Ryzen 1500x vs 1600 vs 1600x vs 1700 for Gaming?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Imad__Aman

Honorable
Jun 7, 2017
30
1
10,535
Building a gaming pc

already have an RX 480

Looking for a ryzen 1500x vs 1600 vs 1600x vs 1700 . mainly for Gaming

Wont be overclocking. air cooling it- either the wraith spire or the max if possible (any one willing to sell?)

Question comes down to higher clockspeeds or more cores for gaming

Im trying not to go to the 95tdp 1600x - really hate tower cooler aesthetics


 
Solution
DRagor


For games, once you had at least 4 cores, higher clockspeed is what matters (at least when comparing CPUs from same family). As you can see in Tom's review of 1600 (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,review-33907.html), performance of 1600 and 1600X seem to be similar *when* they have same clockspeed. However, also note 2 things: base speed for 1600 is lower then 1600X (matters if you don't plan overclocking), and even though both CPU in theory have same OC potential (around 4.0), yet it seems 1600X gets there more easily.
So, in short, if you want to disregard prices and don't want...
Sort by date Sort by votes
The vast majority of games today won't benefit from more than 4 cores / 8 threads, and the 1500X has higher default clockspeeds (though you could set any of these chips to the same clocks as the 1500X). However, if you want to do streaming in the background, or something else CPU intensive, the 1600 will have plenty of idle resources, so it won't impact your gaming. Considering how little extra it costs, I'd suggest the 1600.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
a processor can be clocked as high as 4ghz and can still loose to a 3.4ghz clocked cpu. like the fx8350 and i5 7500. what matters here is good single core IPC. games now dont use more than 4 cores[might change in the future]. but the extra 2 cores on the 1600 will help in streaming and multitasking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If we're talking 1500 vs 1600 vs 1700, all can have their multiplier changed so they can run at the same clockspeed. Therefore, more cores will be better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


its pretty much the same. the 1700 is just 1600 with extra 2 cores. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3917vs3919

the gaming results can vary cuz of clock speeds. if 1600 and 1700 r clocked same on all the cores, the result will be identical.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's the worst site to use for comparison. At least taking a look at some trusted reviewer's benchmarks would be a much better way. But anyway from what I have seen 1600 always outperforms 1700 in gaming by a little bit. Of course everywhere else 1700 shines.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The only other factor is that on the 1500X, there are two cores on each CCX, and if a thread needs to be pushed from, say, Core1 to Core3, or those cores have to share data, there's a performance penalty somewhat analogous to Bulldozer's module penaly. With a 6- or 8-core chip, you have more cores on each CCX and therefore fewer performance hits when you have things running on or moved between separate CCX's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


For games, once you had at least 4 cores, higher clockspeed is what matters (at least when comparing CPUs from same family). As you can see in Tom's review of 1600 (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,review-33907.html), performance of 1600 and 1600X seem to be similar *when* they have same clockspeed. However, also note 2 things: base speed for 1600 is lower then 1600X (matters if you don't plan overclocking), and even though both CPU in theory have same OC potential (around 4.0), yet it seems 1600X gets there more easily.
So, in short, if you want to disregard prices and don't want to overclock, 1600X is giving you better performance. But when taking all factors into account, I still keep my first recommendation: 1600.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom