Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i7-6950X

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Core i7-6950X
2016
10 cores / 20 threads
11.26
+41.8%

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking626860
Place by popularitynot in top-10053
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.6512.09
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i7 (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 5
Architecture codenameBroadwell-E (2016)Zen (2017−2020)
Release date31 May 2016 (7 years ago)11 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,723$219
Current price$499 (0.3x MSRP)$140 (0.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 1600 has 231% better value for money than i7-6950X.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores10 (Deca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads2012
Base clock speed3 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache32K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache25 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size246 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature67°no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,800 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011AM4
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Smart Response+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidthno data42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4020

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i7-6950X 11.26
+41.8%
Ryzen 5 1600 7.94

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 42% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i7-6950X 17419
+41.8%
Ryzen 5 1600 12285

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 42% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i7-6950X 1300
+21.5%
Ryzen 5 1600 1070

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 21% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i7-6950X 8474
+85.1%
Ryzen 5 1600 4578

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 85% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

i7-6950X 6231
+37.3%
Ryzen 5 1600 4538

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 37% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-6950X 40378
+55.5%
Ryzen 5 1600 25970

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 55% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-6950X 10658
+29.3%
Ryzen 5 1600 8244

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 29% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

i7-6950X 3.5
+95.7%
Ryzen 5 1600 6.85

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Core i7-6950X by 96% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

i7-6950X 20
+59.1%
Ryzen 5 1600 13

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 59% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i7-6950X 1859
+64.7%
Ryzen 5 1600 1129

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 65% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i7-6950X 156
+5.8%
Ryzen 5 1600 147

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 6% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i7-6950X 1.9
+15.2%
Ryzen 5 1600 1.65

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 15% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-6950X 10.5
+64.1%
Ryzen 5 1600 6.4

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 64% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-6950X 8450
+146%
Ryzen 5 1600 3430

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 146% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-6950X 196
+10.7%
Ryzen 5 1600 177

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 11% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-6950X 101
+47%
Ryzen 5 1600 69

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 47% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

i7-6950X 3387
+6.2%
Ryzen 5 1600 3189

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 6% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

i7-6950X 31129
+60.5%
Ryzen 5 1600 19391

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 61% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

i7-6950X 22114
+36.4%
Ryzen 5 1600 16217

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 36% in Geekbench 2.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

i7-6950X 26761
+77.3%
Ryzen 5 1600 15096

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 77% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

i7-6950X 4049
+10.9%
Ryzen 5 1600 3652

Core i7-6950X outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 11% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.26 7.94
Recency 31 May 2016 11 April 2017
Physical cores 10 6
Threads 20 12
Cost $1723 $219
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

The Core i7-6950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 1600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-6950X
Core i7-6950X
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 217 votes

Rate Core i7-6950X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5428 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-6950X or Ryzen 5 1600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.