AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU - $260 Shipped @ Futu Online eBay

Related Stores

eBay Australia

Marketplace

Shopping Express

• 

  bunnybash on 11/09/2017 - 21:41

  +6

  I'm hoping to upgrade my i5 750 system to a Ryzen 5 system sometime this year. But damn rates and car rego just came in. This cpu is a freaking beast.

  • 

    AitC on 11/09/2017 - 22:18

    +1

    I did exactly that in the last 20% sale, now waiting for memory and gpu to drop in price

  • 

    FabMan on 11/09/2017 - 22:32

    -7

    My i5-750 is running at 4Ghz, I cannot see a good reason to upgrade my CPU to anything else, however, more PCI lanes, USB 3.1 and NVME M.2 are what appeals to me.

    I've decided to upgrade my system to include a GPU Vega 56.

    • 

      masuta on 12/09/2017 - 19:02

      -1

      If your happy with it then thats great, but the ryzen will destroy your cpu.
      http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-750-vs-AM…

      • 

        FabMan on 12/09/2017 - 19:20

        -3

        My CPU is running 50% faster than stock, which in single core and quad core benchmarks is faster than Ryzen 1600 at stock. Once you have overclocked Ryzen 1600 it is only 25% faster in single core and quad core applications, which will what most applications will be using for a while.

        I don't consider 25% faster destroying.

      • 

        masuta on 12/09/2017 - 19:40

        -1

        @FabMan: Maybe find your cpu on this list:
        https://www.cpubenchmark.net/overclocked_cpus.html
        Hint look around the 4k mark, then find the ryzen 5 1600, hint look around 13k.

        You can't compare clock for clock with your cpus ageing architecture.

      • 

        FabMan on 12/09/2017 - 20:42

        @masuta:

        I didn't compare clock for clock, I compared benchmarking results from the link you originally provided, please read the link you provided. Average user bench results is stock vs stock, Peaked overclocked bench is OC vs OC. As you can see, single core and quad core benchmarks show the Ryzen is only 24% and 26% when both are overclocked.

        That big chart you showed was both CPUs at stock with a benchmark using all threads available. 4 for i5-750 and 12 for Ryzen 1600. As I said, my CPU is overclocked, so my score would be 50% higher. What application or game am I likely to use that will utilise 12 threads? Just benchmarks for a while.

        An upgrade to Ryzen would only provide any significant performance. No destroying still.

      • 

        FabMan on 14/09/2017 - 11:30

        @masuta: Oi, I put in effort showing actual evidence supporting my point and I get nothing back?

        Come on…

        Just write "You were right FabMan" and I can feel a little smug.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 15/09/2017 - 21:01

        +1

        https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=772&cmp[]=2984&cmp[]=302

        It is so strange these days, I too haven't upgraded my 2009 CPU my Phenom 9550 Q1 2009

        Because slow arse tablets and phones, ultra cheapo laptops

        Software developers have improved software performance to work on slow under powered gear and unintentionally old hardware :)

        Its great like being frugal, saving money everyday

      • 

        FabMan on 15/09/2017 - 23:31

        @carlb:

        When my Vega 56 finally arrives, I want to run a series of gaming benchmarks to see how badly my CPU bottlenecks gaming. If you have a look at that single threaded performance on that link you provided, the Ryzen 5 1600 stock is 60% faster than the i5-750. If you've overclocked the i5-750 by 50% like I have, it is only 7% faster. That is the same for any application that uses up to 4 cores, after that the Ryzen 1600 gets major benefits, but not many games do yet.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/09/2017 - 00:14

        +1

        @FabMan:
        There are indirect benefits in newer cpus not totally expressed in raw single threaded comparison though.

        A program stuck with one or two threads can be significantly hindered with background processes windows services, drivers, hardware calls, encryption.

        Programs particularly copyrighted stuff loves to be encrypted and decrypted on the fly, newer gear likes this balancing act better.

      • 

        FabMan on 16/09/2017 - 00:33

        @carlb: Seems a good reason to upgrade.

        If multi-threaded applications are more common now, anyone looking for a worthy upgrade from an i5 should consider the Ryzen 7 1700 over the Ryzen 5 1600 for the extra 2 cores / 4 threads. Otherwise i5 owners with motherboards that support an i7 might consider a CPU upgrade instead, especially newer Intel systems. For example, I could sell my i5-750 for $25 buy a i7-860 for $85, so for $60 end up with 4 additional threads and most likely overclock to 3.8Ghz.

        JERMgaming demonstrates an i5-750 (3.7Ghz) against an i7-4790k(4.5Ghz) both with a GTX 1080. While the i5-750 does bottleneck, it mainly only happens at 1080p, as soon as 1440p is involved, they are almost identical. So for gaming, it seems I'm still good with an i5-750, or I spend $200 on 2133Mhz 16GB RAM, $170 on B350 motherboard and $260 for 1600 or $375 for 1700, and total of $630 or $745.

