Guru3D.com
  • HOME
  • NEWS
    • Channels
    • Archive
  • DOWNLOADS
    • New Downloads
    • Categories
    • Archive
  • GAME REVIEWS
  • ARTICLES
    • Rig of the Month
    • Join ROTM
    • PC Buyers Guide
    • Guru3D VGA Charts
    • Editorials
    • Dated content
  • HARDWARE REVIEWS
    • Videocards
    • Processors
    • Audio
    • Motherboards
    • Memory and Flash
    • SSD Storage
    • Chassis
    • Media Players
    • Power Supply
    • Laptop and Mobile
    • Smartphone
    • Networking
    • Keyboard Mouse
    • Cooling
    • Search articles
    • Knowledgebase
    • More Categories
  • FORUMS
  • NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT

New Reviews
MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT GamingX 8GB review
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT EVO 8GB review
PowerColor Radeon RX 5500 XT Red Dragon 8GB review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming 8GB review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33

New Downloads
AMD Radeon Adrenalin Edition 19.12.2 driver download
PCMark 10 Download v2.0.2153
GeForce 441.66 WHQL driver download
CPU-Z download v1.91
GPU-Z Download v2.28.0
3DMark Download v2.11.6846 + Port Royale
HWiNFO64 Download v6.20
AMD Radeon Adrenalin Edition 19.12.1 driver download
Crystal DiskMark Download v7.0.0f
AMD Ryzen Master Utility Download v2.1.0.1424


New Forum Topics
Intel CPUs: Ten-year plan to includes 1.4nm and a two-year cadence Devil May Cry V/RESIDENT EVIL 2 BIOHAZARD RE:2 brightness bug RADEON Adrenalin 2020 - v19.12.2 MSI Afterburner OSD Seperator Help Needed Toshiba RD400 - the battle continues Review: Radeon RX 5500 XT MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte, Sapphire and PowerColor Are we ever going to get a new NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL ??? AMD Radeon Adrenalin Edition 19.12.2 driver download & discussion GeForce Graphics Drivers 441.66 WHQL - Download & Discussion Netflix's The Witcher final trailer




Guru3D.com » News » AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 01/18/2018 02:54 PM | source: | 44 comment(s)
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo

Interesting, you have to love result databases. The the first 'optimized' Ryzen, Ryzen 2 processor has hit the SiSoft Sandra database. The entry shows a processor called Ryzen 5 2600, which obviously is Zen+, the model listed is a six-core twelve threaded processor

The entry within the SiSoft database is:

  • ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y (6C 12T 3.4GHz, 1.1GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3). 

And yes you can deduct anything and pretty much everything from that, including the a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz turbo. Have a look at the screenshot below:

 

 

What's also interesting is the motherboard listed, it is an ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO (WI-FI) running on Windows 10, that would be an X470 Motherboard alright. 

Recent announcements indicate a launch for the new platform and revision 2 processors as early as April. If we table things up and compare a bit, this would be the differences. It seems AMD is capable of achieving slightly higher clocks alright.

   

Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Architecture 14nm Zen 12nm Zen+
Cores 6 6
Threads 12 12
Cache 19 MB (L2+L3) 19 MB (L2+L3)
Base Clock 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz
Boost Clock 3.6 GHz 3.8 GHz
TDP 65W 65W
Release  Q2 2017 Q2 2018

 
Judging from just this processor, AMD is able to achieve at least 200 MHz more out of the optimized 12nm production nodes. Thanks go out to Poul Olsen from Denmark for this spot. 



AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo




Rate this story
Rating:

« Review: GALAX/KFA2 GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Hall of Fame Edition · AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo · Samsung 860 EVO M2 and 2.5" SSDs temporarily online at Samsung - Specs Leaked »

Related Stories

AMD Enmotus FuzeDrive for AMD Ryzen - 01/16/2018 09:40 AM
AMD has teamed up with high-end server storage technology company Enmotus to bring advanced, intelligent storage acceleration to AMD Ryzen desktop processor owners, aka a storage cache....

Acer Also Unveils New AMD Ryzen-Powered Nitro 5 Gaming Laptop - 01/09/2018 09:29 AM
Acer also announced its new Acer Nitro 5 gaming laptop, designed for casual gamers seeking great performance in an attractive laser-textured design. Powered by Windows 10, the new 15-inch laptop is ta...

AMD Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge Processors And 400 Chipset Could Launch in March - 01/04/2018 01:27 PM
Some information on AMD Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge Processors and the new 400 chipsets has surfaced on an Asian website, both are indicated to launch in March already. ...

Guru3D 2017 December 11 contest - Win An AMD Ryzen 7 1800X worth €499,- - 12/11/2017 09:38 AM
Heck yeah! It is that time of the year again. In December each workday we will give away a nice prize. That means up-to December 31st you will have a chance of winning something. This round you can wi...

