OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80PassMark multi-core score:12257N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 32 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600

7.0/10

▲Better than 59% of processors

7.9

▲Better than 81%

5.0

▼Worse than 60%

8.4

▲Better than 89%

?

Not in any best-of list yet

3.2
Gaming
Gaming
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
3.4
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
3.2
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
3.6
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.5
L3 cache
8.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
4.3
Video editing
Video editing
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
4.1
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
20.0%
6.6
CPU threads
15.0%
2.5
L3 cache

Where to buy

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Based on 9 · 22

Reviewers praise great value and strong multitasking, but memory support and overclocking frustrate many, and gaming opinions are split.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Based on 210 owners sharing their experience in online comments

83%positive11%mixed6%negative

Owners prize the affordable gaming and multitasking performance, while overclocking limits and occasional frame stutters cause the most frustration.

What owners like

Runs multiple demanding programs at once, such as trading software beside a game, without choking. Many buyers say it is the best price-to-performance chip in its class.50
Plays games smoothly at 1080p and 1440p, often 60 fps or higher, with mid-range GPUs like the GTX 1060, RX 580 and GTX 1070.33
Most chips reach about 3.8 to 4.2 GHz with a modest voltage bump, and many run stable at 4.0 GHz on basic coolers.31
Owners upgrading from older quad-core Intel chips or the FX and i5 generations report a large jump in speed and smoothness.13
Owners still use it years later, with many saying it still handles games and everyday work well.12
Stays cool and quiet at stock and at moderate overclocks, with temperatures around 45 to 50 °C in games on basic coolers.9
Streams at 1080p and 720p while gaming, with the game running without lag, even with background programs open.8
Fits the AM4 socket, so it can later be swapped for newer Ryzen chips such as the 5600 or 5950X on the same board after a BIOS update.8

What owners dislike

Overclocking is limited: many chips stop stable around 3.8 to 3.9 GHz unless voltage is raised, and some freeze or crash above 4 GHz.16
In games that rely on one fast core, such as GTA V and Witcher 3, it trails newer chips and can hold a fast GPU back.10
Under sustained overclocked load it runs hot, reaching about 70 °C, and needs a better cooler once pushed past about 3.9 GHz.7
Some owners see micro-stutters and frame dips in games like Warzone and Pacific Battle mode, even when CPU load looks moderate.5
Prices rose from about $85 to around $150, which makes it a weaker deal than the original launch price.3
Early B350 boards had BIOS problems, including broken Cool 'n' Quiet power saving and weak overclocks, fixed only by later BIOS updates.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600

7.0

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.9

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

What reviewers say

Performance

4.4

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

4.8

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

6.6

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

?

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

Power & Thermal

7.1

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Show more

What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs the average processor

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 1600 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

8 more PCIe lanes
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
24 vs 16
Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
25.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models
80%
8.1
Average grade
20%
9.5
Popularity
Grades by review (32)
13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
8.4 vs 6.7
2.79x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (948.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
948.6 vs 340.075
Supports memory overclocking
This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
4 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8

25.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 89% of models
80%
8.1
Average grade
20%
9.5
Popularity
Grades by review (32)
13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
8.4 vs 6.7
38.9% higher sentiment score
10.0 vs 7.2
3.13x cheaper
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
£80 vs £250
8.2% better value for money
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has better value for money than the average processor (7.89 vs 7.3).
7.89 vs 7.29

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
AM4 vs FP5

Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
2.79x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (948.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
948.6 vs 340.075
4 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz

50% larger L1 cache
This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (576 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
576 KB vs 384 KB
77.8% larger L3 cache
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
16 MB vs 9 MB
More advanced foundry
This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm

8 more PCIe lanes
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
24 vs 16
Supports memory overclocking
This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
Supports ECC memory
This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.

Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
5 °C lower CPU temperature
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
95 °C vs 100 °C

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 1600 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

18.2% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
28.3% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,101 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,101 vs 1,535
No configurable TDP
This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
27.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (357 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
357 vs 490
19.3% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2065 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
2,065 vs 2,558
Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
16.7% larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm

Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
3 years older release date
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
April 2017
2017 vs 2020
Older TPM support
This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2).
TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2.0

18.2% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
3.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
28.3% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,101 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,101 vs 1,535
27.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (357 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
357 vs 490
19.3% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2065 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
2,065 vs 2,558
21.9% slower Blender rendering
This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (310.8 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
310.8 vs 398.015
10.9% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,643 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
4,643 vs 5,209
10.8% weaker multi-core performance
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,501 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
2,501 vs 2,804.5

Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
16.7% larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
20.3% larger die size
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (213 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
213 mm² vs 177 mm²

Limited PCIe bifurcation
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
16.7% lower memory speed
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz

No integrated graphics
This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.

No configurable TDP
This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
44.4% higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
5 °C lower temperature limit
This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
95 °C vs 100 °C
44.4% higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0

ImWateringPSUs

≈ estimated

20/09/2024

Hands-on review · overclocking and gaming tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is not worth it for gaming, but it is a cheap, decent option for office and productivity work.

4.0

eTeknix

≈ estimated

12/12/2023

Benchmark revisit · 42 games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has aged poorly, with severe bottlenecks, so it isn't worth sticking with in 2023.

7.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

08/03/2023

Value review · overclock and game performance tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is still a capable budget chip for cheap builds, though frame times and newer games show its age.

7.0

The Good Old Gamer (TheGoodOldGamer)

≈ estimated

12/09/2021

Gaming benchmark · modern AAA titles in 2021

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 still does well in games, but a cheap Intel i3 is the smarter buy unless you plan upgrades.

9.0

Proceu Tech

≈ estimated

15/05/2020

Benchmark review · gaming and productivity tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 offers excellent performance for its price, though Intel still leads in gaming.

9.0

SANTINI.IO

≈ estimated

12/05/2017

Benchmark test · gaming and Cinebench results

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 offers strong multi-core performance and playable frame rates for the price.

10

TechteamGB

✓ explicit

08/05/2017

Hands-on review · performance, overclocking and gaming tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a strong chip with excellent value, especially for overclocking and non-gaming workloads.

8.0

BPS Customs

≈ estimated

21/04/2017

Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and overclocking tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is the best value for budget video editing and light gaming, though the Intel chip still wins in games.

7.0

Nicolas11x12 English

≈ estimated

18/04/2017

Overclocking test · 4 GHz gaming and productivity tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 benefits from overclocking in rendering and editing, but gaming gains are too small to justify the extra voltage and power.

8.0

Hoosier Hardware

≈ estimated

14/04/2017

Hands-on test · streaming and gaming at the same time

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 offers great value for streamers and gamers at 720p, though 1080p GTA performance was not quite smooth.

9.0

Cheap Bastard

≈ estimated

03/12/2024

Head-to-head benchmark · 10 games and 3DMark

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is highly recommended for its price, though it trails the Intel chip in several games.

7.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

07/12/2017

Upgrade test · editing and gaming benchmarks vs Ryzen 3

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is worth it for editing and productivity, but gaming gains over a Ryzen 3 are modest.

Rawiioli · 31/01/2020

Hands-on test · overclock, power and BIOS update

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a sensible, good-value upgrade for gamers, though a BIOS update has drawbacks.

Likes

A clear CPU upgrade for an existing system
Good value and fine for gaming
Overclocks well, with boost reaching about 3.5 GHz
Idle power draw is low, around 40 watts

Dislikes

BIOS update prevents Ryzen 3000 CPUs from running
Cooler quality is unclear, and the original cooler is preferred
Not every chip hits higher overclocks without good cooling

BrandyTech · 31/03/2018

Hands-on test · overclocking benchmarks and gaming FPS

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 gains little from overclocking in many games, but it is worth doing for multicore workloads and some titles.

