【Double Cross (1996)】
The Double Cross (1996)answer to that question may seem obvious to many of you, not least because our Ryzen 5 review said the non-X model looked like a better value. However, we didn't actually have a plain 1600 on-hand at the time, we just assumed based on what we saw with the Ryzen 7 chips that the 1600 would overclock as well, or at least nearly as well as the 1600X.
Although there isn't likely to be a dramatic performance difference between the two chips, the $220 1600 comes bundled with the 95-watt 'Wraith Spire' cooler, while the $250 1600X doesn't come with a cooler at all. If you add the cost of a basic heatsink to the 1600X, the non-X version is around 20% cheaper, yet it shouldn't be more than 10% slower out of the box.
The 'X-rated' 1600X also features "XFR" or Extended Frequency Range, which is basically a beefier version of Turbo that lets the CPU overclock itself a little harder when attributes such as power, current and thermals are within acceptable ranges. XFR is enabled by default on 'X' model Ryzen CPUs, though it's disabled when manually overclocking.
The 1600X has a base clock speed of 3.6GHz, a boost clock of 4.0 GHz and a maximum XFR boost speed of 4.1GHz. However those figures are a little misleading.
For example, boost frequencies will only allow the 1600X to hit 4 - 4.1GHz for single-threaded workloads, whereas the CPU won't actually boost higher than 3.7GHz on multi-threaded workloads, or a mere 3% increase over the base clock.
The 1600 on the other hand operates at a base clock frequency of just 3.2GHz and is advertised to boost as high as 3.6GHz, though again that boost frequency will only be achieved when taxing a single core. However, despite advertising a boost speed of 3.6GHz, stressing a single core in most cases also sees the 1600 exhibit XFR-like gains, allowing it to reach 3.7GHz. Interestingly, it seems like all Ryzen CPUs feature XFR.
The 1600's maximum multi-thread frequency is 3.4GHz, which suggests that for heavy workloads it will only be clocked 8% lower than the 1600X. Of course, these figures will be different if you manually overclock, which is certainly worth considering given that Ryzen CPUs are unlocked and the 1600 can be pushed quite hard with the Wraith Spire box cooler.
We can already say that if you don't plan to overclock, the 1600X is the faster CPU while the 1600 is the better value as it can't be more than 10% slower and yet it's at least 20% less expensive thanks to the included box cooler and lower MSRP.
However, we aren't sure if that story remains true when overclocking, especially if the 1600X offers more headroom. Rumor is, the X-models are capable of greater frequencies and we've seen some evidence of this with the 1700X and 1700, though for the most part the margins were thin.
The 1600X chip we have on-hand for testing had no trouble hitting 4.1GHz at just 1.38 volts and it was even possible to benchmark the system at 4.2GHz after increasing the voltage to 1.5, but AMD recommends a maximum of 1.45 volts for sustained use.
Set at the same 1.38 volts, the 1600 reached 4GHz – not bad – and increasing the voltage a fraction more to 1.4 allowed us to achieve a stable overclock of 4050MHz, only 50MHz shy of what the 1600X managed.
Of course, this could have very easily been around the other way. I just happened to receive a good 1600X. I've seen plenty of reviewers and now users limited to 4GHz with the 1600X, so as always with overclocking, your mileage will vary (4GHz does seem nearly guaranteed, though).
For single-threaded workloads, the manual overclock won't actually be any faster than the stock 4.1GHz XFR performance, but multi-threaded performance should be up to 11% faster for the 1600X and 21% faster for the 1600.
Before moving on, we should note that this isn't an in-depth Ryzen 5 1600 review – in fact, it's not really a review at all. That will come later along with coverage of the quad-core 1400 model.
Instead, we thought it would be interesting to take a detailed look at the performance differences between AMD's six-core Ryzen 5 processors, assuming you're lucky enough to be in the market for a new CPU priced between $200 and $250.
Test System Specs
Search
Categories
Latest Posts
Today's Hurdle hints and answers for May 9, 2025
2025-06-26 05:25Big-League Bluster
2025-06-26 04:50Today's Hurdle hints and answers for May 12, 2025
2025-06-26 04:28The Anatomy of Liberal Melancholy
2025-06-26 03:26Popular Posts
SpaceX's Starlink satellite launch in pictures
2025-06-26 06:11Best iPad deal: Save $132 on Apple iPad (10th Gen)
2025-06-26 05:22Best Hydro Flask deal: Save $10 on a 24
2025-06-26 04:26No Time for a Negative Peace
2025-06-26 04:19Best Garmin deal: Save over $100 on Garmin Forerunner 955
2025-06-26 04:13Featured Posts
Best robot vacuum deal: Save $140 on roborock Q7 Max Robot Vacuum
2025-06-26 05:14The Sound and the “Furious”
2025-06-26 05:06Big-League Bluster
2025-06-26 03:51Skype is finally shutting down
2025-06-26 03:47Popular Articles
Amazon Pet Day: All the best deals
2025-06-26 05:14Best headphones deal: Save up to 51% on Beats at Amazon
2025-06-26 04:12The Sound and the “Furious”
2025-06-26 04:04Best Apple deal: Save $19 on AirTag 4
2025-06-26 03:46Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.
Comments (62752)
Fresh Information Network
Q&A with tendercare founder and CEO Shauna Sweeney
2025-06-26 05:53Neon Information Network
Mary Shows Up
2025-06-26 05:48Ignition Information Network
NYT Strands hints, answers for May 5
2025-06-26 05:47Progressive Information Network
The Anatomy of Liberal Melancholy
2025-06-26 05:40Information Information Network
Robin Triumphant
2025-06-26 03:49