      • 

        masuta on 16/09/2017 - 05:38

        @FabMan:
        If multi threaded performance is not important to you in any sense then I have no idea why you are looking at Ryzen. If all you are chasing is single core performance then get the 7700K, aim for >5ghz OC, and be done with it. Or don't, its up to you. Personally I'm running a [email protected] and often have all 6C/12T at >90% so couldn't think of wanting less cores, actually trying to convince myself to upgrade but kinda hanging out for one more gen of CPUs, hopefully coffee lake lives up to the hype!

      • 

        FabMan on 16/09/2017 - 05:43

        @masuta:

        What are you up too that utilises 90% of all 6 cores and 12 threads? That sounds like a lot. I want to upgrade, I can't justify it to myself. After years of upgrading getting huge upgrades, as you know, it's been small increments in IPC and most games don't use a huge amount of cores, I mean over 4.

      • 

        masuta on 17/09/2017 - 07:00

        @FabMan: I only use all cores when doing video encoding, occasionally with some photo editing if its a large batch edit. I agree that IPC improvements have not been as good as they use to be, but they are slowly accumulating over several generations so i'm getting upgraditis. Like you I upgraded my video card and that seems to have "scratched the itch" for a while. I'm still not sure what my CPU upgrade path will be but at the moment I'm still leaning towards intel as a Ryzen 1700 offers me very little in single core and quad core and I would only get improvements once I get to multicore usage.

      • 

        FabMan on 17/09/2017 - 07:28

        @masuta: Yeah I really want to support AMD but Intels new chips sound too interesting.

    • 

      AreYouAWiiizard on 12/09/2017 - 20:39

      You realise you can run the benchmark and share your result? The benchmark is like a 5mb dl and takes 2-3mins…

      • 

        FabMan on 12/09/2017 - 22:03

        http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4983390

        Breakdown of the performance of my i5-750 OC released mid 2009 vs 2017 Ryzen 5 1600 stock and OC.

        Single Core
        i5-750 = 98.8
        1600 Stock = 103 (+4.3%)
        1600 OC = 115 (+16.5%)

        Quad Core
        i5-750 = 391
        1600 Stock = 374 (-4.3%)
        1600 OC = 454 (+16.2%)

        What does this mean?

        If I upgrade to Ryzen 1600 and don't OC, for Single Core and Quad Core applications, I will be at the same performance. If I overclock the Ryzen 1600, I will gain up to 16.5% performance.

        Other than running very high multi threaded applications (which Ryzen 1600 kicks arse at), the Ryzen 1600 certainly does not destroy the 8 year old i5-750 when overclocked. I'm not sure of what high threaded applications I will be running, but if there is a common one, especially around Oculus Rift usage, I'd like to know as I'd love to upgrade.

        Now unless I've made a mistake, I want all negs removed and an apology written in the form of a haiku. (That part is a joke). Seriously though, the information was provided in the first link to prove the Ryzen 1600 would destroy (it doesn't) the i5-750 OC'd.

      • 

        AreYouAWiiizard on 12/09/2017 - 22:29

        @FabMan: Well, with a 7970 it won't make much difference in games but many applications actually do use more than 4 threads which this benchmark doesn't portray well. It's quad-core part doesn't show the benefit of what using 8 threads on Ryzen is capable of and you would need to look at 7700k's "multi-core" part score to see how much slower the i5 is in those workloads. While the recent influx of UE4 games has kept the need for more than 4 threads irrelevant, I doubt it will last much longer.

        I think you will feel it much more in say 6 months when programs start taking advantage of AMD and even soon Intel's mainstream 12+ thread CPUs.

        EDIT: Also your SSDs are suffering due to the old chipset so you'll see benefits there.

      • 

        FabMan on 12/09/2017 - 22:52

        @AreYouAWiiizard:

        AMD Vega 56 in post at the moment and I was intending to do some tests against my 7950 crossfire and record the benefits of upgrading. Along with tests of running it on 16x, 8x and 4x PCI-e lanes, to see how much it hurts against modern systems.

        I seen results that show a Nvidia 1080 on a PCI-e 2.0 8x gives 97% the performance as running on PCI-e 3.0 16x, so the 3% loss in performance isn't an issue for me. So now I intend to order a PCI card with USB 3.0 and SATA 6GBs, keeping the onboard USB 3.0 ports active my main PCI-e port will run at 8x (97%) and I should have functioning SATA 6GBs to have my SSD's at full speed and enough USB 3.0 ports for my Oculus Rift to run smooth. I want to know if keeping an old system is actually viable with modern gaming, and if that solution works out, I'd say yes.

        If multiple applications I use utilise more threads in the future, I will upgrade then. At the moment, there is no real need.

• 

  JetBombat on 11/09/2017 - 21:51

  +3

  Best post I found for getting a decent RAM to go with it

• 

  bbourizk on 11/09/2017 - 22:01

  +1

  A good deal on the high-end ASRock tr4 boards as well.

