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

Ryzen 5 1600 $85 on Amazon

Log in to rate comments or to post a comment.

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

yup! this is an updated version (AF) of the 1600, it uses the 12nm process and is basically a 2600... if i remember correctly. but it has good performance and is WELL worth the 85$

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Been available a while. This site...

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

It's not the site.

AMD doesn't even officially list the model yet beyond a note in the 1600 listing.

Motherboard manufacturers don't list it yet.

And it doesn't have the same compatibility as the 1600 depending on the source either requiring a 3000 series ready BIOS, or later 2000 series BIOS, release BIOS for the 400 series motherboard, and earlier 300 series BIOS don't work with it, it also doesn't work on X570.

People have been running into issues with this model since AMD launched it alongside the other 3000 series models, just most brushed them off as old stock sitting around or improperly repackaged 1600 since they came with the Stealth.

Until AMD and board vendors start providing actual support for the part it's a crapshoot if it will work outside of the few B450/X470 models launched as 3000 series ready and even those don't list support yet.

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

85 Amazon reviews suggest otherwise. If you don't believe those, there's plenty enough forum users on techpowerup.com and overclock.net that have these in build logs. It has same compatibility as the 14nm 1600, and BIOS simply sees it as that. That is why motherboard venders do not need to do anything to the qvls.

  • 28 days ago
  • 3 points

Amazon uses the same reviews as the older 1600 lumped in often so be careful, also if you look most of those are all on newer boards which isn't a guarantee you'll get.

And I don't need to take anyone else's word for it I've dealt with it myself.

That's how I know there are issues with 300 and very least early 400 series BIOS, bought one to update boards only didn't work until it was thrown on a board with 3000 series ready BIOS.

Also if they ran the same microcode as many suggest any software viewing them would see them as 14nm parts not 12nm and would have the same boost clocks as a 1600 not the full feature set of the 2600.

  • 27 days ago
  • 2 points

Joke is on you I guess since AMD still gives out free loaner processors for flashing. Usually they are some low value Excavator based A series. I would request one if you still need to update some very old boards.

  • 27 days ago
  • 2 points

AMD only allows boot kits when both CPU and motherboard are purchased new and you need valid proof of the manufacturer not providing a new board or BIOS chip.

You also can't use Excavator to update to a 3000 series ready BIOS since it isn't compatible with those BIOS versions.

Athlon support is hit and miss even on off the shelf models so those are out as well.

[comment deleted]
  • 28 days ago
  • 2 points

I wish I could comment on that thread. There are no BIOS issues. It works exactly like the 14nm 1600. So you get some very slight increased overclocking headroom, but none of the 2000 series additional features. If a board supports 1600, it supports the 1600af, very simple. Plenty have tested this already.

  • 19 days ago
  • 2 points

I know this is a late reply but it absolutely does not work like a 1600. It works more like a 2600 and requires a bios update to work on 300 series boards. We tested this ourselves.

  • 18 days ago
  • 1 point

Were able to make it precision boost?

Can you post your results and methodology for the various boards and BIOS you used?

There are plenty of reviewers who did. Here is HardwareUnboxed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tso-xJG2ehU

Also, it's sold out again on Amazon for $85, but Amazon partners are gouging prices which makes it not worth it at all.

  • 17 days ago
  • 1 point

That video agrees with my statement on BIOS updates...

https://youtu.be/Tso-xJG2ehU?t=274

  • 27 days ago
  • 1 point

It's been 2 weeks since that comment, it's only active for 2 weeks after the last comment.

[comment deleted]
  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

No. You did us all a service by letting us know they are aware (which I suspected anyway). Good messenger :)

  • 6 days ago
  • 2 points

Back in stock for the $85, hurry!

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

I saw that. I snagged one myself :)

Benches next week.

  • 24 days ago
  • 1 point

Wanted to confirm as well so people aren't misinformed. This chip is a 2600 and will work on any AMD board which has support for the the 2600. Every board that's been shipped for the past couple years basically is fine, including the x570. Old boards of course need a bios update.

Also, I've seen posted on another thread that the gamers nexus review wasn't representative of the 1600af performance because of the use a liquid cooler instead of the stock stealth for testing. I can confirm that's also false, this chip runs cool and it maintains 3700 boost clock across all cores without issue under load with the stock cooler and even has room for a mild overclock.

I've not seen any of these issues mentioned in any other forum or any review and own one myself. I'm not sure how this misinformation manifested itself.

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

Old boards of course need a bios update.

Anything that doesn't support Athlons can have issues booting with this chip so even older 400 series boards can be hit and miss.

Most X570 don't support it since only the latest AGESA version allows first generation models to work on 500 series boards so also hit and miss.

Also, I've seen posted on another thread that the gamers nexus review wasn't representative of the 1600af performance because of the use a liquid cooler instead of the stock stealth for testing. I can confirm that's also false, this chip runs cool and it maintains 3700 boost clock across all cores without issue under load with the stock cooler and even has room for a mild overclock.

3700mhz on all cores is below 2600 performance.

Every review also confirms that this models performance is lower then the 2600 so it isn't a 2600.

Wraith Stealth limits 2600 performance even when maxed out all the time and this is no different.

You're going to want aftermarket cooling or lose performance just like a 2600.

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

You're really grasping at straws citing the 100mhz difference.

It's 100mhz lower than the actual 2600. The chip is a zen+ chip period, the clocks are different yes. It's performance is identical at identical clocks. That is what I mean by "it's a 2600" .... Because well It is a 2600.

It does not lose performance with the stealth, where are you coming up with this? I've got one sitting here right in front of me, it holds 3700 all cores for days on end if I want it to.

In regards to 500 series it's not a 1st gen part, so 1st gen compatibility doesn't matter.

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

You're really grasping at straws citing the 100mhz difference.

No i'm simply not making it something it isn't.

It's 100mhz lower than the actual 2600. The chip is a zen+ chip period, the clocks are different yes. It's performance is identical at identical clocks. That is what I mean by "it's a 2600" .... Because well It is a 2600.

That is like saying a 2600 is a 2700X because it actually is.

All second generation parts are the same with the only difference being clock speeds and how many cores are enabled.

It does not lose performance with the stealth, where are you coming up with this?

Personal use and multiple reviews have shown that the Stealth limits boost clocks costing performance.

Throw an aftermarket cooler on it you get more performance, all comes down to Precision Boost 2 holding back core clocks over 60c-65c as AMD intended and is listed in the notes for PB2.

AMD defines premium processor cooling as a combination of ambient temperature and thermal solution that results in processor temperatures below 60 degrees Celsius while the CPU is processing the system workload.

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi

I've got one sitting here right in front of me, it holds 3700 all cores for days on end if I want it to.

Which still doesn't make it anything but a 1600"AF" it still isn't a 2600.

The part has been around for a long time, and the performance has been gone over time and time again, this use for underperforming chips doesn't change anything that wasn't already known about the 2600.

Close yes but close only not the same.

  • 24 days ago
  • 1 point

Oh boy.... You are still arguing semantics. A 1600AF/2600 isn't a 2700x because they have 2 fewer cores. You tried to use an obvious fallacy to make my comparison appear false.

You can win your argument I'm not saying they are the "same" chip by name or part number. But they are the same the same way a Ford Fusion was a Mercury Milan, but I have a feeling you'd even argue that with me lol.

Hardware unboxed just released a video today with a direct response from AMD stating that it is in fact... a downclocked 2600.

So, thankfully it's a 2600. You're also wrong about the Amazon reviews, they are separate listings and the reviews are specific to each part number.

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

You are still arguing semantics. A 1600AF/2600 isn't a 2700x because they have 2 fewer cores. You tried to use an obvious fallacy to make my comparison appear false.

Covered above. The only difference between models is how many cores are enabled and clock speeds.

Hardware unboxed just released a video today with a direct response from AMD stating that it is in fact... a downclocked 2600.

And a 2600 is a downclocked 2600X with a worse cooler, which is a downclocked 2700X with two cores disabled and a worse cooler.

AMD gave it a different model number because it isn't a 2600 which they confirmed in that statement.

Still close but not the same.

  • 18 days ago
  • 1 point

Well whatever your opinion is, this chip needs a separate listing than the 14nm.

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