What happened to things like the 1600AF? Where is modern equivalent?

[jwwagner25]

Anyone who was around for that 6-ish month span of time, who got a 1600AF for retail price of $85, scored a great deal. Why is there no current equivalent?

 

Trying to be creative, if another similar thing were to happen, it might be called 3600(af). Would be marketed as just another R5-3600 but it would actually contain zen3 7nm architechure. I realize this is a pipe dream but how cool would that be?? (of course it would have to be insanely cheap as well)

 

The very first CPU I bought when I started doing things myself was the 1600(af) to upgrade an HP prebuilt that came with a 2400g. It was awesome going from 4 to 6 cores for the first time. Anyone else have fun memory of what you did with yours?

[Somerandomtechyboi]

Nope, all i had was fixing problems that would just pop up outta nowhere.

 

Most of the time spraying or dunking 99% isopropyl alcohol worked pretty well for me.

 

Maybe if i upgrade to a q6600 or e5450.

 

Im not sure if there will be a 2600af or 1600ag but i guess that would be cool.

 

Then again if you want value you are gonna have to search for the more obscure options, for instance on aliexpress ive found a 16 core 2683 v4 es for 145$ which is a pretty good deal for multicore performance on a budget, or an epyc 7551/7571 which go around 500-750$ on ebay, also great multicore.

[tdkid]

9 minutes ago, jwwagner25 said:

Anyone who was around for that 6-ish month span of time, who got a 1600AF for retail price of $85, scored a great deal. Why is there no current equivalent?

 

Trying to be creative, if another similar thing were to happen, it might be called 3600(af). Would be marketed as just another R5-3600 but it would actually contain zen3 7nm architechure. I realize this is a pipe dream but how cool would that be?? (of course it would have to be insanely cheap as well)

 

The very first CPU I bought when I started doing things myself was the 1600(af) to upgrade an HP prebuilt that came with a 2400g. It was awesome going from 4 to 6 cores for the first time. Anyone else have fun memory of what you did with yours?

so you are talking about a CPU that was released 2 years ago this coming October and are wondering if there is a "current equivalent"? i would say they got a great deal on the price but not on the CPU itself. for those 2 years AMD has been having issues with their drivers. and not to mention the current AMD ryzen CPU is the ryzen 9 5900x and ryzen 9 5950x. for the ryzen 5 series its the 5600x. it seems that the base clock speeds as well as most everything has not changed from ryzen CPU to ryzen CPU. 

 

Ryzen™ 5 5600X | Game with the Best | AMD

[AndreiArgeanu]

x

[tdkid]

2 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

CPU's don't really need drivers. My Ryzen 3 3100 has been working flawlessly since I got it.

 

 

that is becasuse that CPU was released 1 year ago. wouldnt or at least shouldnt be having any issues right now, if it was i would have RMAed it. plus being a 3 series CPU, you cant do much with it so it wouldnt need the drivers as well as the 9 seires CPUs. take cyberpunk 2077 for instance. 

 

minimum: Processor: Intel Core i5-3570K or AMD FX-8310

 

FX-8310 | AMD

 

recommended: Processor: Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD Ryzen 3 3200G

 

AMD Ryzen™ 3 3200G Drivers & Support | AMD

 

yours: Ryzen™ 3 3100 | Desktop Processor | AMD

 

your CPU probably wouldnt even be able to run this game let alone enough for decent gameplay but i am not sure as i have an i7 8700k so i know my CPU can easily handle it.

[AndreiArgeanu]

x

[Vishera]

The only reason the 1600AF exists is because AMD ceased production of 14nm CPUs,

The 1600AF is identical to the 2600 silicon wise.

When the production of 12nm CPUs will cease then maybe we will see a 2600AF with Zen 2.

But with the current chip shortage there is no chance that it will happen in the next year or two.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

will happen in the next year or two.

.... AM4 will be EOL at that time....

