Update 24th Jan - Ryzen 5 1600x - £176.14 @ Amazon
306°Expired

Update 24th Jan - Ryzen 5 1600x - £176.14 @ Amazon

£176.14£20112%Amazon Deals
38
Found 10th Jan
*Price dropped further to £176.14*

Price dropped slightly since the weekend.
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
Save £30 and just get the 1600.
AMD shaved 30% off CPU prices in the last week, so give it a couple of weeks to filter in to the supply chain.

Discounts should be deeper within a month.

Ryzen+ out in Feb too which should also discount the 1800X and 1900X lines.
Edited by: "The_Hoff" 10th Jan
Now, now, dont all you Intel users go and have Melt Down.

Intel confirm that SYSMARK scores on it newest i7 are down between 2 and 14% in the various tests. Those of you with Haswell or older can expect worse.

Dont worry, in most cases you probably wont notice the difference, as it is hidden by other process delays.
36 Comments
£188.99 at ariapc. Limited time then it's £193.
Edited by: "BobKelso" 10th Jan
Save £30 and just get the 1600.
AMD shaved 30% off CPU prices in the last week, so give it a couple of weeks to filter in to the supply chain.

Discounts should be deeper within a month.

Ryzen+ out in Feb too which should also discount the 1800X and 1900X lines.
Edited by: "The_Hoff" 10th Jan
Prefer to save almost £100 and get the i3 8100 TBH
the next gen ryzen line up has been confirmed for april release. Pretty much everyone has been told that the current line up will get a decent discount to clear stock for the newer chips. If i was in a position to buy another CPU, i would wait to see what the new ryzen line up performs like and then decide whether to purchase the older models for a cheaper price or get more performance for my money with the newer chips.
Leeman2038 m ago

the next gen ryzen line up has been confirmed for april release. Pretty …the next gen ryzen line up has been confirmed for april release. Pretty much everyone has been told that the current line up will get a decent discount to clear stock for the newer chips. If i was in a position to buy another CPU, i would wait to see what the new ryzen line up performs like and then decide whether to purchase the older models for a cheaper price or get more performance for my money with the newer chips.



This actually remind me, unlike AMD, Intels CPU never drop price when new CPU comes out, so where do they dissappear to anyway?
RavensNest_OfTech-1104127141960806161421 h, 16 m ago

Prefer to save almost £100 and get the i3 8100 TBH


Why are you comparing a 4 thread CPU with a 12 thread one. The intel CPU also only had OC mobos as an option right now.
ackel00622 m ago

Why are you comparing a 4 thread CPU with a 12 thread one. The intel CPU …Why are you comparing a 4 thread CPU with a 12 thread one. The intel CPU also only had OC mobos as an option right now.


Why are you comparing thread counts? What's next? GHz?
Now, now, dont all you Intel users go and have Melt Down.

Intel confirm that SYSMARK scores on it newest i7 are down between 2 and 14% in the various tests. Those of you with Haswell or older can expect worse.

Dont worry, in most cases you probably wont notice the difference, as it is hidden by other process delays.
deleted5795910th Jan

I3 is better than the Ryzen 3 not sure its better than the Ryzen 5.


Single core performance yes.
Bleh. I would either buy the 1600 to save money and OC or just get the i5 8400 if I was using it for gaming.
what has this site come to, I liked the old HUKD
Sorry but this is and has been a fairly standard price for ryzen 5 1600x for a couple of months. The ryzen 5 1600 sells for 164 and oc basically the same. Why are people voting this hot???
All the price cuts from CES..

deleted5795910th Jan

I3 is better than the Ryzen 3 not sure its better than the Ryzen 5.



It depends what you want it for, in most games the R3 trounces the i3; the R5 beats the i5 in some games, but is beaten in others, and the R7 falls behind in games against the i7.
HOWEVER, add another task like encoding and streaming your game in real time on youtube and the Rizens surge ahead in nearly every case, on quality of the encoding and the number of fps captured, while dropping their gaming score very little.
The advantage of more cores.
deleted5795910th Jan

I3 is better than the Ryzen 3 not sure its better than the Ryzen 5.


It's not but price to performance the 8100 is a better choice and everything is optimized for Intel I'd rather save the £100 and use it for a better graphics card maybe.
ackel0069 h, 54 m ago

Why are you comparing a 4 thread CPU with a 12 thread one. The intel CPU …Why are you comparing a 4 thread CPU with a 12 thread one. The intel CPU also only had OC mobos as an option right now.


