Resident Evil Village: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Enermax LIQMAX III aRGB 240mm review
PCIe Resizable BAR Performance AMD and NVIDIA benchmarks
Guru3D Rig of the Month - April 2021
Intel Core i7 11700KF processor review
Acer Predator Apollo and Predator Talos DRAM Review
ASUS TUF Z590-Plus WIFI review
ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Phantom Gaming D OC review
Enermax Aquafusion 360 review LCS
Intel Core i5 11400F processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 review
Posted by: on: 05/01/2018 02:58 PM [
30 comment(s) ]
It is time to have a look at the non-X model Ryzen 5 2600. The 'regular' six-core proc is a few tenners cheaper compared to the 2600X model, but really, it's the same stuff. It's just that the X is better binned and has better default clock frequencies. However, if you are willing to tweak a bit yourself, you can save them few tenners and retrieve the very same performance. The Ryzen 5 2600 has six-cores and twelve threads and is ready 'n waiting for you at a pretty spectacular value price. A perfect piece of silicon for proper threading and gaming? Well, let's find out!
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1252
Senior Member
Posts: 1252
Posted on: 05/01/2018 04:12 PM
Nice review, as usual, HH...
I agree with you--if I'm going to go with a new cpu (to replace my 1600 @ 3.8GHz) then I should go with the 2700x, or stay put. THe one thing I've noticed from MSI is that the x470 boards all support the 1.0.0.2a AGESA, whereas the x370s have not been updated beyond 1.0.0.1a AGESA. I'm wondering what the difference is, if any. It would be nice if MSI would include that information in its bios update descriptions.
Nice review, as usual, HH...
I agree with you--if I'm going to go with a new cpu (to replace my 1600 @ 3.8GHz) then I should go with the 2700x, or stay put. THe one thing I've noticed from MSI is that the x470 boards all support the 1.0.0.2a AGESA, whereas the x370s have not been updated beyond 1.0.0.1a AGESA. I'm wondering what the difference is, if any. It would be nice if MSI would include that information in its bios update descriptions.
jortego128
Senior Member
Posts: 107
Senior Member
Posts: 107
Posted on: 05/01/2018 04:18 PM
Agree with HH the non-X procs are still a great value, but the X versions are the better deal overall, esp. the 2700X-- totally opposite situation from the 1000 series launch last year.
Agree with HH the non-X procs are still a great value, but the X versions are the better deal overall, esp. the 2700X-- totally opposite situation from the 1000 series launch last year.
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 759
Senior Member
Posts: 759
Posted on: 05/01/2018 07:30 PM
Poor 2600x users, should've gone with the cheaper model.
Poor 2600x users, should've gone with the cheaper model.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 40757
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 40757
Posted on: 05/01/2018 07:42 PM
Yeah, I have been looking into that, looks like the latest FC5 patch or drivers increased Quad HD perf a tiny bit (less than 2% though). That or something has been bugging the initial 2600X/2700X measurement. Checking things and will rerun the test (and update) with a 2600X and 2700X.
Updated.
Poor 2600x users, should've gone with the cheaper model.
Yeah, I have been looking into that, looks like the latest FC5 patch or drivers increased Quad HD perf a tiny bit (less than 2% though). That or something has been bugging the initial 2600X/2700X measurement. Checking things and will rerun the test (and update) with a 2600X and 2700X.
Updated.
pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Wow... really nice $200 chip. @ 4.2 it really zooooms!
Great review HH!! Thank you.