AMD Ryzen 5 2600 review

#5542681

Embra

2018-05-01 15:16

Wow... really nice $200 chip. @ 4.2 it really zooooms! 🙂 Great review HH!! Thank you.

#5542710

waltc3

2018-05-01 16:12

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.

#5542715

jortego128

2018-05-01 16:18

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.

#5542778

IceVip

2018-05-01 19:30

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=40452 Poor 2600x users, should've gone with the cheaper model.

#5542784

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Administrator

2018-05-01 19:42

IceVip:

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.

#5542788

H83

2018-05-01 19:53

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.

#5542798

schmidtbag

2018-05-01 20:58

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.

waltc3:

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.

Weird how even my Biostar X370 board has 1.0.0.2a.

#5542833

chispy

2018-05-01 22:25

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 ... 🙂

#5542853

mat9v9tam

2018-05-02 00:33

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.

#5542882

tunejunky

2018-05-02 03:44

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.

#5542884

Arbie

2018-05-02 03:57

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.

#5542885

sverek

2018-05-02 03:57

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.

#5542920

Killian38

2018-05-02 04:47

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.

#5542927

Neo Cyrus

2018-05-02 04:51

sverek:

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.

#5543047

Robbo9999

2018-05-02 07:29

Arbie:

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.

#5543051

Fox2232

2018-05-02 07:40

Robbo9999:

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.

Spoiler: "4.225MHz on all cores..."

http://i68.tinypic.com/m90twh.png
So, it actually eats around same as my old Sandy i5 which was allowed to downclock. If I forced 4.5GHz and all 4 cores, then idle power consumption used to be ~35W. I may provide power values in case CPU is allowed to downclock at evening...

#5543053

Robbo9999

2018-05-02 07:50

Fox2232:

Spoiler: "4.225MHz on all cores..."
http://i68.tinypic.com/m90twh.png
So, it actually eats around same as my old Sandy i5 which was allowed to downclock. If I forced 4.5GHz and all 4 cores, then idle power consumption used to be ~35W. I may provide power values in case CPU is allowed to downclock at evening...
So this is your 2700X overclocked to 4.225Ghz and not allowed to downclock, and you have CPU power usage varying from 18W to 63.88W over the period of one hour - what were you doing with the PC, what kind of loads? They're certainly quite reasonable power values, not too high (but depends on what you were doing with your PC during that one hour). Will be interesting to see your power values when your CPU is allowed to downclock, while I assume still overclocking?

#5543059

Fox2232

2018-05-02 09:02

Robbo9999:

So this is your 2700X overclocked to 4.225Ghz and not allowed to downclock, and you have CPU power usage varying from 18W to 63.88W over the period of one hour - what were you doing with the PC, what kind of loads? They're certainly quite reasonable power values, not too high (but depends on what you were doing with your PC during that one hour). Will be interesting to see your power values when your CPU is allowed to downclock, while I assume still overclocking?

Well, average for that time was just under 24W. So I was doing close to nothing most of the time. Regular morning online checks weather forecast, forums. And Apparently Windows doing its own morning stuff. There are two things I think about on this CPU. When boosting is allowed and therefore downclock+downvolt works, CPU may go from my permanent 1.425V down to 1.1V or less. That may reduce power consumption of CPU cores themselves, but they eat already very little at idle. That will affect "CPU Core Power" draw (~15W at idle), but not SoC (~8,6W at idle) as that has separate voltage. So those 15W may go down to 11.5W. That's just 3.5W. So, CPU being able to downclock may drop down to ~20W.

#5543064

sverek

2018-05-02 09:13

I had issue with my 2500k not downclocking when idling, not sure if relevant to AMD: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/2500k-oc-whats-your-idle-wattage.414665/

#5543141

Robbo9999

2018-05-02 14:40

Fox2232:

Well, average for that time was just under 24W. So I was doing close to nothing most of the time. Regular morning online checks weather forecast, forums. And Apparently Windows doing its own morning stuff. There are two things I think about on this CPU. When boosting is allowed and therefore downclock+downvolt works, CPU may go from my permanent 1.425V down to 1.1V or less. That may reduce power consumption of CPU cores themselves, but they eat already very little at idle. That will affect "CPU Core Power" draw (~15W at idle), but not SoC (~8,6W at idle) as that has separate voltage. So those 15W may go down to 11.5W. That's just 3.5W. So, CPU being able to downclock may drop down to ~20W.

Yes, so given that you can see that idle power usage is not gonna be greatly affected, it would be interesting to see a comparison during a measured (reproducible) everyday load. Something like PCMark8 runs perhaps that take the CPU through scripted everyday scenarios - would be interesting to see if power & performance differences would be great between static overclock and stock CPU with downclocking. (I'm assuming that you can't overclock your CPU and have it downclock too.).