[tdkid]

Just now, AndreiArgeanu said:

Do you even know the performance of those CPU's? Do you even know they're different architectures with different IPCs? Do you even know the 3200G doesn't have hyper threading, or that it has 1/8 the cache, or higher memory latency? The Ryzen 3 3100 is comparable in performance to an i7 6700, and is faster than the 3200g. I can assure you the CPU can easily run Cyberpunk 2077

 

You can't just compare the amount of cores and clock speed of CPU's on different architectures and say X cpu is better than Y. Because many things change between generations, like IPC, memory latency, cache and so on. There's a reason AMD at the moment beats Intel in benchmarks while running lower clock speeds.

run it? possibly. run it with good performance? not a chance. the 3100 barely makes it above the requirments to run the game and with the recommenation of the 3200 or above, its not saying much for AMD CPUs. the reason why AMD is beating intel on benchmarks is because if you look at those top scores for benchmarks you will see threadripper CPU and most likely see LN2 cooling. its not hard to beat one CPU over anothjer when you are comparing a 64 core to an 8 core. not to mention there are more intel CPUs in office computers because its better for multitasking.

[jwwagner25]

12 minutes ago, Vishera said:

The only reason the 1600AF exists is because AMD ceased production of 14nm CPUs,

The 1600AF is identical to the 2600 silicon wise.

When the production of 12nm CPUs will cease then maybe we will see a 2600AF with Zen 2.

But with the current chip shortage there is no chance that it will happen in the next year or two.

good point, I didn't realize it correlated with ending 14nm production, that makes sense. I agree there is slim chance of same thing happening in the near future

[curiousmind34]

18 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

 I can assure you the CPU can easily run Cyberpunk 2077.

Can it run Cyberpunk 2077? Yes

Easily? No, Cyberpunk would prefer a 6 core chip like a 3600 and there will almost certainly be at least a few compromises on a 3100, or some stuttering.

[Vishera]

4 minutes ago, curiousmind34 said:

Easily? No, Cyberpunk would prefer a 6 core chip like a 3600 and there will almost certainly be at least a few compromises on a 3100, or some stuttering.

You don't need a 3600 for it,my 2600 runs the game at 60 FPS with the GPU being the bottleneck.

[flibberdipper]

21 minutes ago, tdkid said:

not to mention there are more intel CPUs in office computers because its better for multitasking.

Oh good lord. It's not BecauSe IntEl IS bETTeR aT MultitASKiNG in the slightest, it comes more down to Intel's marketing and brand image. For quite a few people, AMD is an unknown entity, and for others they're seen as the cheap/shitty option thanks to SKUs like the E1/E2 APUs, the FX laptop CPUs, so on and so forth.

 

EDIT: Andrei made the point I was just about to edit in about the whole "hey OEMs let's dick over AMD lol" thing. mmmmm exclusivity and paying OEMs to use Intel CPUs/delay AMD product launches

[AndreiArgeanu]

x

[tdkid]

17 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Really, cause I've started playing the game not too long and had nearly no stutters at 1080p low, and when checking usage my RX 480 was actually bottlenecking the 3100. So I don't know what to say about that. 

You're extremely mislead, and you didn't even bother to look at the benchmarks, AMD's 6 core offerings beat Intel's 10 core cpus in gaming. But you didn't even care to check for benchmarks, you're just assuming things. And AMD's 64 core threadripper and EPYC wouldn't even do well in gaming, because games do not scale well to CPU's with high core counts. The 3990X, and Epyc 7742 would be at the bottom of those graphs.

No, it's because Intel has exclusivity deals with OEM's and even the EU has investigated this and concluded that Intel used it's dominance in the market to manipulate OEM's. I'm not sure if you cared to notice, but big OEM's like Dell do not offer to business consumers AMD equipped Desktops. 

edit: or laptops for that matter

really? 1080p LOW settings with no issues? what happens with medium or above settings? i dont want to get into the "my setup being better than yours because its just going to be going back and forth but i can easily run the game on 4k ultra settings with no issues at all" becausie it would just cause more problems then trying to answer OPs question. so 1080p low would give me something like 500FPS but its not a game i play or like so i would be finding out any time soon.