As everyone knows AMD can have as many cores and they want like Intel still beats them with less cores this is coming from an AMD fan boy I've been with AMD since the good old days, I was just comparing price to performance the i3 8100 would be a better choice since it's only £100 at the moment I'd rather spend the extra £100 on a better GPU maybe.
pablomalin10 h, 25 m ago

Save another £40 and get G4600..


As long as you have a decent GPU it's not a bad choice for a budget gaming rig
People keep comparing to intel yet don't Intel have a security flaw that the AMD chip does not suffer from. The only fix at the moment seems to be to slow the intel chips down ?
amancalledchip57 m ago

People keep comparing to intel yet don't Intel have a security flaw that …People keep comparing to intel yet don't Intel have a security flaw that the AMD chip does not suffer from. The only fix at the moment seems to be to slow the intel chips down ?


Both Intel and AMD suffer from the security issues AMD on a software level Intel on a hardware level the fix doesn't seem to effect Intel's performance.
RavensNest_OfTech-1104127141960806161422 m ago

Both Intel and AMD suffer from the security issues AMD on a software level …Both Intel and AMD suffer from the security issues AMD on a software level Intel on a hardware level the fix doesn't seem to effect Intel's performance.


OK Many Thanks
Gentle_Giant2 h, 46 m ago

It depends what you want it for, in most games the R3 trounces the i3; the …It depends what you want it for, in most games the R3 trounces the i3; the R5 beats the i5 in some games, but is beaten in others, and the R7 falls behind in games against the i7.HOWEVER, add another task like encoding and streaming your game in real time on youtube and the Rizens surge ahead in nearly every case, on quality of the encoding and the number of fps captured, while dropping their gaming score very little.The advantage of more cores.

I actually can't find a single game the R3 "Crushes" the I3 8100.

Most benches have the 8100 crushing the R3.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about here?

techspot.com/rev…tml (Yes, R3 is 2 fps ahead on Civ, but its 20 FPS behind in many of the games, that is what I call 'crushing').

Maybe you don't know what the I3 8100 is? It's a new chip that has 4 cores and crushes the R3.

And when you say the 'R5 beats the i5 in some games'... Which games? Because the way I see it, the i5 is beating the R7 in nearly every game. Not just the R5, but the R7.

techpowerup.com/rev…tml

The only game I can see, that has any edge to the R5 or R7 against the 8600k is Civ6.

Also, just for comparisons sake, as I think you are assuming Ryzen has a lot more threads at each price point...


R3 1300x 4 core 4 threads
I3 8100 4 core 4 threads.

R5 1600x 6 cores 12 threads
i5 8400 6 cores 6 threads
i5 8600k 6 cores 6 threads

And when you use a core for SMT or HT, it doesn't add up to a full extra thread, at best you will see 20-25% efficiency in tasks that can take advantage of it. Most games can't use them... But when they do, 6 threads is about 1.25 or 1.5 cores in a perfect situation. The situation you described doesn't make good use of HT/SMT as they are unique processes. Those would be running (when active) on physical cores.

Thread counts are pretty much just a fluffy number that sounds good, it's all about the physical cores when you are talking multitasking.
RavensNest_OfTech-1104127141960806161423 h, 3 m ago

Both Intel and AMD suffer from the security issues AMD on a software level …Both Intel and AMD suffer from the security issues AMD on a software level Intel on a hardware level the fix doesn't seem to effect Intel's performance.


But there's still a difference, AMD only suffers from one of the three issues whilst Intel suffers from all three, including the two worst ones. The one that AMD is affected by is the one that is least damaging and much harder to exploit than the other two.
Edited by: "Tim1292" 11th Jan
Sidney james recommends this processor ....
I think Nerd wars could be a thing. One big dome -Two nerds enter, one nerd leaves. It could work!
kiora24 m ago

I think Nerd wars could be a thing. One big dome -Two nerds enter, one …I think Nerd wars could be a thing. One big dome -Two nerds enter, one nerd leaves. It could work!


The 1 nerd would never leave as they would be too busy explaining in detail how they won.
Tim12921 h, 43 m ago

But there's still a difference, AMD only suffers from one of the three …But there's still a difference, AMD only suffers from one of the three issues whilst Intel suffers from all three, including the two worst ones. The one that AMD is effected by is the one that is least damaging and much harder to exploit than the other two.



And the one AMD is impacted by can be fixed with a firmware upgrade rather than having to rely on an OS level fix. A firmware fix will always have less overhead and hence less lost processing power than one at OS level
Everyone is a nerd nowadays.
If you had a computer and/or liked scifi, you were a nerd. A mobile phone is a computer.

It's a microcode fix that defines each instruction.
Nate14929 h, 44 m ago

I actually can't find a single game the R3 "Crushes" the I3 8100


For some reason my last attempt to reply failed; my only thought is the link, so I will leave it out.

