Planning on building a Ryzen 5 rig but need advice

[gazamcgee]

I am looking to build a R5 based rig (unless theres a better alternative?) - I have an (old) MicroATX case, a VS350W PSU, a 2GB ASUS HD7770 for upgrading LATER, and HDDs already but I'm unsure what MOBO/other parts to go for. My price limit is around £3-400 (GBP), including the R5. I'm looking at a 1500, but a 1600 wouldn't be out of the question if the 2 extra cores would give a practical advantage. I will be using the PC for gaming and processing/generating large quantities of data (read: training AI (not exactly but sort of)) so there will be a fair amount of stress on the CPU and/or GPU (I want to use this GPU for the next little while to see what performance I can get out of it before deciding to upgrade so thats not included in the budget)

I think I'm basically looking at MOBO, CPU(+ cooler?), RAM, potentially a new case, and any extras I might need like a NIC.

Prices from UK websites preferable, eg scan.co.uk (had good experience with them before).

Thanks kindly in advance, and sorry if this is the 5000th time you've seen this post 🙁

 

[boosted1g]

The 1600 will be a very good step up for not much cost increase.

The wraith spre cooler that comes with the non-x series models will be sufficient for cooling for time being.

Here you go, will need to upgrade that PSU as soon as you want to get into a better GPU:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor (£187.14 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M PRO-VDH Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (£69.59 @ CCL Computers)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory (£128.99 @ Overclockers.co.uk)
Total: £385.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-30 22:33 BST+0100

 

[gazamcgee]

What made you pick that mobo over another one? Can't fault the RAM but I think I'll only get 8GB for now, I can always upgrade later.

Also, what are the bonuses of the 1600X over the 1600 other than clock speed, and what difference does it make to regular use? (Is it worth the extra money)

 

[gazamcgee]

Would this mobo be better, considering o can get it at the same price?

GIGABYTE GA-AB350M-Gaming 3

If not, why not- and what should I be looking for?

 

[boosted1g]

The gigabyte gaming 3 vs the msi is pretty much the same, same level of cooling/quality of vrms (which is good but not great), similar lan and audio chipsets.
Close enough to where apperance or oem application is the only real differentiation.

It is always a little risky getting 8gb now and 8gb latter. When you buy a kit of ram, the two sticks are made from the same sheet of silicon and are tested together to work. Even getting the exact same model of a single stick has the potential to result in instabilities.
Thus it is always best to buy ram in a kit from the start.

As far as X or not X version I dont think the X warrents the cost increase. Out of the box you get more factory overclock on the first 2 cores, but if you do any overclocking then this immediately irrelevant. Also the X versions do not come with a cooler so you have to pay more for the CPU and pay for an aftermarket cooler.
The only real pro of the X series is that because they are the more expensive chip (so bin selecting by AMD) there is a slightly better chance that the CPU will be able to be overclocked a tad farther.
FYI i got the 1700, did not bother with the 1700x for my build.

 

[gazamcgee]

The gaming 3 has 2 16x slots, so... that means I can theoretically crossfire? Or at least have more options. Are there any slightly more expensive boards that would be much better?

 

[boosted1g]

No you wont be able to crossfire.

The second PCI-E slot is part of the on-board PCI-E lanes.

Ryzen has 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes from the CPU (4 for M2 slot and 16 (or 8/8) for graphics.
The boards themselves have 4-8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes. Pretty much all 350s have 4 lanes so the pci-e x1 slots and the bottom pci-e x16 share those 4 lanes.

As far as more expensive board that would better that comes down to how you are wanting it to be better? Without targeting in on something specific, in general you wont see much of a difference without going to full size ATX board.
FYI I have the ASUS ROG STRIX B350F

 

[gazamcgee]

Ok thanks, and what about if I wanted to upgrade from a 1600 to a 1700? Would the change in price be "worth" it?

 

[boosted1g]

For gaming no.
For your other uses that depends on how well-threaded the program is.

Some programs wont use more than 1-2 cores and in that case you want as fast of cores as possible.
Others that are well threaded (adobe CS software, cad, maya, video editing software) then more cores even if a little slower are better.

If your applications will benefit more faster cores than quantity then actual intel is what you should be looking at.

I was in the same debate between the 1600 and 1700 but I knew for my uses the extra 2 cores/4 threads would be used and since I was wanting the PC to be good for 3-4 years I opted for the 1700.

I will tell you this, the stock cooler that comes with the 1700 is not good enough to overclock very far, I can only go to about 3.8 without temps being higher then desired.

 

[King Dranzer]

Here is the list:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor (£267.00 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: Asus - PRIME B350M-A Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (£64.48 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-3000 Memory (£73.77 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £405.25
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-01 20:09 BST+0100

If your work utilizes multiple cores here is even better option.

 

[King Dranzer]

For gaming no.
For your other uses that depends on how well-threaded the program is.

Some programs wont use more than 1-2 cores and in that case you want as fast of cores as possible.
Others that are well threaded (adobe CS software, cad, maya, video editing software) then more cores even if a little slower are better.

If your applications will benefit more faster cores than quantity then actual intel is what you should be looking at.

I was in the same debate between the 1600 and 1700 but I knew for my uses the extra 2 cores/4 threads would be used and since I was wanting the PC to be good for 3-4 years I opted for the 1700.

I will tell you this, the stock cooler that comes with the 1700 is not good enough to overclock very far, I can only go to about 3.8 without temps being higher then desired.

Well yes 3.8 is the max with stock cooler but if he is getting 2 extra cores isn't it worth it.