 

by benchmarks i meant the 3d timespy benchmarks. as for the benchmarks you provided, i am in complete shock that a ryzen 9 5950x with its 16 cores and 32 threads would beat an intel 19 10900k with its 10 cores and 20 threads. who would have ever thought such a thing was possible? but stopping the sarcasm now. 

 

Intel® Core™ i9-10900K Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.30 GHz)

 

Ryzen™ 9 5950X | Gaming Desktop Processors | AMD

 

because intel is better for multitasking, amd is better for gaming.

[Guest]

Ah to argue over single digit FPS differences. A good time to live 2021.

[AndreiArgeanu]

x

[Beerzerker]

8 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Ah to argue over single digit FPS differences. A good time to live 2021.

Agreed - If a single digit difference in FPS was my biggest concern I'd be set.
Also once you start getting above 150 FPS the human eye can't tell the difference anyway, FPS just becomes a number and that's about it.

[tdkid]

2 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Are you blind, can you not see the 5600x, beating the 10900k in gaming? Must I point it out for you? Your ignorance is beyond belief. And Intel is not better for multi tasking, and hasn't been for a while.

are you blind that a 16 core cpu is beating a 10 core cpu? your the one who is ignorant to think that the core count has nothing to do with how the CPU performs. the more cores it has the less stress it puts on 1 core meaning it can handle more so i am not surprised that a 16 core is beating a 10 core especially when those benchmarks are on a CPU that doesnt have intergrated graphics and one that does.

[Middcore]

1 hour ago, tdkid said:

not to mention there are more intel CPUs in office computers because its better for multitasking.

 

Amusing. Until Ryzen 5000 the consensus was that Intel was slightly better for gaming and that AMD was better for workloads and multitasking. Then Ryzen 5000 came out and Intel lost at everything. 

 

Quote

when those benchmarks are on a CPU that doesnt have intergrated graphics and one that does.

 

This seems like a strange non sequitur. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

Agreed - If a single digit difference in FPS was my biggest concern I'd be set.
Also once you start getting above 150 FPS the human eye can't tell the difference anyway, FPS just becomes a number and that's about it.

 

Arguing a 16 core over a 10 core when most games don't scale past 8 threads (with modded game exceptions of course)

 

This thread however is chalked full of almost useful information.

In example.

 

5 minutes ago, Middcore said:

Then Ryzen 5000 came out and Intel lost at everything. 

It's so far fetched from the truth.....

4 generations of Ryzen processors for someone to make a comment like that. wow.

 

[tdkid]

22 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

Amusing. Until Ryzen 5000 the consensus was that Intel was slightly better for gaming and that AMD was better for workloads and multitasking. Then Ryzen 5000 came out and Intel lost at everything. 

 

 

This seems like a strange non sequitur. 

if you were to look onto the AMD site, where would you find the ryzen 9 5950x under the processors section? in the ryzen part or ryzen with graphics? no graphics chip so more can be put onto CPU performance and use a GPU to get the high scores on benchmarks.

[freeagent]

27 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 Then Ryzen 5000 came out and Intel lost at everything

It would appear to be that way, but its not entirely true.

 

Intel is still faster then AMD on HWBOT

 

SuperPi - 32M overclocking records @ HWBOT

[Mister Woof]

The i3-10100F briefly took its place (it was a better gaming processor for the most part still, despite being only 4/8) and for a good period of time the 10400F was only around $150 and it mopped the floor with the 1600AF/2600 at gaming.

 

At this time, there is no value option from AMD as even their previous gen 3600 is overpriced at over $200. Your only option for budget is the 10400F/11400F.

[steelo]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

You don't need a 3600 for it,my 2600 runs the game at 60 FPS with the GPU being the bottleneck.

Agreed. I have a 1600af OC'd to 4ghz with a rx5700 (non xt) I am able to run cyberpunk @1080 medium at 60fps with occasional drops. CPU usage is around 50-60%