AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600E Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600E and AMD Ryzen 5 1600 occupy the same corner of the desktop market: six cores, twelve threads, a 65 W thermal envelope, and the same Socket AM4 platform. Both sit in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with nearly identical aggregate scores of 18230 and 17994 respectively. Yet the recorded benchmark data shows they are far from interchangeable. The 2600E wins 10 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, including two Cinebench R23 victories by roughly 62 percent, while the 1600 claws back wins in several Passmark tests. This analysis walks through where each chip wins, why the architecture explains the results, and which workloads favor which processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 2600E dominates modern rendering benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 it scores 10494 in multi-core and 1481 in single-core, against 6468 and 915 for the Ryzen 5 1600. That is a lead of about 62 percent in both categories, a gap large enough to change what is practical: rendering jobs that run comfortably on the 2600E become substantially slower on the 1600. The 2600E also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test (149 versus 147) and posts strong Passmark showings, including physics (752 versus 643, a 17 percent lead), single-thread throughput (2297 versus 2066, about 11 percent ahead), data encryption (12146 versus 11683, 4 percent), random string sorting (20918 versus 20240, about 3 percent), data compression (173653 versus 172053, roughly 1 percent), and the multithreaded composite (12346 versus 12270).

The Ryzen 5 1600 answers with a mix of older-test wins and isolated Passmark victories. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core with 1129 versus 1057, a 6.4 percent lead that stands out precisely because the 2600E crushes the newer R23 tests by an even larger margin. In Passmark it wins extended instructions (6667 versus 6509, about 2.4 percent), find prime numbers (35 versus 32, about 8.6 percent), floating point math (21402 versus 20970, 2 percent), and integer math (41470 versus 39781, about 4 percent).

The pattern is clear. Sustained multi-core rendering and responsiveness metrics favor the 2600E; short integer and floating point tests, plus the older R15 multi-core run, favor the 1600. Gamers and general users lean 2600E on this data. Workloads resembling the Passmark math tests can go either way.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are six-core, twelve-thread Zen-family parts from GlobalFoundries, each carrying 4,800 million transistors, 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 16 MB L3. The core layout is identical, so the differences come from elsewhere.

The 2600E belongs to the 2000 series and uses the Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge) generation on a 12 nm process node, with a 192 mm² die. The 1600 belongs to the 1000 series, uses the original Zen (Summit Ridge) generation on a 14 nm node, and has a larger 213 mm² die. The newer node and die revision of the 2600E show up directly in its clock behavior: a lower 3.10 GHz base but a much higher 4.00 GHz boost, versus 3.20 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost on the 1600. That boost advantage is the most likely explanation for the single-core and rendering gaps.

Two further distinctions matter. The 1600 has an unlocked multiplier, so it can be overclocked; the 2600E does not. The 1600 also supports ECC memory and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and the database records a memory bandwidth figure of 42.7 GB/s on its dual-channel DDR4 controller. The 2600E supports the same DDR4 dual-channel arrangement, but ECC and PCIe details are not recorded for it. Both parts remain listed as Active, use AMD Socket AM4, ship without integrated graphics, and carry the same 65 W rating.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Start with the headline results. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 10494 for the 2600E against 6468 for the 1600, a 62.2 percent win. Cinebench R23 single-core: 1481 against 915, a 61.9 percent win. These are the largest gaps in the entire dataset, and they point the same direction. The 2600E holds its high boost clocks far more effectively under the sustained R23 workload than the 1600 can with its lower boost ceiling.

Cinebench R15 tells a more nuanced story. Single-core goes to the 2600E by a hair, 149 versus 147. Multi-core flips to the 1600, 1129 versus 1057, a 6.4 percent win. The 1600's slightly higher base clock and unlocked multiplier are plausible reasons it holds up in the older, shorter test even while collapsing in R23. The database records results as measured, and this R15 versus R23 split is the single most interesting inconsistency in the comparison.

