EPYC 7282 vs Ryzen 5 1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.02
EPYC 7282
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 120 Watt
19.91
+148%

EPYC 7282 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by a whopping 148% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking946297
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.4714.98
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency11.2515.13
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$650

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7282 has 235% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1600.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1232
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3228
L1 cache576 KB1 MB
L2 cache3 MB8 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size213 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors4800 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282 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)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketAM4TR4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282.

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 8.02
EPYC 7282 19.91
+148%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12278
EPYC 7282 30474
+148%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1083
EPYC 7282 1096
+1.2%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4633
EPYC 7282 8073
+74.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.02 19.91
Recency 16 March 2017 7 August 2019
Physical cores 6 16
Threads 12 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 120 Watt

Ryzen 5 1600 has 84.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7282, on the other hand, has a 148.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7282 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1600 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 1600 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7282 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and EPYC 7282, 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 EPYC 7282
EPYC 7282

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 5740 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 45 votes

Rate EPYC 7282 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 EPYC 7282, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.