AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 vs Intel Core i7-6800K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, sweeping victory for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 across every Cinebench iteration in the database, with the Intel Core i7-6800K trailing by a nearly identical margin in each test. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the AMD part scores 1013 against Intel's 916, a 10.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: AMD scores 142, Intel scores 129, again a 10.1% lead. These are not isolated outliers; the pattern repeats precisely.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 posts 4224 in multicore, while the Intel Core i7-6800K manages 3819. The delta is exactly 10.6%, identical to the R15 multicore gap. In R20 single-core, AMD scores 595 versus Intel's 538, another 10.6% edge. The consistency across these two generations of the Cinebench suite suggests the performance difference is structural, not workload-specific. The newest test, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend: AMD scores 10058 in multicore, Intel scores 9093, and in single-core AMD posts 1419 against Intel's 1283. Both deltas hold at 10.6%.

The database records zero wins for the Intel Core i7-6800K in the head-to-head comparisons. Of six benchmark entries, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 takes all six. The narrowest margin is in R15 single-core at 10.1%, while the widest is the recurring 10.6% seen in five other tests. For a user weighing these two six-core, twelve-thread processors, the data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD part is faster in every measured metric, with the advantage being both uniform and substantial.

It is worth noting what these scores mean in context. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 holds a 51st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2909. The Intel Core i7-6800K also sits at the 51st percentile, but its average score is 2838. The 71-point gap in average score translates to the consistent double-digit percentage leads seen above. Neither processor is a high-flyer in the overall CPU landscape, but within this pairing, the AMD part is clearly the stronger performer.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 uses the Zen architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, and is part of the Ryzen 5 generation (Summit Ridge). It integrates 4,800 million transistors on a 192 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-6800K uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-E, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. It packs 3,400 million transistors onto a larger 246 mm² die. The transistor density difference is striking: AMD fits 40% more transistors into a smaller area, which partially explains the performance gap despite identical core and thread counts.

Both chips feature six cores and twelve threads, and both have their multipliers unlocked, meaning overclocking is possible on either platform. However, the memory subsystems diverge sharply. The AMD part supports dual-channel DDR4, while the Intel part supports quad-channel DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD entry in the database does not list a memory bandwidth figure. This is a notable architectural advantage for Intel on paper, yet the benchmark results show AMD still wins all compute tests, indicating the dual-channel configuration is not a bottleneck in these workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-6800K has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3. AMD leads in every cache level, which likely contributes to its superior single-core and multi-core scores. The larger per-core caches on the AMD part are particularly relevant for the consistent 10.6% lead in single-threaded tests, where cache latency and capacity play a decisive role.

Socket and platform compatibility are entirely different. The AMD chip uses Socket AM4, while the Intel chip uses Socket 2011-3. The Intel part also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 28 lanes from the CPU, whereas the AMD entry has no PCIe field recorded. Production status also differs: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is listed as active, while the Intel Core i7-6800K is end-of-life. The Intel part was released on 2016-05-30, the AMD part on 2017-06-28, making the AMD design roughly a year newer. Neither chip includes integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 scores 1419, while the Intel Core i7-6800K scores 1283. AMD leads by 10.6%.

Q: Are both processors six-core, twelve-thread designs?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and the Intel Core i7-6800K have six cores and twelve threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-6800K supports quad-channel DDR4 with a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 supports dual-channel DDR4, but no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i7-6800K has 15 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is listed as active, while the Intel Core i7-6800K is listed as end-of-life.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head data?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 wins all six recorded benchmarks. The Intel Core i7-6800K wins zero.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field except core count, thread count, boost clock, memory type, ECC support, integrated graphics, and unlocked multiplier. Both run at a 3.60 GHz boost clock, both support DDR4 without ECC, both lack integrated graphics, and both have unlocked multipliers.

The base clock differs: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 runs at 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-6800K runs at 3.40 GHz. Despite Intel's higher base clock, AMD wins all benchmarks, indicating the architectural efficiency of Zen over Broadwell. Thermal design power is a major divergence: AMD is rated at 65 W, Intel at 140 W. The AMD chip delivers superior performance while drawing less than half the thermal budget.

The socket is a hard differentiator: AMD Socket AM4 versus Intel Socket 2011-3. Process node is identical at 14 nm, but the foundry differs: GlobalFoundries for AMD, Intel for Intel. Transistor count is 4,800 million for AMD versus 3,400 million for Intel. Die size is 192 mm² for AMD versus 246 mm² for Intel. L1 cache is 96 KB per core for AMD versus 64 KB per core for Intel. L2 cache is 512 KB per core for AMD versus 256 KB per core for Intel. L3 cache is 16 MB shared for AMD versus 15 MB shared for Intel.

Memory bus is dual-channel for AMD and quad-channel for Intel, with Intel's memory bandwidth recorded at 76.8 GB/s. The Intel part lists PCIe Gen 3 with 28 lanes; the AMD entry has no PCIe data. Release dates are 2017-06-28 for AMD and 2016-05-30 for Intel. Production status is active for AMD and end-of-life for Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $434; the AMD entry has no MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is the better performer in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with leads ranging from 10.1% to 10.6%. Its performance advantage is uniform across single-core and multi-core workloads, across three versions of Cinebench, and it does so with a 65 W TDP versus Intel's 140 W. The AMD part also has more cache at every level, a smaller die, and more transistors. Its active production status means it remains a viable current option, while the Intel chip is end-of-life.

The Intel Core i7-6800K does retain one meaningful specification advantage: quad-channel memory support with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus AMD's dual-channel setup. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth bound, that could matter, but the recorded Cinebench results do not reflect any such benefit. The Intel chip also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz, but the AMD chip's boost clock matches it at 3.60 GHz, and AMD still wins.

For a user deciding between these two based solely on the database measurements, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is the recommended pick. It is faster, more efficient, and currently in production. The Intel part's only rational appeal is its quad-channel memory architecture and the broader platform capabilities of Socket 2011-3, but the performance data does not show that translating into any benchmark victory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 wins in every benchmark category recorded: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants. Its margins are consistent at roughly 10.6% for most tests, with the single-core R15 test slightly narrower at 10.1%. This makes it the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with CPU cores and threads. Its larger caches (96 KB L1, 512 KB L2, 16 MB L3) and higher transistor count on a smaller die suggest a more efficient architecture that translates to both single-threaded responsiveness and multi-threaded throughput.

The Intel Core i7-6800K does not have a single benchmark win in the recorded data. Its advantages are purely architectural rather than measured. The quad-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth is a theoretical edge for memory-intensive applications, but no Cinebench test shows a benefit. Its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz could be leveraged with manual overclocking, and its 28 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide more direct I/O connectivity for expansion cards, which is relevant for workstation builds with multiple GPUs or NVMe drives. The Intel chip also has an unlocked multiplier, as does the AMD part, so both can be overclocked.

In practical terms, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is the processor to choose for raw compute performance and energy efficiency. The Intel Core i7-6800K may still appeal to users who need quad-channel memory capacity or more PCIe lanes, but those needs are not reflected in the benchmark scores. For any workload represented by the Cinebench suite, the AMD part is the winner. For platform-specific I/O or memory bandwidth requirements, the Intel part offers capabilities the AMD chip lacks, but the database provides no evidence that those capabilities improve application performance in these tests.