Intel was dominating the market of processors quite easily for the past years. If you wanted a “brand new computer” – you went for an Intel processor. Two months ago, enthusiasts from AMD have rolled up their sleeves and released Ryzen. They can once again compete against the blue force of Intel. Let’s take a look at what they have prepared for us this time.

Ryzens in their full implementation have 8 cores on which we can run two software threads (for a total of sixteen). So as much as Intel’s extreme variety of overclocking chips, with as much as half the cost of these, while not lacking in efficiency. Newcomers are, when viewing individual core, where Intel broadwell were (chips from two generations). The “Blues” for this reason and of course for more optimized manufacturing processes are still the absolute champion when it comes to frequency and number of instructions per clock cycle (or speed of each core). Green processors in this respect are lagging behind for about 5 to 10 percent, but the gap is replaced in the multi-threaded software, and that for a lot less money.

Ryzens in the core, consists of two so-called “core complex” (CCX) with four cores and 8MB L3 cache, which are bonded together with a pathway called “infinity fabric”. This is important when going from eight to fewer cores, which they achieve with turning them off. This is done with parallel turning off each of the CCX: in 6 cores version (1600 and 1600X) by one to obtain the 3 + 3 configuration, in 4 cores version (1500X and 1400) by two with 2 + 2. This means that all versions are available with full 16MB of L3 cache. Immediately after launching R7, there was a lot of rumors that Windows OS might have some problems handling software thread distribution. It turned out that Windows7 and 10 have no problems at all, and that the main problem was simply the poor optimization of programs. Within two months we have already seen some updates that have fairly accelerate the functioning, for example, Total War: Warhammer. Therefore, there is no need to fear that Ryzen is somehow handicapped. On the contrary, AMD has really caught the moment to become the perfect configuration with six cores – and that is why the 1600 are so important.


Maybe there are some disappointed around, who was hoping for a higher clock speed, but, 1600X is ticking at the same frequency as the parade 1800X – 3,6GHz, 1600 on 3.2GHz. Overclocking experiments shows that the silicon at over 4GHz is protesting against a further rise in frequencies and voltages. Therefore, at least the first versions shows there will be no champion in extreme overclocking. Ryzen CPUs come unlocked and luckily AMD gave us completely hands free when comes to overclocking. If you want a higher clock speed, you have to take the more expensive models that have been rated higher, because only 1800X and 1600X venture reliable over 4GHz. On the other hand, if you want relatively better margin, the cheaper models are more suited . 1700 for example, can be overclocked from 3GHz to 3,9GHz on air.


Therefore, 1600 and 1600X, due to not so high frequencies in games, they do not represent direct competition to Intel in the 250 euro price range, like Core i5-7600. But games differentiate a lot, when talking of hyper-threading, so the processors are exchanging the leading position – of course a small advantage I would still give to Intel. But the situation change a lot when you take other software/tools on test. 1600 and 1600X are definitely my first choice when choosing the right processor looking at quality/price – at affordable price you get a CPU that in games is hard hitting with Intel, whereas elsewhere they override. Consider also that the use of all cores will be even more efficent in the future, it really makes the best buy right now.

Ryzen5 1600 (AmazonUK); Ryzen5 1600 (AmazonDE)

Ryzen5 1600X (AmazonUK); Ryzen5 1600X (AmazonDE)