[SOLVED] Ryzen 2600 vs 1700

Mr_Furball

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
188
0
10,680
0
So, as the tittle says, which one should I get? Both at same price. I love gaming, and I know the 2600 is better at it, but I also work with editing and like to record and stream (not to sound too hipster). For me, it's like 50/50 in terms of gaming in comparison to these other tasks. But I don't think it limits to that ''2 extra cores will help in this case'', because 6/12 is already pretty good for those things, right?

I saw comparisons where the 1700 did worse than mine 6600 and I don't want to lose performance also. Maybe is something of like 3 frames and not even in all games probably, but you know. I have a 1060 so maybe there won't even have a difference?
Finally, I will buy a a320m on a site that is already updated to second gen, and it has to be that one because things in Brazil are super expensive. x470 here costs 300 dollars.

Anyway, what do you think? I asked this question before but it didn't solve too much, because they recommended the i7 7700, which is 400 dollars here. Out of the question. And I removed the 1600 from the competition because the other two seem quite a bit better, but it was 50 dollars less.
 

2sidedpolygon

Prominent
Jul 1, 2018
775
0
660
95
The 1700/1700X is an all-too-often forgotten bargain, though in this case it's a tough call. If you were focused on productivity over gaming the 1700 would be the obvious choice, but you say that you're 50/50. In my opinion, the 1700 would be a better choice. I'd take faster productivity over a couple of extra frames most any day, but that's just me
 

Mr_Furball

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
188
0
10,680
0


That's the thing, right? Most people are always leaning more to one side than another but for me it's a draw on priorities. Mine 1060 is a good card and maybe I say I'd get more frustrated in not being able to record or stream than to reach higher fps. My only concern is constant above 60fps, you know? I see test where is like: i7 8700 130fps, 2600 105fps and 1700, 96 and I wonder if the 1% low will be in the same rate. Fortunately Ryzen seem to be constant in that regard.
Other concerns are comments like ''2600 is newer with better ipc, single core, newer architeture''. Btw, can I overclock a 1700 on that a320m? From what I hear the stock cooler is very good.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Yes, Zen+ (Ryzen 2) has better IPC and because most games are only lightly threaded, that tends to be a significant advantage much of the time over first-gen Ryzen. For overclocking on AM4, you need a B-series chipset or better.
 

Mr_Furball

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
188
0
10,680
0


So it's not just about the core clock. If it was just that, the i5 6600 just be a lot better than the 6400, but there is very little difference, right? So, I have to stop thinking I will be able to overclock on entry level motherboards.
 

What about B450? At least around here, it's possible to find some B450 motherboards for not that much more than what A320 costs. B450 also allows for overclocking, while A320 does not.

If you did go for an A320 board, you would probably want to consider stock performance of the CPUs more. As you can see in the chart near the bottom of this page, the Ryzen 2600 can maintain much higher multi-core boost clocks than a 1700...

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625.html

They gathered these results using a high end cooler to enable slightly higher XFR boost numbers, so the clocks you see might be a bit lower, but it should be evident that the 2600 will provide higher moderately-threaded performance at stock boost settings.

Edit: Also, at least according to the numbers in this TechPowerUp review, the 2600 at stock-clocks was only around 12% behind the 1700 at stock in their heavily-multithreaded rendering tests, like Cinebench or Blender, likely as a result of those higher multi-core boost clocks...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/9.html

Considering most software is lightly-threaded, and the 2600 can come close in the occasional heavily-threaded task, it might be the more well-rounded option.
 

Mr_Furball

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
188
0
10,680
0


So, the difference here of a a320 to a b450 is more than 50 dollars, so I will have to keep it simple. I will probably have to use stock clock, but in the test they had the 2600 on stock. It did win in almost all games. And apparently the 2600 is very optimal for everything I need. But one more question. In case the stores with those prices of the 2600 run out of stock, should I wait or buy the 1600? It's of course inferior to those two, but it's also 50 dollars less.
Just one thing that bugs me it's if the 2600 is already a good future proof for 3 years or so. I don't want sell another processor in two years or less.