  • 

    Darkii on 12/09/2017 - 02:30

    Which motherboard would you recommend

    • 

      bbourizk on 12/09/2017 - 03:50

      I have this in my cart
      http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/362079320814
      Recently released and looks like a great board.

      Has a lot of features and better priced than the Asus for 900 odd dollars.
      Price is same as pccasegear so a decent saving.

• 

  ekswhyzed on 11/09/2017 - 22:26

  I got the R3 1300X two days ago on this sale for $160ish instead of this R5, as when I looked at benchmarks, the $95ish increase didn't seem too worth it for 1080p gaming, along with a GTX 1060.

  • 

    dlovep on 12/09/2017 - 07:53

    If you don't run VMs or multi-core(>4) games on it, there is not that much different.

• 

  hungrypopcorn on 12/09/2017 - 09:40

  Hey guys,. I'm a tech noob but could someone advise if this will be good for hardcore 4k video editing?

  • 

    ACTGBilly on 13/09/2017 - 11:43

    Better than most and among the best for the money. NOTE: You will need all other parts to be compatible. Try PCPartPicker com au

    • 

      hungrypopcorn on 13/09/2017 - 15:00

      THANKS FOR THIS VALUABLE RESOURCE! VERY MUCH APPRECIATED>

• 

  MrZ on 12/09/2017 - 10:07

  -5

  Guys, don't jump on the wagon and switch just because of this. Remember the Athlon was beating the Pentium III? How long did that last… about a year? Intel always eventually comes out on top. I've been buying Intel for 24 years in a row and never once considered an AMD.

  • 

    thargelios on 12/09/2017 - 10:11

    +2

    Depends. If you need a new processor, right now, then this is the better deal. If you can wait, then maybe. It's all relative. There's always something 'better' around the corner. You make a decision based on your needs and what's available at the time. It's also a cost-value thing.

  • 

    vicerum on 12/09/2017 - 10:38

    One thing that Intel have going against them is their constant chipset platform changes. We've gone from Z170 to Z270 and now with Coffee Lake coming up it's Z370.

    AMD have committed to the AM4 platform for the next 3-4 years.

    What this means is that future upgrades on Intel will require both a new motherboard and CPU, so make sure to factor that into your upgrade path costs.

  • 

    Diji1 on 12/09/2017 - 10:56

    +3

    Yeah guys, don't buy a better CPU because this guy hasn't even considered AMD in the last 24 years.

    Even though it's been a better choice at various times.

    Just don't do it because this guy hasn't considered it so he clearly knows what he's talking about!

    • 

      MrZ on 12/09/2017 - 11:18

      -3

      My point is this - don't make the switch just because one horse gets ahead of another for a short while. Look at the long term picture.

      • 

        TheContact on 12/09/2017 - 11:51

        The long run doesn't matter if you're building right now though. But lets take a look at the long term picture if you're building right now: Intel's current 1151 platform is basically dead, as it won't be compatible with the upcoming Coffee Lake CPUs, meanwhile AM4 will be supported till 2020 according to AMD.

        Personally, I'll likely go 8700K, but a Ryzen 5 now, then possibly Zen+/Zen 2/Zen 3(?) 8 core down the track with hopefully decent clock improvements is rather tempting.

      • 

        MrZ on 12/09/2017 - 14:59

        -2

        @TheContact:

        Well considering the CPU/motherboard is the longest lasting part of a PC, the long-term does matter. Also Intel CPUs have better resale value.

      • 

        TheContact on 12/09/2017 - 18:45

        @MrZ: Longest lasting mainly because generational improvements have been barely perceptible compared to GPUs, SSDs or increases in memory.

        Zen is a completely new architecture, while Intel is due for an architecture update rather than the optimising they've been doing in recent years, so if anything, Ryzen would be longer lasting. Add to that that 6-core is going to be mainstream on Intel in a month or two, makes the current 4 core mainstream lineup look even more short-lived.

        Sure in the long-term, the next Intel processor may be ahead, but it does nothing for someone who has already purchased one now.

      • 

        MrZ on 12/09/2017 - 19:26

        @TheContact:

        But the new Intel 6-core chips are literally a few weeks away??

      • 

        FabMan on 13/09/2017 - 18:17

        @TheContact: If AMD use a new architecture and if Intel use an older refined one, but Intel still has the faster system, what does it matter to an end user? Only one thing I can see is on price.

      • 

        TheContact on 13/09/2017 - 18:29

        @FabMan: It doesn't. If it does what you need better for the price right now then it's good for you. Comments I was replying to had implications that it's performance would somehow drop off in time. My point was if there were optimisations on the software side to be made, a new architecture would benefit more than one that may possibly be superceded in the near future.

        Of course, seems they were actually referring to upcoming Intel processors taking the multi threaded fight, so really bit of a moot point. And does nothing for you if you were building right now, which was my original point.