Overclock.net banner

[HotHardware]AMD Ryzen 5 2600 cpu leaks with ASUS Crosshair VII HERO X470 Motherboard

20K views 101 replies 64 participants last post by  Kaltenbrunner 
#1 ·
source
Quote:
The Ryzen 5 2600, with codename ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y in the SANDRA database, is meant to replace 1st generation Ryzen 5 1600. It has 6 physical cores and 12 threads, and based on the codename, is clocked at 3.4GHz (base) to 3.8GHz (boost). The upcoming chip also features 16MB of L3 cache and 3MB of L2 cache, along with a 65W TDP.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoid View Post

Ryzen 2 = 12 core (2x6 CCX) confirmed?

I thought the ryzen 2 12nm respin was sticking with 8 core chips.
Speaking of which, I wonder if AMD has tried to fix the CCX latency issues that were only partially fixed by changing the scheduler assignments in Windows and Linux.
 
#7 ·
So where is the clock boost lol.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakanoth View Post

Just 0.2 GHz boost?
mad.gif
1600X is 0.4GHz over 1600. All this means is 0.2 is all we will get. The OC will go from 3.7-4 to 3.9-4.2.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

That's quite some impressive level of detail in your predictions considering Zen+ isn't manufactured on the same process as Zen.
Just good analysis based on AMDs history.
 
#13 ·
We don't know if this is final silicon though.

Also, the 2600's clockspeed may not reflect the potential of the refresh. There will most probably also be a 2600X and that should be the one to look for when evaluating the clocking potential of the Ryzen 2000 series.

If it turns out to indeed be +200 Mhz, then it'll be underwhelming, that's for sure; that's 5 - 6% higher clocks for base and boost, basically half of what we were expecting, in the region of 10%+ (11 or 12% at most, probably).
 
#16 ·
Well the boost in clocks might not be all that bad IF...
and its big IF...

They have managed to get around the OC wall.

If so, then getting clocks in the region of 4.5 might be possible with a good OC.
 
#17 ·
This is the result of the R5 2600

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3ead9e0d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbf3&l=en

And this is one of the R5 1600

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3daeeddefdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4f6&l=en

Near a 10% jump in Multimedia...

Edit: 1.1 Ghz IMC vs 1.0 Ghz IMC too...

Edit 2: from reddit...
Quote:
You're right, memory speed barely affects this particular benchmark. I wasn't sure but IMC runs at the RAM speed, and I get about the same with 1.67GHz IMC (3333MT/s RAM). CPU stock (somehow reported the 3.7GHz boost unlike the link above)
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3eadeebd8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2f2&l=en
So if the results are real, then it's quite an IPC boost in a single gen.
 
#19 ·
Hopefully the IPC is a lot higher boost than the clocks, because the 200MHz isn't too impressive, you can usually overclock 200MHz without even touching voltage on the Ryzen 5 1600. I've built quite a few servers for small businesses using them, and the OC is usually quite easy for a small boost.
 
#20 ·
Last I heard from the guys in marketing is that they were aiming for 4.5ghz overclocks but those are silicon lottery chips, on average we will see 4.3ghz.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd-dude View Post

Last I heard from the guys in marketing is that they were aiming for 4.5ghz overclocks but those are silicon lottery chips, on average we will see 4.3ghz.
unfortunate. but it's progress
 
#22 ·
4.2 seems more likely.

Or, 4201, etc. Alot of ryzen overclocks I see have individual mhz numbers
 
#23 ·
I'm just hoping for a Ryzen 7 1700 replacement that can hit an average of 4.2Ghz. If they can deliver that, that would make a pretty big difference in gaming over my current 3.8Ghz 1700. The same clocks would be great for the 1600 equivalent, and would probably take the best "bang for your buck" back from the i5 8400.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by figuretti View Post

This is the result of the R5 2600

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3ead9e0d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbf3&l=en

And this is one of the R5 1600

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3daeeddefdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4f6&l=en

Near a 10% jump in Multimedia...

Edit: 1.1 Ghz IMC vs 1.0 Ghz IMC too...

Edit 2: from reddit...
Crushed it in Sisoft at the same clock speeds
thumb.gif
. This type of IPC gain along with another 5-10% clock speed bump would be huge if these same gains correlate to other tests and benchmarks.

Not bad for the mid range part - makes me very excited to see the 2800x!
 
#26 ·
Just speculation here, but if AMD was able to get an extra 500+Mhz on the Ryzen 2 series. I would only increase the non-X parts by a couple of hundred Mhz, and increase the X parts by the full amount to give more separation between the 2.

How many people bought the 1700 over the 1700x, and 1800x, and the 1600 over the 1600x because there isn't much of a difference between them? I'm guessing a lot.

This would give people more reason to spring for the more expensive/profitable X chips.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top