vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

QOTW: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 or Intel Core i5-7600?

by Parm Mann on 14 July 2017, 16:31

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD), Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadjmw

Add to My Vault: x

Isn't it great to see AMD and Intel going toe-to-toe in the desktop CPU arena? The great rivalry has been renewed, and will soon encompass the entire desktop spectrum, starting with Core i3 and Ryzen 3 at the entry-level, then extending right the way through to Core i9 and Ryzen Threadripper at the top-end.

Plenty for PC builders to consider, but we reckon one of the most interesting battles takes place in the mid-range arena, where a great many users can find a chip to meet their needs. Right now, both sides have a competitive part priced at £200; the Ryzen 5 1600 from AMD; or the Core i5-7600 from Intel.

Both are 65W solutions and reciprocal branding may lead you to believe that both are physically similar, however there are some interesting nuances. AMD offers more cores and threads (6/12, compared to 4/4 for the Core i5), but Intel offers a higher turbo frequency (4.1GHz vs. 3.6GHz) as well as integrated HD 630 graphics.

Either chip would be a solid choice for a mid-range PC, but which makes most sense for you? We've enjoyed the debate here in the office, but let's now pass the question to our knowledgeable readers and tech influencers. With £200 to spend, which CPU would you choose: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 or Intel Core i5-7600? Let us know your preferred option, and your reasons why, using the comments facility below.



HEXUS Forums :: 60 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Ryzen 5 1600 and that is from a FO4 player where the Core i5 7600K has the edge. The fact of the matter is when I am helping someone with a build many people I know would want a £200 CPU to last a few years,and as time progresses the Core i5 7600K will be more of a limiting factor. It also does not help it cost more as a CPU,it lacks a cooler,the Z series motherboards cost more than the B series ones and to get the best overclocks you need to delid destroying the warranty.

I helped someone with a build a while back,and by the time I had added the cost of even a £25 to £30 cooler,the added cost of the Core i5 7600K and the slightly more expensive motherboard,it was not worth it as the money saved went towards an SSD in the build. Plus in the games like Overwatch there is no difference between the chips too,and for their work related stuff it looked superior.

Also if the rumoured sub £130 price for the 4C/4T Ryzen CPUs is true then pay nearly double for a Core i5 7600K over a Ryzen 3 1100 seems a tad pointless for me.
1600.
More cores, more threads, cheaper motherboards and a better stock cooler. The biggest reason is that it'll be better for the industry as a whole if AMD can cut into Intel's market share.

Intel has been coasting for too long while putting in the bare minimum.
Ryzen 5, no question. Just need some money for an upgrade.
1600 - 6 cores and 12 threads is more future proof than 4 cores with 4 threads. AMD's SMT is fairly decent too, so those SMT threads are useful.

Sure, the Intel part is faster in single thread, but you have to look at the overall picture.

Most people here won't care about the integrated GPU. Indeed it just adds cruft to the motherboard. Boards for the AMD part seem fairly reasonably priced as well.
Ryzen 5, an obvious choice. It is the more powerful CPU, by a considerable amount. And sooner or later, games will be better optimised for more cores. It's just a matter of when.