Review: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 - That Funky 199 USD One

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 05/01/2018 03:01 PM | source: | 30 comment(s)

We look at that non-X model Ryzen 5 2600. The 'regular' six-core proc is a few tenners cheaper compared to the 2600X, but really, it's the same stuff. It's just that the X is better binned and has better default clock frequencies.

Read the full review here.

Related Stories

Review: Samsung 970 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD (512GB) - 04/27/2018 01:54 PM
We review the Samsung 970 PRO M2 SSD, the new SSD offers faster performance and increased TBW values compared to the 960 series. The new M.2 Pro units will be the most popular ones for the professiona...

Review: Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic - 04/26/2018 02:16 PM
We review the Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic. Lian-Li parts from being aluminum outfitted, and overhauled the chassis design combining it with a left-side and front-side mounted tempered glass panel. Will thi...

Review: Samsung 970 EVO M.2 500GB m.2.SSD - 04/24/2018 06:38 PM
Samsung today releases the new 970 EVO and PRO models M.2. SSDs, these offer even faster perf than the 960 series and come with increased TBW values as well. The new M.2 EVO units will be the most pop...

Review: Corsair HS60 Headset - 04/23/2018 08:14 AM
Today we have the Corsair HS60 gaming headset in for review. The headset is a unit designed to bridge the gap between the more budget oriented HS50's and higher end Void and Void Pro RGB units. Read ...

Review: Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wifi - 04/21/2018 07:57 AM
We take X470 to the next brand as this round we review the 239 USD Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wifi. All ready for the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X, yes AMD decided to add a new chipset as well, X...

2 pages 1 2

Embra
Senior Member

Posts: 883
Joined: 2014-11-19

#5542681 Posted on: 05/01/2018 03:16 PM

Wow... really nice $200 chip. @ 4.2 it really zooooms!

Great review HH!! Thank you.

waltc3
Senior Member

Posts: 997
Joined: 2014-07-22

#5542710 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.

jortego128
Senior Member

Posts: 101
Joined: 2017-04-30

#5542715 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.

IceVip
Senior Member

Posts: 667
Joined: 2013-04-08

#5542778 Posted on: 05/01/2018 07:30 PM

Poor 2600x users, should've gone with the cheaper model.

Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone

Posts: 35901
Joined: 2000-02-22

#5542784 Posted on: 05/01/2018 07:42 PM

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.

H83
Senior Member

Posts: 2691
Joined: 2009-09-08

#5542788 Posted on: 05/01/2018 07:53 PM

I think i prefer the non X models to the others. They offer basically the same clocks at a lower price point. Also the 2600 is great value for those looking to build a nice gaming rig without breaking the bank.

schmidtbag
Senior Member

Posts: 4340
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5542798 Posted on: 05/01/2018 08:58 PM

Considering this trades blows with the 8700K (which has much higher boost speeds and costs $150 more) I'd say this is a pretty great choice. If AMD can just figure out how to fix the memory latency issue, I'm sure they'll have an all-around better product.

I agree with Hilbert's consensus though - the 2600X is a better choice overall. You'll get significant power savings without much loss in performance. Meanwhile, you can stick with the box cooler. If you got the 2600 and wanted to overclock it to at least 4.2 GHz, the money you saved will all have to go toward a better heatsink. So unless you really don't care about thermals and/or think you can pass 4.2GHz, the 2600X is the better choice.

I have a feeling AMD was trying to avoid the situation they were in with the 1st gen Ryzens, where everyone was buying the lowest-tier product since they would all OC to the same levels. But with the 2nd gen, the X models make for a more compelling value.

Nice review, as usual, HH...

Weird how even my Biostar X370 board has 1.0.0.2a.

chispy
Senior Member

Posts: 8758
Joined: 2006-10-29

#5542833 Posted on: 05/01/2018 10:25 PM

Great review Hilbert , as you pointed out i too believe the 2600x it's a better value due to the strict binning of this cpus. Moarrr higher overclocks ...

mat9v9tam
Member

Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-11-02

#5542853 Posted on: 05/02/2018 12:33 AM

Yes, looking at Aida64 memory test screenshot, the bios on the Hero VII board is an "ancient" one not even with AGESA 1.0.0.2a - I wonder how it impacts the scores, there were some important speed-ups in newer bioses, not to mention it does not provide AMD microcode updates....
And yes, for example even cheap Asrock X370 Pro4 have 1.0.0.2a AGESA, so does Asus Prime X370 Pro - both had them for more then 2 weeks.

tunejunky
Senior Member

Posts: 881
Joined: 2017-08-18

#5542882 Posted on: 05/02/2018 03:44 AM

just in time for graduation season. i have a few cheeky buggers to sort out, and this is the chip to do it with...and with the RX 580 back to its proper price the boys will have new console killers with free sync.

Arbie
Senior Member

Posts: 169
Joined: 2008-07-04

#5542884 Posted on: 05/02/2018 03:57 AM

sverek
Senior Member

Posts: 5236
Joined: 2011-01-02

#5542885 Posted on: 05/02/2018 03:57 AM

Thanks Boss. This CPU makes the wait for Zen2 very hard. I really like it performs in gaming and price is just too tempting.

2600 is basically 8700(non-K) for 100$ less.

Killian38
Senior Member

Posts: 312
Joined: 2017-09-02

#5542920 Posted on: 05/02/2018 04:47 AM

If I plan on buying an AIO cooler Why not buy the 2600/2700 non "X". Same thing minus the $$. Not 100% sure about what I just said. I need ya'lls input.

Neo Cyrus
Senior Member

Posts: 9195
Joined: 2006-02-14

#5542927 Posted on: 05/02/2018 04:51 AM

Thanks Boss. This CPU makes the wait for Zen2 very hard. I really like it performs in gaming and price is just too tempting.

2600 is basically 8700(non-K) for 100$ less.
Just look at the retarded RAM prices and you'll be less tempted to upgrade. I was going to buy a Ryzen 2600 + 470 board + 16GB DDR4... then I saw the DDR4 prices... then I saw the 470 board prices with those that have 8+ SATA ports. Nope nope nope nope nope.

Robbo9999
Senior Member

Posts: 1303
Joined: 2012-10-07

#5543047 Posted on: 05/02/2018 07:29 AM

Is it not still true that if you overclock Ryzen you lose the boost features? If so, that seems like too large a point to (always) omit in the discussion(s).

Personally, I have to watch the calories per hour and love the fact that my 1800X is smart enough to ramp up when it needs to and not otherwise. Sites such as this almost never address the fact that OC isn't always better. Sometimes - and I believe it's true for Ryzen - you should just leave things stock.
I have this impression too, I'm sure I read this somewhere in a review somewhere, but I'd love to be corrected wrong if someone knows any different - I'm referring to your point about overclocking losing the boost features and the supposed fact that overclocking means you end up with increased idle CPU power usage as well as of course increased power usage when under load? This would be another argument to get the 2600X version, & to then leave it at stock.

2 pages 1 2

Post New Comment

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