The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review: Twelve Threads vs Four at $250

254 Comments

View All Comments

• 802Shaun - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Just a friendly correction: It should be "200% more threads" instead of 300% more. Thanks for the article!

• Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Updated :)

• ChristopherF - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Wouldn't 300% be correct since 12 is 3x 4?

• mickulty - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  It has 300% of the threads, but has 200% *more* threads.

• buri - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Your logic is correct if you say "3 times", but with percentages you always refer to the % amount more. In this case is 8 threads more, so 200% of 4 threads. 6 threads more would have been 150% more, and so on

• MobiusPizza - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  It's either 200% MORE threads or 300% the original thread count.

• ddriver - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Nice to see AMD not only back in the game, being competitive in trivial computing workloads, but also offering TWICE the value where PERFORMANCE really MATTERS - rendering, encoding, compiling and other time intensive workloads.

• MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  Indeed it is. I recently built a PC with a 1700X, and my friend said it was a massive improvement over his old FX 6350

• SquarePeg - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  I'm wondering how low AMD's pricing will go on R3 chip's if they can bring a 4C/4T low end R3 to market for $99 that can overclock decently then the FX 6300/6350 will have a true successor.

• MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

  That's also something I'm interested in. Right now it reaches down to $170, which is still in the upper mid-range, but if it can go even further down, I'd be pretty happy with it.