Passmark splits the difference. The 2600E wins physics by 17 percent (752 versus 643), single-thread by 11.2 percent (2297 versus 2066), encryption by 4 percent (12146 versus 11683), string sorting by 3.3 percent (20918 versus 20240), compression by 0.9 percent (173653 versus 172053), and multithread by 0.6 percent (12346 versus 12270). The 1600 wins prime finding by 8.6 percent (35 versus 32), integer math by 4.1 percent (41470 versus 39781), extended instructions by 2.4 percent (6667 versus 6509), and floating point math by 2 percent (21402 versus 20970).

Context from the rivals list reinforces how close the two are overall. The 2600E's aggregate score of 18230 sits within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Core i7-8700 (18223), the AMD EPYC 9274F (18189), the Intel Core 5 315 (18188), and the Intel Core i7-9700 (18180). The 1600's 17994 is similarly bracketed by the Intel Core 5 320 (18023), Intel Core 5 120U (17898), AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (17891), and Intel Core 5 221TE (17860). In aggregate terms these are siblings; in specific workloads they are not.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster for rendering?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600E. It scores 10494 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 6468 for the 1600, roughly 62 percent higher. The single-core R23 result favors it by a nearly identical margin, 1481 versus 915.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 1600 win anything meaningful?

A: Yes. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (1129 versus 1057) and four Passmark tests: find prime numbers (35 versus 32), integer math (41470 versus 39781), extended instructions (6667 versus 6509), and floating point math (21402 versus 20970). The margins are smaller than the 2600E's biggest wins, ranging from about 2 to 8.6 percent.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: Only the Ryzen 5 1600. It has an unlocked multiplier. The 2600E's multiplier is locked, so tuning options are more limited.

Q: Do they use the same motherboard?

A: Yes. Both are AMD Socket AM4 desktop parts, so they share the same platform and both support dual-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: Which has better single-thread performance?

A: The 2600E, consistently. It leads Cinebench R15 single-core 149 to 147, Cinebench R23 single-core 1481 to 915, and Passmark single-thread 2297 to 2066, an 11.2 percent advantage in the latter.

Q: Which is more power efficient?

A: The recorded data cannot separate them: both carry a 65 W rating. The 2600E does, however, deliver far more rendering performance within that same envelope, with a 4.00 GHz boost versus 3.60 GHz.

The Verdict

The data favors the Ryzen 5 2600E for most buyers. It wins 10 of 15 recorded comparisons, including every modern Cinebench test by wide margins, plus physics, single-thread, encryption, sorting, compression, and the multithreaded composite. Its 4.00 GHz boost on the 12 nm Zen+ node translates into roughly 62 percent higher Cinebench R23 performance than the 1600 in both single- and multi-core modes, at the same 65 W rating and on the same socket.

The Ryzen 5 1600 remains defensible in specific cases. It wins the integer math, floating point math, prime finding, and extended instruction tests, and it edges the older Cinebench R15 multi-core run. Its unlocked multiplier gives tuners a lever the 2600E lacks, and it adds ECC memory support plus documented PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. Its recorded launch MSRP was $219. For anyone whose workload mirrors the Passmark math suite, or who values the tuning and platform features, the 1600 holds up. For rendering, physics simulation, and general responsiveness, the 2600E is the stronger choice.

Specification Differences

| Field | Ryzen 5 2600E | Ryzen 5 1600 |

|---|---|---|

| Series | 2000 series | 1000 series |

| Generation | Ryzen 5 (Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge)) | Ryzen 5 (Zen (Summit Ridge)) |

| Process node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Die size | 192 mm² | 213 mm² |

| Base clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only) |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 42.7 GB/s |

| Release date | September 18, 2018 | April 10, 2017 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $219 |

| Part number | Not recorded | YD1600BBM6IAEBOX |

Everything else matches: six cores, twelve threads, 65 W TDP, Socket AM4, GlobalFoundries manufacturing, 4,800 million transistors, identical cache hierarchy, DDR4 dual-channel support, no integrated graphics, and Active production status. The CPUs are architectural siblings; the benchmarks are not.