Ryzen 5 1600 or i5 7600k

[Hinkel]

I want to build new pc for gaming and I'm really confused which cpu will be better for me, I know that i5 is better but in my country is ~45$ more expensive than ryzen 5 1600 and Z270 motherboard is 25$> b350. I want to play all new games on ultra graphics, so can I do that with ryzen 5 and gtx 1060 6gb or it's worth to earn more money for i5.
Will be ryzen 5 1600 better in future because of more cores and hyperthreading?

 

[Atomicdonut17]

The Ryzen series is alright for gaming, but it's main use is multi-core computation, video rendering, etc. If you're really going to be doing gaming, you'll want an i5. It was purpose build for graphical computation and rendering, and can handle things very well considering.

 

[Eximo]

I actually lean towards the Ryzen on this one. It is adequate for games, and should last a little longer, both in terms of the core count, but also AMD's attitude towards sockets. Most likely the AM4 socket is going to be around for a long while, so you can always drop in newer CPUs as they become available. With Intel, you get, at most, two or three generations of CPU before the socket is abandoned.

i5-7600k doesn't come with a cpu cooler either, so for a budget build the stock AMD cooler is a big bonus.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

I actually lean towards the Ryzen on this one. It is adequate for games, and should last a little longer, both in terms of the core count, but also AMD's attitude towards sockets. Most likely the AM4 socket is going to be around for a long while, so you can always drop in newer CPUs as they become available. With Intel, you get, at most, two or three generations of CPU before the socket is abandoned.

i5-7600k doesn't come with a cpu cooler either, so for a budget build the stock AMD cooler is a big bonus.

He does have a point. I'm an Intel junkie, personally, but the Wraith coolers that come with non-X Ryzen CPUs aren't half bad, as long as you don't anticipate OCing. They're good for their budgets, but preferably, they're used for rendering, computation and multi-core processes. They're good in CPU-intensive games, and just fine in others. It comes down to personal choice, of which mine is the i5.

 

[neblogai]

Actually, i5 is no longer best for gaming, as some games already have lower minimum fps on just 4 cores; multiplayer games like Battlefield1 want as many cores as possible, and also load on it can be seen to jump to 100%, which means no reserve. Ryzen, on the other hand, is generally somewhat slower in games, but is smoother, and has twice the computational capacity- which future games will tap into. I would not pay extra for 7600K platform: you'd get much faster PC both in CPU, GPU and FPS by getting R5 1600 and using saved cash for a cheapest GTX1070.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

Actually, i5 is no longer best for gaming, as some games already have lower minimum fps on just 4 cores; multiplayer games like Battlefield1 want as many cores as possible, and also load on it can be seen to jump to 100%, which means no reserve. Ryzen, on the other hand, is generally somewhat slower in games, but is smoother, and has twice the computational capacity- which future games will tap into. I would not pay extra for 7600K platform: you'd get much faster PC both in CPU, GPU and FPS by getting R5 1600 and using saved cash for a cheapest GTX1070.

Hm. Never thought about the upcoming obsolescence of a 4-core. Nice point!

 

[madmatt30]

So a ryzen setup straight away will cost you $70 less than an i5 , then factor in a $30 cooler (because as mentioned the 7600k doesn't come with one) & you're at $100 difference.

That's a no brainer mate , go for the ryzen absolutely IMO.

In current gaming titles at stock speed its on a par with the i5 7500 - expect that gap to widen in the future considerably once the platform has matured & games start to make more use of its extra threads.
When the i5 is tapped out at 100% the ryzen is sitting on 50-60% usage - that's a huge amount of theoretical power left in the tank.