Ryzen 5 1600 vs Ryzen 9 3900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 3900
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
19.34
+150%
Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.73

Ryzen 9 3900 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking300963
Place by popularitynot in top-10055
Cost-effectiveness evaluation20.744.58
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Matisse (Ryzen 3000 Desktop)AMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency28.1611.25
Architecture codenameMatisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date24 September 2019 (5 years ago)16 March 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900 has 353% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1600.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 3900 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads2412
Base clock speed3.1 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data32
L1 cache768 KB576 KB
L2 cache6 MB3 MB
L3 cache64 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 12 nm14 nm
Die size2x 74 mm2213 mm2
Number of transistors7,600 million4800 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 3900 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)
SocketAM4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, Precision Boost 2XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 1600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR4
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/A-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 5 1600.

PCIe version4.03.0
PCI Express lanes2420

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 9 3900 19.34
+150%
Ryzen 5 1600 7.73

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 9 3900 30722
+150%
Ryzen 5 1600 12277

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 9 3900 1678
+54.8%
Ryzen 5 1600 1084

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 9 3900 9543
+106%
Ryzen 5 1600 4643

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 5700
+25.6%
Ryzen 5 1600 4538

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 44191
+70.2%
Ryzen 5 1600 25970

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 13817
+67.6%
Ryzen 5 1600 8244

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 31
+146%
Ryzen 5 1600 13

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Ryzen 9 3900 2804
+148%
Ryzen 5 1600 1129

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 197
+34%
Ryzen 5 1600 147

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 2.22
+34.5%
Ryzen 5 1600 1.65

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 10.4
+62.5%
Ryzen 5 1600 6.4

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.

Ryzen 9 3900 7145
+108%
Ryzen 5 1600 3430

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.  

Ryzen 9 3900 132
+92%
Ryzen 5 1600 69

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.  

Ryzen 9 3900 256
+44.4%
Ryzen 5 1600 177

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 9 3900 10190
+87.9%
Ryzen 5 1600 5425

Blender(-)

Ryzen 9 3900 179
Ryzen 5 1600 404
+126%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 9 3900 1246
+31.2%
Ryzen 5 1600 950

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 9 3900 5134
+33.9%
Ryzen 5 1600 3834

7-Zip

Ryzen 9 3900 75612
+151%
Ryzen 5 1600 30144

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 9 3900 227
+26.1%
Ryzen 5 1600 180

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Ryzen 9 3900 41058
+172%
Ryzen 5 1600 15096

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Ryzen 9 3900 5482
+50.1%
Ryzen 5 1600 3652

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.34 7.73
Recency 24 September 2019 16 March 2017
Physical cores 12 6
Threads 24 12
Chip lithography 7 nm 14 nm

Ryzen 9 3900 has a 150.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 9 3900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900 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.


AMD Ryzen 9 3900
Ryzen 9 3900
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.


4.6 628 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5827 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 Ryzen 9 3900 or Ryzen 5 1600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.