Edit: Prices: ryzen 5 2600 and 7 1700 are 226 dollars more or less. 1600 is 173, but the 1600x is 213. Apparently it has a good stock clock.
 
Might there be any B350 boards there that cost substantially less than B450? I'm just wondering, since the 1600 could overclock to similar (or perhaps slightly better) performance levels as a stock-clocked 2600, provided it was paired with an overclocking-capable motherboard. And the 1600 should actually include a better boxed cooler than the 2600, the same one that's included with the 2600X. That was what made the 1600 arguably the best value option from the first-generation Ryzen lineup, since it could be overclocked to 1600X performance levels even with the included cooler. The 1600X didn't include a cooler at all and cost more, which made it less of a value, something they changed for the second-generation, where the X-parts now come with the better coolers.

If it cost less for a Ryzen 1600 + B350 board than for a 2600 + A320, then the first-generation CPU on the unlocked motherboard might arguably be the slightly better option for the money. You didn't mention B350 though, and I'm not sure how the prices might compare where you are. Having an unlocked board would also leave open the possibility of overclocking a newer Ryzen CPU in the future, since supposedly these boards will be supported with new processors for the next CPU generation or two.

On that note, it might be worth simply waiting to see what next year's CPUs have to offer though. The i5-6600 is still a pretty capable CPU in nearly all games, after all. The extra cores and threads might help for streaming and editing, but in most of today's games they won't help much if you're not live-streaming, since games still tend to be optimized to run reasonably well on recent quad-cores. It sounds like next year's Ryzens will likely offer even greater performance and efficiency gains, as they are to be built on the 7nm manufacturing node, a pretty substantial shrink compared to the 14/12nm nodes used for current processors. There is no word yet on exactly when those will be out, but I suspect it should be within the first half of the year, and my best guess would be around the second quarter. Intel also has CPUs coming out on an improved process as well, but that might not be until near the end of next year, if not early 2020.
 

Mr_Furball

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
188
0
10,680
0


I feel really bad for you writing all of this in the same day I bought the CPU. It was the Ryzen 1700. But I won't ignore what you wrote and at least we get a good discussion.

So, the B350 are not doing so well in price either, and some of them are just a tuned up a320 from what I heard. In the end, I found this gigabyte, https://www.gigabyte.com/br/Motherboard/GA-A320MA-M2-rev-10#kf, wherever I looked, with a great price. Some people said that the 4+3 something was good on that board and it was definitely one of the best a320. The only b350 in that range of price only have two slots for ram, and I prefer to keep that a mobo with more slots than the possibility of OC, since I never really had interest in doing it. In another forum, people got really intense saying to me to spend more and that I would regret not being able to overclock (after 2 years with this pc, never missed it) and people go really crazy sometimes when involve someones elses money. I though that the Wraith Stealth was good (and proably is better than intel's) but I heard that the Wraith Spire was better as well. The 1600 would have been a good choice, but the sale ended and the price difference went from 50 to 10 dollars, so that's why I didn't buy it. But If ended up buying the 1700, I would have done it still with the 1600 on sale. But if the Ryzen 7 wasn't on the competition, the 1600 was more appealing indeed.

Also, as I said, I don't care too much about OC, so a good A320 is better cost benefit for me. Even if I had chosen the 1600, I would probably pare it with a a320 anyway, because you get it.

