[SOLVED] Ryzen 5 1600 or ryzen 7 1700? (GTX 1060)

[stinto112]

So I've been saving up for months now to upgrade from a ryzen 3 1200 to either a ryzen 5 1600 or a ryzen 7 1700. With all the crazy sales on at the moment I decided to buy one now. I'd quick like to get into twitch streaming, and on most websites the 1700 is only 20£ more than the 1600. Should I buy the 1700 or 1600 (I can afford both, but I always like to save a bit)? Also, how do they perform side by side in most modern games these days? Thanks.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

For gaming, the 1600 and the 1700 are gonna perform about the same. Games dont need the extra cores of the 1700. If you want to stream, then the extra cores of the 1700 will come in handy, but the 12 threads on the 1600 is still plenty.

I would look at the pricing for the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs. They are pretty cheap and have about a 5-10% gaming performance bump. AMD will be releasing the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs this summer, so I would expect to find some good deals on the 2nd gen chips so they can get rid of excess inventory. But that is just a guess.

 

[punkncat]

Where I cannot personally comment on the 1600, I upgrade from a 1200 to a 1700 and would share a couple of thoughts with you.

First off, I was SUPER happy with the boost in performance I saw for various tasks. As far as gaming on older titles I really didn't notice much difference when using the same video card. I saw a significant difference in some of my newer titles. Many of the new games are taking advantage of multi core performance and you will see and feel a difference there.
One thing I did note, and you may already have planned this in your build, but what motherboard/chipset and how good are the VRM on that motherboard reviewed?
I personally had an ASRock Fatality on a b350 chipset. It worked (and continues to work) wonderfully for my 1200. I have a nice stable 3.8 OC and temps stay low even on the stock cooler. I liked the motherboard features well enough that I purchased another without thinking about the increased power draw of the bigger chip. What I found was that the 1700 requires too much power for the VRM to keep the R7 satisfied for a stable overclock. I ended up staying on stock clock for a while and just upgraded to a better motherboard this past weekend.

I would take a moment to look up some information on your current motherboard and make sure it has the power delivery to go all the way to the R7. In most cases/reviews I have seen indicate that almost all of the mid to high range B chipsets can handle R3 and R5 without issue.

So, short answer being that, personally, given where the prices are, I chose to go with the 1700, but it had a hidden cost down the road based on the motherboard I chose along with it. If you already planned that part out, go with the 1700.

 

[stinto112]

For gaming, the 1600 and the 1700 are gonna perform about the same. Games dont need the extra cores of the 1700. If you want to stream, then the extra cores of the 1700 will come in handy, but the 12 threads on the 1600 is still plenty.

I would look at the pricing for the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs. They are pretty cheap and have about a 5-10% gaming performance bump. AMD will be releasing the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs this summer, so I would expect to find some good deals on the 2nd gen chips so they can get rid of excess inventory. But that is just a guess.

I plan on overclocking the s**t out of the r7 1700 as I've done with my r3, surely I could save some money over a 2nd gen r7? (I already have a good cooler)

 

[stinto112]

Where I cannot personally comment on the 1600, I upgrade from a 1200 to a 1700 and would share a couple of thoughts with you.

First off, I was SUPER happy with the boost in performance I saw for various tasks. As far as gaming on older titles I really didn't notice much difference when using the same video card. I saw a significant difference in some of my newer titles. Many of the new games are taking advantage of multi core performance and you will see and feel a difference there.
One thing I did note, and you may already have planned this in your build, but what motherboard/chipset and how good are the VRM on that motherboard reviewed?
I personally had an ASRock Fatality on a b350 chipset. It worked (and continues to work) wonderfully for my 1200. I have a nice stable 3.8 OC and temps stay low even on the stock cooler. I liked the motherboard features well enough that I purchased another without thinking about the increased power draw of the bigger chip. What I found was that the 1700 requires too much power for the VRM to keep the R7 satisfied for a stable overclock. I ended up staying on stock clock for a while and just upgraded to a better motherboard this past weekend.

I would take a moment to look up some information on your current motherboard and make sure it has the power delivery to go all the way to the R7. In most cases/reviews I have seen indicate that almost all of the mid to high range B chipsets can handle R3 and R5 without issue.