Yes I made a mistake, the test review I was referring to was R5, R7 and ThreadRipper against i5, i7 and i9.

In game results put the Rizen chips in amongst the top performing Intel chips (this is pre MeltDown fix); the review then ran the same game tests with each cpu transcoding the game and streaming it. On those tests the Rizen chips were hands down better than all but one of the Intel chips in one game.

Since that chip performed poorly in EVERY other test, it was believed it was something in the game coding that effected how the TR chip was behaving.

Now as I said, my first attempt to post this Mea Culpa failed, and as there was no profanity, I can only conclude it was the website link to the review, so I wont post it again, and hope the post goes through.
Gentle_Giant4 m ago

For some reason my last attempt to reply failed; my only thought is the …For some reason my last attempt to reply failed; my only thought is the link, so I will leave it out.Yes I made a mistake, the test review I was referring to was R5, R7 and ThreadRipper against i5, i7 and i9.In game results put the Rizen chips in amongst the top performing Intel chips (this is pre MeltDown fix); the review then ran the same game tests with each cpu transcoding the game and streaming it. On those tests the Rizen chips were hands down better than all but one of the Intel chips in one game.Since that chip performed poorly in EVERY other test, it was believed it was something in the game coding that effected how the TR chip was behaving.Now as I said, my first attempt to post this Mea Culpa failed, and as there was no profanity, I can only conclude it was the website link to the review, so I wont post it again, and hope the post goes through.


No problem, I do want to see that link though!

I have a feeling this is the 7xxx Intel chips, which would suffer a bit more under multi load as the i5 7600k and i7 7700k only had 4 cores (the i7 had 8 threads, the i5 had 4).
Nate14921 h, 34 m ago

No problem, I do want to see that link though!I have a feeling this is the …No problem, I do want to see that link though!I have a feeling this is the 7xxx Intel chips, which would suffer a bit more under multi load as the i5 7600k and i7 7700k only had 4 cores (the i7 had 8 threads, the i5 had 4).



I have PM'ed it to you.
Gentle_Giant1 h, 50 m ago

I have PM'ed it to you.


I took a look... I looked at the charts, then read the conclusion.

I don't see your point when I look at the graphs, as the 8700k mops the floor and the 8600k is ahead in most of the benches I saw.

When OC'd...

R5 wins:
I5 wins: BF1, GTA V, Middle-Earth

It's really strange, it's like the conclusion ignored all the 'OC'd' results?
Nate14921 h, 7 m ago

I took a look... I looked at the charts, then read the conclusion.I don't …I took a look... I looked at the charts, then read the conclusion.I don't see your point when I look at the graphs, as the 8700k mops the floor and the 8600k is ahead in most of the benches I saw.When OC'd...R5 wins: I5 wins: BF1, GTA V, Middle-EarthIt's really strange, it's like the conclusion ignored all the 'OC'd' results?



You understand the charts scroll sideways, there are multiples for each slot.?

The reasons it gives the Rizen the win in many cases is because of the number of poorly transcribed frames in each test; did you read the section on what is considered good, good enough and poor when it came to the transcoding ?

The Rizens rarely failed to transcode every frame, and produced a high quality smooth stream with few hiccups or slow downs nearly every time.
In contrast, the intel chips dropped a large percentage of frames nearly every time, and failed to produce a smooth stream, even with the few where they transcoded a high percentage.

Oc'ing gave the Intel chips better in game performance, but made the streaming even worse.

The conclusion is, if you just want to game, the Intel is great (but pricey); if you are one of those who like to record and post videos of you playing (like my son), the Intel chips dont cut it, whereas even a mid range Rizen can do the job, albeit at a lower total FPS game rate than the Intels can reach.

Something else to think about.

Remember, all of these games software was optimised for Intel; they have been the only real cpu hardware in town for a decade; now the Rizen chips are out there, game producers are going to start writing their code for all those lovely new cores; and the game performance of the Rizen chips is going to improve; the Intel chips are already at their limits, and new games will mean a big spend on new cpus to play them.

