Please help, i cant Decide between, Ryzen 1600X or Ryzen 1700 for gaming.

[Guest]

I need new CPU for gaming. I will play my games with "2K Resolution".

I cant decide between Ryzen 1600x or 1700. Yeah i know "1600x" has more clock speed. But as we know Ryzen 1700 has "Boost ability" and we can boost 3.0 ghz to 3.7 ghz... Also we can boost Ryzen 1600x boost 3.6 Ghz to 4.0 Ghz. But for this i think we need expensive cooling unit... Now i think. "1600x + quality cooling unit's" price can be almost equal to "Ryzen 1700's price"

Now i have questions about "Ryzen 7 1700"

1) Ryzen 1700 is better than 1600x in games ? ( yeah 1700 has low core speed but also has advantage with extra 2 cores and 4 Threads)

2) Direct X 12 games will use more "cores" in games ?

3) When we use "R7 1700" with boosted clock (3.7 GHz) stock fan ( Wraith Stealth ) can be enough ? (I think 3.7 Ghz with 8 cores and 16 threads will be enough for 2K games and i think above 3.7 Ghz we wil need better cooling unit). With 3.7 Ghz "Wraith Stealth" can handle 3.7 Ghz's temprature ???

This decision is very hard and important for me please help . And sorry my English is not good enough.

 

[Luck1112]

The boost clock is not applied to all cores, usually one or two, so some cores on the 1700 (at least four) will stick to 3ghz(that is why it consumes less and has a stock cooler). The 1600x will have some cores at 4ghz and others at 3,7; mych better situation for gaming. As for the cooler: a 30$ cm hyper x will be much better than the wraith spire; so anyway you save 50$ and have a superior cooling. For the cores: the i57600k is in most cases 3-5% slower than the i7770k, for the frequecies mainly, which shows that 4 threads are enough: you wont ever need more than 12 threads for gaming! The only reason you should consider the 1700 is if you do live streaming. Otherwise go for the 1600x

 

[Dunlop0078]

1) The 1600x may perfom slightly better due to higher clocks speeds, I doubt the extra cores and threads on the 1700 are going to do anything for you in games now and in the foreseeable future. But remember memory speed also plays a big factor in how ryzen cpu's perform. The ryzern 1700 is basically has two quad core modules on one cpu die (and the 1600x is two triple core modules), in between those two modules is something amd calls the "infinity fabric" it allows both modules to communicate from my understanding, and memory speed determines how fast that infinity fabric operates.

2) I will believe it when I see it, I am not impressed with dx12 so far. In bf1 for example dx12 performs worse than dx11 no matter how many cores you have. Even games that were built upon dx12 like ashes of the singularity do not show big improvements using cpu's with a ton of cores and threads. I guess we will see about that, I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon.

3) At a 2k resolution more load will be put on the gpu, less draw calls will be sent to the cpu due to the lower framerate at the higher resolution. So yes a 1700 or 1600x should be more than enough for gaming in any games I am aware of at 2k.

 

[XBloodyR]

You should actually go with the 1600 not the 1600x because it is cheaper and still comes with the good cooler which is sufficient to overclock it to 3.8 Ghz so it is basically identical to the 1600x while way cheaper considering you get the cooler its about 100$ cheaper.

 

[dudeman509]

I'd pick up the 1600, which gives you overclocking headroom if you want it. 6C/12T are more than enough for any current games out there, considering most are designed to run on 4C/4T.

 

[Guest]

You should actually go with the 1600 not the 1600x because it is cheaper and still comes with the good cooler which is sufficient to overclock it to 3.8 Ghz so it is basically identical to the 1600x while way cheaper considering you get the cooler its about 100$ cheaper.

Thanks for the advice but i will buy "1700" or "1600x" cause i want good Cpu for "2K Gaming"

 

[Guest]

1) The 1600x may perfom slightly better due to higher clocks speeds, I doubt the extra cores and threads on the 1700 are going to do anything for you in games now and in the foreseeable future. But remember memory speed also plays a big factor in how ryzen cpu's perform. The ryzern 1700 is basically has two quad core modules on one cpu die (and the 1600x is two triple core modules), in between those two modules is something amd calls the "infinity fabric" it allows both modules to communicate from my understanding, and memory speed determines how fast that infinity fabric operates.