Likes

Direct comparison of 3.2 GHz and 3.9 GHz clock speeds
Gains of up to 15 fps in some games
Practical cooling advice for overclocking

Dislikes

Small gains in many games
Benefit depends heavily on the workload

Nicolas11x12 English · 18/04/2017

Overclocking test · 4 GHz gaming and productivity tests

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 benefits from overclocking in rendering and editing, but gaming gains are too small to justify the extra voltage and power.

Likes

Noticeable gains in video editing, rendering and compression
Modest FPS boost in some games at 1080p
Temperatures stay easy to control with an AIO or a good air cooler

Dislikes

Gaming gains too small to justify the overclocking effort
High voltage needed for a fully stable 4 GHz
Higher power draw, with 3.8 to 3.9 GHz likely the better sweet spot

Nicolas11x12 English · 15/04/2017

Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and cooler tests

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 earns a gold award, with strong productivity performance and a quiet stock cooler.

Likes

Strong multithreaded performance for rendering and video editing
Gaming performance close to the Ryzen 7 1700X
Very quiet stock cooler, even under full load
Efficient for the rendering performance it delivers

Dislikes

Higher power draw than the Intel i5 7600K
Stock cooler performance is unremarkable
The i5 7600K is slightly faster in most games

AllesMarten · 15/06/2017

Unboxing · overclocking to 3.8 GHz with boxed cooler

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is good value for the small extra cost, though overclocking to 3.8 GHz was only just stable.

Likes

Good value for a small price premium
3.8 GHz overclock reached on the MSI board

Dislikes

3.9 GHz overclock would not run
Stable operation only at around 3.7 GHz

Prophecy Tech · 07/08/2017

Full PC build test · gaming and productivity benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is the best price-performance CPU right now, handling gaming and productivity well with excellent temperatures and noise.

Likes

Best price-performance ratio for mixed gaming and productivity
Very low temperatures under full load
Very quiet system, under 30 dB
Strong multithreaded performance for graphics and 3D work

Dislikes

Frame rate dips and weak 1% lows caused by slower 2800 MHz RAM
Faster RAM of 3200 MHz or more would have suited Ryzen better

Elettro show · 21/12/2017

Build video · Ryzen 5 1600 in a new PC

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 was the best price-performance processor for a budget build at the time.

Likes

Strong price-performance for a budget build
Stock cooler comes with thermal paste already applied

Dislikes

Stock cooler mounting is fiddlier than on older generations
Memory choice was not what the creator would have picked

Ghiroinformatico · 10/07/2017

Hands-on review · build and comparison with i7-6800K

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 nearly matches the i7-6800K in benchmarks at about half the cost, making it the better buy.

Likes

Near-identical Cinebench results to the i7-6800K
Strong price-performance
Stable and capable in the test build

Dislikes

Memory profiles prevented booting until RAM was set to 2933 MHz
Intel slightly ahead in Cinema 4D results

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0

tomshardware.com

≈ estimated

29/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

Final review · Gaming and productivity

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core chip with a bundled cooler that edges Core i5-7600K in modern games, though Intel keeps better minimum frame rates.

8.0

pcmag.com

✓ explicit

26/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review - PCMag

Hands-on review · Cooling and gaming

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core, 12-thread chip that handles heavy multi-threaded work well and plays 1080p games smoothly, though high-refresh 1080p gaming favors Intel.

9.5

relaxedtech.com

≈ estimated

22/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 1400 Review - RelaxedTech

Benchmark test · Six-core gaming CPU

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a strong six-core chip for multi-threaded work and high-resolution gaming, though Intel's Core i5 still wins some 1080p game tests.

9.0

bit-tech.net

≈ estimated

11/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review

Benchmark review · Overclocking results

Verdict

The Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core chip that overclocks almost as well as the 1600X and beats most Intel chips in multi-threaded work, but trails Intel in high-clock games.