Prior to Rizen, AMD chips have been so bad that I gave up on the FX and A series, and went back to an old Phenom II for gaming.
Gentle_Giant53 m ago

You understand the charts scroll sideways, there are multiples for each …You understand the charts scroll sideways, there are multiples for each slot.?The reasons it gives the Rizen the win in many cases is because of the number of poorly transcribed frames in each test; did you read the section on what is considered good, good enough and poor when it came to the transcoding ?The Rizens rarely failed to transcode every frame, and produced a high quality smooth stream with few hiccups or slow downs nearly every time.In contrast, the intel chips dropped a large percentage of frames nearly every time, and failed to produce a smooth stream, even with the few where they transcoded a high percentage.Oc'ing gave the Intel chips better in game performance, but made the streaming even worse.The conclusion is, if you just want to game, the Intel is great (but pricey); if you are one of those who like to record and post videos of you playing (like my son), the Intel chips dont cut it, whereas even a mid range Rizen can do the job, albeit at a lower total FPS game rate than the Intels can reach.Something else to think about.Remember, all of these games software was optimised for Intel; they have been the only real cpu hardware in town for a decade; now the Rizen chips are out there, game producers are going to start writing their code for all those lovely new cores; and the game performance of the Rizen chips is going to improve; the Intel chips are already at their limits, and new games will mean a big spend on new cpus to play them.Prior to Rizen, AMD chips have been so bad that I gave up on the FX and A series, and went back to an old Phenom II for gaming.


Let's start off by making sure we are talking about the same thing. I am comparing the Ryzen 1800x @4.0 to the 8700k @4.9 and the Ryzen 1600x @4.0 and the 8600k @4.9.

Costs:
R7 1800x - 287.20
R5 1600x - 197.33
I7 8700k - 347.99
I5 8600k - 247.97


1) Please, type Ryzen, it's hard to look past that...

2) Yes, the charts scroll sideways, I scrolled, I looked, I was not impressed by the difference.

3) The OC does indeed improve the % Frames delivered. I can see it right here... As you can too, just don't stop at BF1 for the 8600k, the rest don't follow that trend and it's within the margin of error. Take a look at GTAV (from 89.7 to 93.63).

Now, what I can tell you though, is no matter how good your stream is, if your *base game* can't run at 60 FPS, you will get absolutely awful streams. At no point in time should the Ryzen 5 1600x be given accolades for runing GTAV at 44.6 FPS while streaming! How can we sit here and say 'that's good' when the I5 8600k is running the game at 68.0 FPS while streaming. It's significantly easier to not drop as many frames if you are going 24 FPS slower.

This story repeats itself for Middle-Earth. Yes, there is less frames returned under 16.67 FPS, but the game is running at 53.5 FPS while stream, as opposed to the 59.5 FPS of the 8600k! So even if your stream is keeping up GPU is bottle necked so much that you are dropping at least 6.5% of your frames.

Just in case I missed it... I'm talking about the 99th percentile FPS, this is what makes a game 'buttery smooth' to play (and to stream/watch!).

A missed stream encode or a missed FPS has a very similar 'stutter' look to it, so it doesn't matter if you can stream 60 FPS if your game is only running at 45 FPS, because you are effectively stuttering the game that you are copying.

Finally, your last point... I thought I addressed this already.

The R5 and the I5 have the same core count. Yes, there are 'SMT threads' on the R5, but they are *not* good for gaming or streaming. They work ok for rendering, but it's not ideal and at best operate around 1 or slightly more cores of 'value' in perfect scenarios.

Ryzen is way better than Bulldozer and Piledriver. But that is not saying anything positive. Ryzen is a good chip on it's own, it's a value proposition and the current price ranges put it at attractive ranges for certain people (like yourself).

But don't be fooled into thinking that being able to stream at 60fps means anything if your CPU is bottlenecking the actual game FPS. And don't be shocked if your son notices his games running at 40-45 FPS while streaming, it's actually pretty noticeable once you get used to the 'smooth'.

On that subject, be careful of your freesync monitor range, many do not perform the Adaptive Sync functions below 45 FPS, and it will look *very* bad at that point.

(FreeSync is cheaper, albeit slightly lower quality than GSync, it is hard to knock 100+ in savings on a monitor).

And finally, games are still a very long ways away from 'using all those cores'. It's not a simple thing to do, and if you force a game to require more cores, you are edging out a VERY large portion of the market.

Take a look at the steam hardware survey.


store.steampowered.com/hws…us/


23% 2 core, 73% 4 core, 1.2% 6 core, and 0.43% 8 core. If you think we are 'almost there' for games utilizing more than 4 cores, then you are going to be waiting a very long time.
The_Hoff10th Jan

AMD shaved 30% off CPU prices in the last week, so give it a couple of …AMD shaved 30% off CPU prices in the last week, so give it a couple of weeks to filter in to the supply chain.Discounts should be deeper within a month.Ryzen+ out in Feb too which should also discount the 1800X and 1900X lines.


Yes but one correction. Ryzen+ (Ryzen 2000-series) is out in April not next month. And then it should be the Ryzen 2700, Ryzen 2700X and Ryzen 2800X only.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text