Asus ROG STRIX XG43UQ monitor review
Netduma R2 router review
TerraMaster F5-422 NAS Review
Radeon RX 6600 (Sapphire Pulse) review
Radeon RX 6600 (Gigabyte Eagle 8G) review
PowerColor Radeon RX 6900 XT Red Devil review
Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless mouse review
Far Cry 6: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Colorful GeForce RTX 3060 Bilibili 12G review
ACER Predator GM7000 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD 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: 1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1337
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: 807
Senior Member
Posts: 807
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: 42116
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 42116
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: 1196
Wow... really nice $200 chip. @ 4.2 it really zooooms!
Great review HH!! Thank you.