on very low graphics to maximise fps and minimise input delay and I'm getting 120-130fps on modern warfare with my fx8350 and gtx 980 but for some people they may want more and would have upgraded ages ago (I did play campaign on maxed out graphics at 4k with around 30-40fps though). So the difference on when an 8 core vs a 6 course will see unplayable or undesirable fps is negligible in my opinion and the difference in when someone will upgrade is probably not going to be affected by whether they have either
Jamal_Mahroof03/11/2019 13:03

The question is will having 6 cores vs 8 cores make much difference to how …The question is will having 6 cores vs 8 cores make much difference to how long you keep your CPU? I am still rocking an fx 8350 well past it's due date and its doing just fine for me but most people I dont think go past the point of a CPU making games unplayable anyway. A lot will also depend on your requirements as a gamer. I like to play competitively so any game I play is on very low graphics to maximise fps and minimise input delay and I'm getting 120-130fps on modern warfare with my fx8350 and gtx 980 but for some people they may want more and would have upgraded ages ago (I did play campaign on maxed out graphics at 4k with around 30-40fps though). So the difference on when an 8 core vs a 6 course will see unplayable or undesirable fps is negligible in my opinion and the difference in when someone will upgrade is probably not going to be affected by whether they have either


I think it absolutely make a difference how long people keep their CPU. That's my point here. I'm stubbornly sticking with my 3570k at the moment, but it's been several years since it has started to show its age and struggles to hit a consistent 60fps in more and more games. Lots of people will have moved on from these older i5's by now, though if they had invested in an i7, maybe they'd have held off for another couple years thanks to the hyperthreading making a notable difference, even though it didn't make much difference early on.

As for people who want to game at 100fps+, this is even *more* reason to invest a bit more into your CPU's future viability. Because graphics settings dont tend to affect CPU performance, so if you're CPU bottlenecked, turning settings down isn't gonna help.

You're right that it depends on what games people play, though.

But I strongly disagree that the difference will be 'negligible' in terms of when people decide to upgrade. I think you're underestimating the kick that CPU requirements are about to get when next-gen gets rolling. They'll have some serious CPU power and unless you dont really care about hitting 60fps or only tend to play lighter games that are already running at 60fps on consoles, it's gonna be harder to hit higher framerates than many will be used to. We've been super spoiled this gen with multiplatform games being built with the baseline of very weak console CPU's, which enables us to get far more performance with our comparatively much more powerful CPU's. That will *not* be the case next gen after cross gen titles die off.
Seanspeed02/11/2019 16:43

Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a …Hell, spend about £60 more for an 8 core 2700, at this point. That's a big step up and will be more 'future proof' heading into the new generation of games, while still being very cheap.



Why not spend even more and get a 7 ? Where do you stop ?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text