AMD Ryzen Price Level Back to Normal - 12/06/2017 09:34 AM
For the past weeks, you guys have been able to enjoy the massive price reduction on AMD's Ryzen series processors. We checked out a thing or two, and this really was a two-week promotion....


3 pages 1 2 3


schmidtbag
Senior Member



Posts: 4588
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5512034 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:28 PM
Yeah... we'll see. I was stating that clock has everything to do with it, while IPC will be an insignificant increase.
We're debating over things too far from our grasp. I'm still hoping for better clock speeds at the high end. :p
Why does clock speed have everything (or anything) to do with it? I legitimately don't understand why that matters since you're just going to override it anyway. Not only is the IPC increase objectively more important than factory clocks, but it seems to offer a greater performance improvement than the increase in clock speeds.

Put it in this perspective:
A 4GHz Ryzen 1600 will be slower than a 4GHz Ryzen 2600, assuming all other hardware and specs are the same. Neither CPU XFR speeds reach 4GHz out-of-the-box. If the 2600 can't clock past 4GHz (much like the 1600) then the 2600 is still a better product. At this point, what is the relevance or significance of the base clocks? Meanwhile, if the new fabrication node allows the 2600 to OC beyond to, let's say 4.5GHz, then the base clocks are 100% irrelevant (as an overclocker).

If you don't intend to OC and you want to use the stock heatsink, you want the CPU to remain within the 65W TDP. Though the transistors were shrunk by around 15%, that doesn't mean you can increase clocks by 15% and expect the same wattage.

It's because not all people overclock their CPU. :)
I often like to leave things the way they were intended to be used, just because it gives me a 'stock/guarantee' kind of reassurance. Weird, huh?
So buy the 2600X... that surely will come with a higher clock speed. Problem solved.

Also, I'm sure you could bump the frequency a few hundred MHz without tweaking anything else (not even voltage) and you'll be rock solid.

EDIT:
Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.

easytomy
Member



Posts: 47
Joined: 2017-05-08

#5512038 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:44 PM
Why does clock speed have everything (or anything) to do with it? I legitimately don't understand why that matters since you're just going to override it anyway. Not only is the IPC increase objectively more important than factory clocks, but it seems to offer a greater performance improvement than the increase in clock speeds.

Put it in this perspective:
A 4GHz Ryzen 1600 will be slower than a 4GHz Ryzen 2600, assuming all other hardware and specs are the same. Neither CPU XFR speeds reach 4GHz out-of-the-box. If the 2600 can't clock past 4GHz (much like the 1600) then the 2600 is still a better product. At this point, what is the relevance or significance of the base clocks? Meanwhile, if the new fabrication node allows the 2600 to OC beyond to, let's say 4.5GHz, then the base clocks are 100% irrelevant (as an overclocker).

If you don't intend to OC and you want to use the stock heatsink, you want the CPU to remain within the 65W TDP. Though the transistors were shrunk by around 15%, that doesn't mean you can increase clocks by 15% and expect the same wattage.


So buy the 2600X... that surely will come with a higher clock speed. Problem solved.

Also, I'm sure you could bump the frequency a few hundred MHz without tweaking anything else (not even voltage) and you'll be rock solid.


Wow... lots of questions, little time. Here it goes:
1.) IPC improvement will probably be minimal - it's just a refresh - but I am really hoping to be wrong.
2.) if the IPC increase is minimal, Ryzen 1600 and Ryzen 2600 will only be differentiated by clock speeds.
3.) if 90% of the processors overclock way better than previous generation (say from 3.5 GHz stock - to 4.5 OC), don't you think that AMD will ship them 'stock' with more base frequency than 3.5 ? ...to have a better overall product?
4.) Base clock is significant because 80-90% of the people DON'T overclock (OEMs play a major role here).

easytomy
Member



Posts: 47
Joined: 2017-05-08

#5512041 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:47 PM
[QUOTE="Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.

Nobody here said it is. But some people like their 'cars' stock, and some like to tune and tweak them until nothing is original anymore. There's people and people.

schmidtbag
Senior Member



Posts: 4588
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5512045 Posted on: 01/18/2018 06:03 PM
1.) IPC improvement will probably be minimal - it's just a refresh - but I am really hoping to be wrong.

What's the question? But as discussed earlier, these CPUs seem to have a roughly 15% performance improvement. So even if the IPC was negligible, what's the difference between a 15% overall improvement involving a 6% clock increase vs just a 15% clock increase? The IPC improvement is better, because that means more performance for fewer watts.
2.) if the IPC increase is minimal, Ryzen 1600 and Ryzen 2600 will only be differentiated by clock speeds.