2) I will believe it when I see it, I am not impressed with dx12 so far. In bf1 for example dx12 performs worse than dx11 no matter how many cores you have. Even games that were built upon dx12 like ashes of the singularity do not show big improvements using cpu's with a ton of cores and threads. I guess we will see about that, I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon.

3) At a 2k resolution more load will be put on the gpu, less draw calls will be sent to the cpu due to the lower framerate at the higher resolution. So yes a 1700 or 1600x should be more than enough for gaming in any games I am aware of at 2k.

Thanks for the answer. "AMD RX 580" can be enough for "2K gaming" ? Or i must wait for "AMD Vega"s release ???

 

[XBloodyR]

1600 and 1600x are exactly the same chips there is zero difference apart from the 1600x having the higher base clocks it is basically overclocked from stock you can overclock the 1600 yourself without any problems to the same level as the 1600x. You are paying 100$ for amd overclocking the cpu for you which is an effort of maybe 3 minutes to do by yourself.

I would wait for the Vega actually i am waiting for it myself.

 

[Luck1112]

1) The 1600x may perfom slightly better due to higher clocks speeds, I doubt the extra cores and threads on the 1700 are going to do anything for you in games now and in the foreseeable future. But remember memory speed also plays a big factor in how ryzen cpu's perform. The ryzern 1700 is basically has two quad core modules on one cpu die (and the 1600x is two triple core modules), in between those two modules is something amd calls the "infinity fabric" it allows both modules to communicate from my understanding, and memory speed determines how fast that infinity fabric operates.

2) I will believe it when I see it, I am not impressed with dx12 so far. In bf1 for example dx12 performs worse than dx11 no matter how many cores you have. Even games that were built upon dx12 like ashes of the singularity do not show big improvements using cpu's with a ton of cores and threads. I guess we will see about that, I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon.

3) At a 2k resolution more load will be put on the gpu, less draw calls will be sent to the cpu due to the lower framerate at the higher resolution. So yes a 1700 or 1600x should be more than enough for gaming in any games I am aware of at 2k.

Thanks for the answer. "AMD RX 580" can be enough for "2K gaming" ? Or i must wait for "AMD Vega"s release ???

Yes it is enough for 2k on ultra only on few games you will need to reduce aa or ambient occlusion. Vega will be very late, that's why they showed up the 500series.

 

[Guest]

The boost clock is not applied to all cores, usually one or two, so some cores on the 1700 (at least four) will stick to 3ghz(that is why it consumes less and has a stock cooler). The 1600x will have some cores at 4ghz and others at 3,7; mych better situation for gaming. As for the cooler: a 30$ cm hyper x will be much better than the wraith spire; so anyway you save 50$ and have a superior cooling. For the cores: the i57600k is in most cases 3-5% slower than the i7770k, for the frequecies mainly, which shows that 4 threads are enough: you wont ever need more than 12 threads for gaming! The only reason you should consider the 1700 is if you do live streaming. Otherwise go for the 1600x

Hmm....You can be right. If "Ryzen 1700" cant boost all cores to 3.7, maybe i must buy "Ryzen 1600x" this can be too much important detail... Looks like "Ryzen 1600x" looking stronger for games.

Thank you very much."Noctua NH L9x65 SE-AM4 " Cpu cooler can be enough for 4.0 Ghz boost ???

 

[Luck1112]

The boost clock is not applied to all cores, usually one or two, so some cores on the 1700 (at least four) will stick to 3ghz(that is why it consumes less and has a stock cooler). The 1600x will have some cores at 4ghz and others at 3,7; mych better situation for gaming. As for the cooler: a 30$ cm hyper x will be much better than the wraith spire; so anyway you save 50$ and have a superior cooling. For the cores: the i57600k is in most cases 3-5% slower than the i7770k, for the frequecies mainly, which shows that 4 threads are enough: you wont ever need more than 12 threads for gaming! The only reason you should consider the 1700 is if you do live streaming. Otherwise go for the 1600x

Hmm....You can be right. If "Ryzen 1700" cant boost all cores to 3.7, maybe i must buy "Ryzen 1600x" this can be too much important detail... Looks like "Ryzen 1600x" looking stronger for games.

Thank you very much."Noctua NH L9x65 SE-AM4 " Cpu cooler can be enough for 4.0 Ghz boost ???

Actually it will be enough (it can be enough for a 100w cpu according to noctua) but it is not very good: expensive, not a tower cooler=air on vrm+ram, slim fan=less air&more noise.
Just buy a cooler master 212 or an artic freezer extreme