I though about wating for the next gen, but I remembered that the 3700 wouldn't come out at the same price of the current 1700, obviously. The 2700 is 150 dollars more expensive already, and the 1700 was on sale. Alsom, I would have to wait until the end of next year, and by them, the valeu of my CPU could have dropped even more, you know?
But it's good to see you say that it's still a capable CPU. I mean. I think so too, but I sold it to my friend and I'm a little afraid of that, of them regreting the decision of something and saying: 4 cores are not so good. Of course it's their responsibility, but still... haha The i5 6600 gets good framerates in lots of games, and my performance will remain mostly the same, but I realised that it's not so much 50/50 and I spend a lot of time editing. The 2600 would've been very good for my needs too, but I decided to go nuts and have a lot of free room in threads, even though 12 are great, as I said lots of times (at least in other forums). The performance of the Ryzen 7 is 6% inferior in comparison to the mainstream second gen, but I think it was a small price to pay, even more when you consider the inconsistency of benchmarks. For example, I saw a benchmark of shadow of mordor with my setup: avg fps: 94, min: 60. Then I watched with the ryzen 1700. avg: 88, min:60. THEN, I tested myself: avg: 88, min: 50. Another two tests. Gta 5 on one channel: (with 2080 ti) i7 8700k 150fps, 2700x 150fps (both using 90% or more of gpu); other channel: (with 1080 ti) i7 8700k 180fps (70% gpu), 2700x 180fps (60% gpu), 1700x 150fps (50%). These things will never add up. i didn't think they were real, but there are sites that change the results? I was so hung up on these benchmarks that I must have seen +30 videos without couting forums and sites, and they don't represent reality, they just give you an idea.
I'm not a hipster, I swear, but one game that makes a lot of success in my channel is Dying Light, and from what I saw, the Ryzens 5 keep at 55% of cpu usage and the 7 keeps at 40%. I wanted to livestream the game and I like to make videos of it, but with the i5 the usage is 90% 90% of the time. I can even record if I turn on v-sync because the cpu holds it self at 60, but with OBS active pushes back to 100%. So I really wanted to make this upgrade now, which I kind of did already, right?

If AMD keeps their promises and provide compatibility for the 300 motherboards until 2020, my plan is to keep this processor and then upgrading to a Ryzen 4700 or something without changing the mobo. I'm really looking foward to the new ryzens. And yes, I think they are coming out in the first trimester actually.

Thank you for the time you put in the message even though I bouth the cpu already. I don't care, if it's a almost 2 year old CPU, I'm going to say that I have a high end one, ok? Indeed ryzen 5s are best value for money than ryzen 7, but in this case they were the same price. If the 7 was 50 dollars more expensive I would have bought the 2600 no doubt 9or the 1600).

Just one last question. Do Ryzen bottleneck a little easier than Intel's high end CPUs? I though the difference in games was more about the power of the cpu it self, not because it was limiting the gpu. I also thought that hyper threading helped there. Anyway, with a 1060 it won't make any difference. and when I upgrade for a 1070 ti, if it's until next year of course, I won't be comparing benchmarks every second. I will already get +30fps on average, I guess. That's the thing, I don't know, and I think a lot of people get that wrong, if the lesser fps on ryzen side is from the cpu itself of from bottlenecking the gpu. I always thought that a cpu only bottlenecks when it's at 100% and the gpu is not. The games that the ryzen got the gpu at 100% is was on par with intels.
Anyway, I;m just rambling at this point.
 

That's okay, I wasn't really stopping by the site much this week, and noticed it had apparently been around six days since you made your last post, so I considered that you might have decided on something already.

And yeah, a Ryzen 1700 will likely be a fine option as well if you can make use of those extra cores and threads. Unless one is gaming with a high-end graphics card and a high-refresh rate monitor, they won't likely see much of a difference in the per-core performance anyway, since the graphics card will tend to be the limiting factor in a majority of current games. Plus, the extra cores should help with streaming, and will probably provide additional benefit in future games. Some games, like Battlefield, already tend to perform better when they have access to additional cores.

I have previously heard of Brazil's PC component prices being quite high, and I do expect the next generation of Ryzen CPUs to cost more than what you can currently get a first-generation Ryzen processor with a similar core-count for. And I kind of expected that B350 would cost about the same same as B450 there, but thought I'd check anyway.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS