FX-9830P vs Ryzen 5 1600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.94
+271%

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 271% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking8821787
Place by popularity51not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation13.28no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date11 April 2017 (7 years ago)1 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219no data
Current price$115 (0.5x MSRP)$749

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads124
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)2 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size192 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million3100 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketAM4no data
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt25-45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTDual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8
AES-NI+no data
AVX+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes20no data

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.94
+271%
FX-9830P 2.14

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 271% based on our aggregate 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 12285
+271%
FX-9830P 3307

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 271% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1071
+75.9%
FX-9830P 609

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 76% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 4586
+201%
FX-9830P 1526

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 201% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
+49.6%
FX-9830P 3033

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 50% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
+164%
FX-9830P 9822

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 164% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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%

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
+49.9%
FX-9830P 10.27

FX-9830P outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 50% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+245%
FX-9830P 4

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 245% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1129
+275%
FX-9830P 301

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 275% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 147
+58.1%
FX-9830P 93

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 58% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
+50%
FX-9830P 1.1

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 50% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+220%
FX-9830P 2

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-9830P by 220% in TrueCrypt AES.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.94 2.14
Recency 11 April 2017 1 June 2016
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 25 Watt

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 1600 is a desktop processor while FX-9830P is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-9830P, 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.


AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
AMD FX-9830P
FX-9830P

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.


4.1 5506 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 108 votes

Rate FX-9830P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or FX-9830P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.