9.0

tweaktown.com

✓ explicit

12/06/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 5 1400 CPU Review

Benchmark test · Six and quad-core chips

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 excels at rendering and video encoding but trails Intel in some 1080p games, while the quad-core 1400 is a surprise.

9.0

tomshardware.com

≈ estimated

29/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review - Tom's Hardware

Benchmark review · Six-core CPU

Verdict

The Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core, 12-thread chip for heavy multi-threaded work, but it is weaker in lightly threaded programs and less consistent at memory overclocking.

9.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

11/04/2017

Ryzen 5 Review: 1600X, 1600, 1500X, and 1400 vs. Core i5

Lab test · Six-core Ryzen

Verdict

The Ryzen 5 1600 is a 65 W six-core with a boxed cooler that suits heavy multi-threaded work but has lower clocks than the 1600X.

6.7

pcgameshardware.de

✓ explicit

29/01/2020

Ryzen 5 1600 (12nm) Review: Carrot and Stick

Lab test · Gaming and efficiency

Verdict

The Ryzen 5 1600 (12 nm) keeps pace with the Ryzen 5 2600 in games, though it is weaker in application work and less efficient.

9.0

chip.de

≈ estimated

22/06/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review - CHIP

Lab test · Six-core desktop CPU

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core chip that matches or beats Intel's i7-7700K in all but one benchmark, but it has no built-in graphics.

6.0

lesnumeriques.com

✓ explicit

25/08/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review: Core i5 Better Watch Out

Benchmark test · Six-core processor

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 excels at 3D rendering and video encoding but trails Intel in games, though it holds its own against Core i5 chips overall.

9.0

xataka.com

≈ estimated

30/05/2017

Ryzen 5 1600 y 1400, análisis: si quieres pasarte a Ryzen

Benchmark test · Six and quad-core

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core chip that stays close to the Ryzen 7 in everyday tasks but falls behind the eight-core models in heavy multi-core work.

9.0

tomshw.it

≈ estimated

29/05/2017

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Review

Lab test · Six-core desktop CPU

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a six-core chip with 12 threads that rivals the best quad-core Core i5s, though it lags with programs that use only a few cores.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Excellent price-to-performance ratio, often cited as a top value choice for budget builds
Strong multi-threaded performance (6 cores/12 threads) ideal for productivity, video editing, and rendering
Includes a capable and quiet stock cooler (Wraith Spire for the original, Wraith Stealth for the AF version)
Unlocked for easy overclocking, allowing users to reach performance levels near more expensive models like the 1600X
Compatible with a wide range of AM4 motherboards, providing a long-term upgrade path
Energy-efficient 65W TDP that maintains solid temperatures even under load

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Single-core performance is lower compared to similarly priced Intel chips of its era
Gaming performance can struggle with inconsistent frame times or lower minimum FPS in some titles
Requires high-speed RAM (DDR4 3000MHz+) to achieve its full performance potential due to the Infinity Fabric architecture
Stock cooler may not be sufficient for heavy overclocking, necessitating an aftermarket solution
Early versions (14nm AE) had occasional memory compatibility and stability issues at launch
AF version (12nm) comes with the smaller Wraith Stealth cooler instead of the larger Wraith Spire

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is a versatile first-generation desktop processor based on the 14nm 'Zen' architecture, featuring 6 physical cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 3.2 GHz and a maximum boost of 3.6 GHz. Operating on the AM4 socket with a 65W TDP, it includes 16MB of L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory up to 2667 MT/s. Its primary strengths lie in its exceptional multi-threaded performance for its price class, making it ideal for budget-friendly video editing and multitasking, further enhanced by an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking and the inclusion of a capable Wraith Spire cooler. However, it lacks integrated graphics—requiring a discrete GPU—and exhibits weaker single-core performance and lower maximum clock speeds compared to its Intel counterparts of the same era, which can result in lower average frame rates in some gaming scenarios.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5500

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

Intel Core i7-4790

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 3500X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Processors

Intel Pentium G3430

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 1600 with other processors

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and other processors

No results found