add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Any reason to choose R5 1600 over R5 2600?

szjmryk

1 month ago

If buying new there's currently a £15/£20 difference between the two (or four/five pints of beer): I can't see why I'd consider the 1600.

I know there's some excitement about the AF version being "almost a 2600", but it's still not on a par with the 2600 (or is it).

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

four/five pints of beer is alot

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

"AF" is slightly behind in performance either due to using a first generation memory controller or being a failed CPU.

If your splitting hairs that closely then consider a 1600af+aftermarket cooler will outperform a 2600+stock cooler for the same money.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I've seen reports of up to 2600x level overclocks, so I'd lean toward it being a first gen memory controller with almost no binning to further separate SKUs. Performance seems to be a lottery with the baseline being between a 1600 and 2600 closer to the latter, which is still excellent value for a new part.

+1 for the 1600AF+aftermarket cooler. Could get a Cryorig M9a for the price difference.

Alternatively, could probably find a used 1700 in the same price range. Or going by OP's beer money logic, there's only an 11 pint difference between the 2600 and 2700x right now.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

LOL! So from now on all prices are to be expressed in pints? I onboard with that.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Seconded.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Darn you guys. Now I'm thirsty...

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

At 15 Pounds I think I would go with the Ryzen 2600. But on this side of the pond, the 1600 AF is selling for $85 US and the 2600 is selling for $115. Basically for me the 1600 gets me into the AMD family and I could say update to the 3600 after the 4000 series CPUs arrive and prices drop.

It is actually showing to only be about 5% slower. I watched a benchmark video and most game had the say FPS or maybe just a couple of frames faster for the 2600.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If buying new there's currently a £15/£20 difference between the two (or four/five pints of beer): I can't see why I'd consider the 1600.

I'm going to agree with you. That much money is not enough of a difference to considered the 1600, unless someone is on a super tight budget and has to cut cost there.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Thanks all!

Most interesting.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube