The R5 1600 AE, meanwhile, did about 3399MHz to 3699MHz, bouncing between as the threads were switched for the load. This is also when AMD’s advertised boost numbers made more sense. Cinebench R20 1T Frequency Comparisonįor Cinebench R20 with a single-thread load, we measured the AMD R5 1600 AF’s maximum frequency at 3699MHz, where it held at least one thread constantly for the entire test. There’s a marked gain from the 1600 AF just in the all-core frequency, and clearly the AF should actually be better than the AE. The AMD R5 1600 AE - that’s the older one - plotted at 3399MHz all-core average. There’s no fluctuation here because, unlike Zen2, Precision Boost 2 isn’t working to wildly fluctuate the clock based on every few degrees of change in the die temperature. It wouldn’t make sense to re-do all the testing if the frequencies are identical.įirst, looking at an all-core workload from Blender and the GN Logo render, we monitored the AMD R5 1600 AF CPU AVG all-core frequency at 3674MHz flat. We should start with a frequency chart before wasting our time on testing. Our original 1600 “AE” could only do 3.9GHz. For reference, we were never able to get our 1000-series Ryzen CPUs above 4.0GHz in almost any circumstance with normal cooling.
Overclocking more or less confirms what we were told by AMD, which is that the 1600 AF is on 2nd-gen Ryzen, or Zen+ architecture, as we were able to hit 4.2GHz at 1.4V on the 1600 AF. Our retail-purchased R5 1600 AF clocked the same as our R5 2600, for what it’s worth, although that’s hardly any sample size worthy of consideration. Unofficially, the 2600 might be binned better than the 1600 AF, but there’s no guarantee or formal confirmation of that. Since it worked for the 2600, which is the same other than higher stock speeds, it will also work for the R5 1600 in the same way. This is also interesting because it indicates AMD is still making some of these parts, and may have still been making 14nm R5 1600 parts.ĪMD noted to us that the switch to include the smaller Wraith Stealth cooler is the trade-off and part of the cost savings, but also elaborated that the 1600 replacement on 12nm is more efficient and includes the same cooler as the R5 2600’s stock cooler. Maybe AMD doesn’t want to sell a lot of these.ĪMD told us that the new RyAF is a 2nd-gen replacement for the 1st-gen part, as AMD no longer has inventory of its 14nm wafer supply, and so has shifted it instead to the newer 12nm supply that it still has. We can’t fault AMD for its naming and it doesn’t particularly bother us, it’s just a bit odd from a marketing standpoint. Instead, it just sounds like a two-year-old part, but it’s really not. They already have the 3000 family with Zen+ architecture and the 3000G with Zen1 architecture, so it wouldn’t dilute the naming and it’d be a much more successful, higher selling product with a lot of media fanfare. It’s mostly odd that AMD didn’t just name it Ryzen 3 3300X or Ryzen 5 3550. The R5 1600 AF is a weird, weird refresh.
In today’s review of the new $85 processor, we’ll look at performance versus the original R5 1600, the R5 2600, and overclocking performance, since a 12nm 1600 AF should do about the same OC as a 12nm Ryzen 2000 part, which were typically 100-200MHz higher than the 1000-series. AMD silently released the 1600 AF as an $85 option, but it’s on 12nm instead of 14nm and carries other 2nd-Gen Ryzen features. It’s mostly an R5 2600, in that it’s a slower variant of the Zen+ CPU from the 2000-series, but with a 1000-series name. The AMD R5 1600 AF is a brand new CPU with an old, old name from 2017. This isn’t a revisit of the old AMD Ry– it’s a review of the new variant, named the AMD Ry“AF” by the community, dubbed as such for its SKU change from AE to AF.
0 kommentar(er)