In which case get the 1600X.
3.) if 90% of the processors overclock way better than previous generation (say from 3.5 GHz stock - to 4.5 OC), don't you think that AMD will ship them 'stock' with more base frequency than 3.5 ? ...to have a better overall product?

That's a good point and one I've considered myself. But remember, this is the non-X variant; the one that's binned with supposedly worse quality silicon. If the 1600X with it's boost clocks breach 4GHz, that could be promising.
4.) Base clock is significant because 80-90% of the people DON'T overclock (OEMs play a major role here).

And most people don't need the higher speed, especially when you've got 12 threads. A 3.5GHz quad core without SMT/HT is plenty fast enough for the average person. Most people who don't intend to OC, including OEMs, also don't buy enthusiast-grade motherboards designed for overclocking. Keep in mind laptops and tablets tend to be much more popular than desktops and very rarely will you see those breach 3GHz and/or 8 threads, while also being affordable or portable.
Clocks aren't that important to most people.
Nobody here said it is. But some people like their 'cars' stock, and some like to tune and tweak them until nothing is original anymore. There's people and people.

I get what you're saying, but the difference here is you can pay hundreds of dollars for a 5% improvement in a car. It takes a lot of time, and may void your warranty. If you do it wrong, you just screwed yourself out of what could be your only means of transportation. If you have a B or X series AMD motherboard, you can overclock for free and relatively worry free. Unless you do something really stupid like bump the voltage to 1.6v, worst case scenario, you just reset the CMOS. I hear the stock AMD heatsinks are suitable for minor overclocks.

Silva
Senior Member



Posts: 972
Joined: 2013-06-04

#5512071 Posted on: 01/18/2018 07:30 PM
Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
I5 8500 seems faster and a better option already. I expected better performance from Zen's optimized refresh line-up tbh.
This is why people shouldn't hype. It was said over and over again that the gains would be around 5 to 10%.
It's just a refresh, fixing bugs and optimizing the existing arch in a year time frame, using a slightly better fab process. For me 6% improvement on a stable platform is a good deal.
Meanwhile Zen 2 design is finished and on track for next year, and Intel finally woke up and started adding more cores. So there will be plenty to chose from in the future.

__hollywood|meo
Senior Member



Posts: 2975
Joined: 2005-09-27

#5512116 Posted on: 01/18/2018 10:24 PM
200mhz base clock freq increase is heartening, but the OC results are going to be the end-all be-all of wat AMD has achieved on this respin, in my opinion...not because ~muh mhz~ but because of the maturity of the power consumption (& by extension, wat that implies for zen2). thats still very much in the air, but im still perking up at this tidbit of news we have here regardless

this is definitely an engineering sample, idk how or why thats up for debate. as ive mentioned before, obtaining clock speeds north of 4ghz will require ironing out the power spike after ~1.3v. after 3.8ghz the original zen process stops scaling linearly in wattage consumption, & beyond 1.3v wattage jumps abruptly - both of which lead to destabilization. cooling helps to a degree (ha ha) but the die simply cant dissipate the spike regardless of cooling method or operating temperature.

C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz


it went from 14nm to 12nm process. the fact that youre disappointed with a completely par-for-the-course ~10% IPC gain for wat amounts to a fab optimization instead of a legit die shrink is very telling. the fact that you expected 4.5ghz stock just makes your complaints seem further absurd.

NewTRUMP Order
Senior Member



Posts: 427
Joined: 2017-02-04

#5512117 Posted on: 01/18/2018 10:34 PM
You have to remember this is just a refresh not a new platform cpu.AMD said they were going to improve on the "low hanging fruit" on this release, so new age of them. This is really for the people that didn't pull the trigger for the original Ryzen release. I don't see many Ryzen owners dumping their system for this refresh. I never did pull the trigger on the original release because of all the hiccups that needed to be sorted out. And I honestly don't know if I will pull the trigger on this release because it just looks like a rev'd up and polished Ryzen 101. I'm not saying that it isn't a good product, in fact I see them smacking Intel in the chops again in sales. But it's not the whizbang many AMD fans are looking for right now. You will also be getting a Threadripper refresh in second half of 2018. Amd has claimed that the Zen 2 platform design has already been completed. So I foresee an early 2019 release for their Zen 2 7nm cpu. But it gives Intel a whole year to bring to market their whizbang cpu's.

H83
Senior Member



Posts: 2757
Joined: 2009-09-08

#5512133 Posted on: 01/18/2018 11:15 PM
For me what really matters about the next Ryzen is the gaming performance. If they offer good performance in that area, then AMD has a winner in their hands. If it performs well in everything else but games like the first Ryzen then it will be a failure, for me personally because i only need a powerfull CPU for gaming. For everything else even a dual core is more than enough...

jortego128
Senior Member



Posts: 105
Joined: 2017-04-30

#5512145 Posted on: 01/19/2018 12:15 AM
So it scores 15% better than a 1600 with a 6% clock increase? Who has confirmed that? Maybe Im misunderstanding, but if we get a 9% IPC increase with this "refresh" , thats absolutely phenomenal because even AMD hinted that other than improving the memory controller there are little to no arch changes for Zen +.

This would mean a 4GHz Zen+ would be equivalent to a 4.3GHz Zen? Guys if thats the case its going to be very good news if you can OC a Zen+ to 4.3 or 4.4GHz.....

Agonist
Senior Member



Posts: 2753
Joined: 2008-10-13

#5512153 Posted on: 01/19/2018 12:39 AM
This will be what I get to replace my 1500x. Should be a nice bump and easy 4ghz oc with the refresh. If 4.2 happens, that would be nice.

I see warlord is still AMD hating shrill eventhough he uses their hardware. Talks like a zen refresh is garbage but has a 860k cpu hahahaha.

schmidtbag
Senior Member



Posts: 4588
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5512173 Posted on: 01/19/2018 02:20 AM
For me what really matters about the next Ryzen is the gaming performance. If they offer good performance in that area, then AMD has a winner in their hands. If it performs well in everything else but games like the first Ryzen then it will be a failure, for me personally because i only need a powerfull CPU for gaming. For everything else even a dual core is more than enough...

You say that as though Ryzen's gaming perfomance is bad; it's just simply "adequate". It started out a bit suspiciously bad, but after the AGESA 1006 update, Ryzen's gaming performance became sufficient (at least to non-elitists). Sure, in most cases it's consistently a few FPS behind Intel even where the GPU is the bottleneck, but unless you're gaming above 90FPS, the differences are kind of irrelevant.
All that being said, I would find it a bit odd if you find a dual core (with or without HT) to be "more than enough" for modern games, but ranging from 5-15FPS lower than Intel once you breach 100FPS isn't enough?

Anyway, when it comes to VR or 120Hz+ gaming, I'd still recommend Intel. If low latency and the highest possibly frame rates are your goal, you go for what's the best, and that crown currently belongs to Intel.

kruno
Senior Member



Posts: 252
Joined: 2017-09-25

#5512201 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:19 AM
You say that as though Ryzen's gaming perfomance is bad; it's just simply "adequate". It started out a bit suspiciously bad, but after the AGESA 1006 update, Ryzen's gaming performance became sufficient (at least to non-elitists). Sure, in most cases it's consistently a few FPS behind Intel even where the GPU is the bottleneck, but unless you're gaming above 90FPS, the differences are kind of irrelevant.
All that being said, I would find it a bit odd if you find a dual core (with or without HT) to be "more than enough" for modern games, but ranging from 5-15FPS lower than Intel once you breach 100FPS isn't enough?

Anyway, when it comes to VR or 120Hz+ gaming, I'd still recommend Intel. If low latency and the highest possibly frame rates are your goal, you go for what's the best, and that crown currently belongs to Intel.
Honestly, people are making too much fuzz about Ryzen gaming performance.As you said it is adequate, i would go more and said it is more then adequate. It is top notch for 99% of users and use cases in gaming when we take into the account that vast vast majority of people game on 60Hz monitors,

__hollywood|meo
Senior Member



Posts: 2975
Joined: 2005-09-27

#5512203 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:46 AM
So it scores 15% better than a 1600 with a 6% clock increase? Who has confirmed that?


its simply extrapolated from the sandra bench

warlord
Senior Member



Posts: 2454
Joined: 2012-10-22

#5512204 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:55 AM
This will be what I get to replace my 1500x. Should be a nice bump and easy 4ghz oc with the refresh. If 4.2 happens, that would be nice.

I see warlord is still AMD hating shrill eventhough he uses their hardware. Talks like a zen refresh is garbage but has a 860k cpu hahahaha.

Well at least I don't have a worse one. It was the best athlon before 870/880 release. And FM2+ was a newer platform than AM3. I didn't see a better choice back then mate. And I don't hate AMD, just I don't know if it a wise buy. Are you saying 1600/1600X is better than i5 8400 in applications not needed twice the thread's count?

Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member



Posts: 6775
Joined: 2006-09-24

#5512213 Posted on: 01/19/2018 08:22 AM
So if the difference in performance vs 1600 is that 15% with 6% AMD fairs better then Intel on it's refreshes that brought nearly 0 IPC gain with some clock gain.

Now if they can get their clocks up that would be awesome surely. But we will see if we get anywhere near 4.5. If we do I could even replace my current cpu then. But most likely will end up waiting for Ryzen 2. Current Ryzens gaming performance is fine, it can only go up from there anyways.

3 pages 1 2 3


Post New Comment
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.


Guru3D.com © 2019