So, short answer being that, personally, given where the prices are, I chose to go with the 1700, but it had a hidden cost down the road based on the motherboard I chose along with it. If you already planned that part out, go with the 1700.

The r7 1700 has the same wattage as the r3 1200, so surely it wouldn't matter? My mobo is the AsRock AB350M-HDV, I have a 520w seasonic bronze PSU. Reckon i'll be all good or nah? I don't plan on changing any voltage either with by overclock.

 

[punkncat]

It's not a matter of the 65W, it's a matter of that spread across multiple cores and the amperage draw it turns into.
I thought the same thing and where I made my mistake.

I want to say it's "Buildozer" on YouTube that does a bunch of motherboard reviews discussing the VRM/mosfet/etc and lays out the calculations for the draw by CPU as related to the ability to deliver.

 

[stinto112]

It's not a matter of the 65W, it's a matter of that spread across multiple cores and the amperage draw it turns into.
I thought the same thing and where I made my mistake.

I want to say it's "Buildozer" on YouTube that does a bunch of motherboard reviews discussing the VRM/mosfet/etc and lays out the calculations for the draw by CPU as related to the ability to deliver.

Just found a OZtalksHw video where he uses my same motherboard (except its the cheaper A320M versionj) with the ryzen 7 1800X which uses more power than the 1700, with no problems at all. Ill most likely be fine with mine, thanks for the warning tho.

heres the video if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N99GGR2eGqg

 

[punkncat]

It's not a matter of the 65W, it's a matter of that spread across multiple cores and the amperage draw it turns into.
I thought the same thing and where I made my mistake.

I want to say it's "Buildozer" on YouTube that does a bunch of motherboard reviews discussing the VRM/mosfet/etc and lays out the calculations for the draw by CPU as related to the ability to deliver.

Just found a OZtalksHw video where he uses my same motherboard (except its the cheaper A320M versionj) with the ryzen 7 1800X which uses more power than the 1700, with no problems at all. Ill most likely be fine with mine, thanks for the warning tho.

heres the video if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N99GGR2eGqg

You are welcome. I wish you luck with your decision and fun with your build.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

For gaming, the 1600 and the 1700 are gonna perform about the same. Games dont need the extra cores of the 1700. If you want to stream, then the extra cores of the 1700 will come in handy, but the 12 threads on the 1600 is still plenty.

I would look at the pricing for the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs. They are pretty cheap and have about a 5-10% gaming performance bump. AMD will be releasing the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs this summer, so I would expect to find some good deals on the 2nd gen chips so they can get rid of excess inventory. But that is just a guess.

I plan on overclocking the s**t out of the r7 1700 as I've done with my r3, surely I could save some money over a 2nd gen r7? (I already have a good cooler)

Those first gen Rzyen CPUs hit a wall at around 4ghz. The second gen can boost higher on single cores at stock settings that you will be able to overclock the 1700. Unfortunately, the Ryzen CPUs are not great overclockers and a b350 board will hold you back some in overclocking a 8 core 16 thread chip.

 

[stinto112]

For gaming, the 1600 and the 1700 are gonna perform about the same. Games dont need the extra cores of the 1700. If you want to stream, then the extra cores of the 1700 will come in handy, but the 12 threads on the 1600 is still plenty.

I would look at the pricing for the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs. They are pretty cheap and have about a 5-10% gaming performance bump. AMD will be releasing the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs this summer, so I would expect to find some good deals on the 2nd gen chips so they can get rid of excess inventory. But that is just a guess.

I plan on overclocking the s**t out of the r7 1700 as I've done with my r3, surely I could save some money over a 2nd gen r7? (I already have a good cooler)

Those first gen Rzyen CPUs hit a wall at around 4ghz. The second gen can boost higher on single cores at stock settings that you will be able to overclock the 1700. Unfortunately, the Ryzen CPUs are not great overclockers and a b350 board will hold you back some in overclocking a 8 core 16 thread chip.

I can probably try get it to 3.9ghz which is what I got ryzen 3 to, and that will still offer good performance in most modern games I hope. Thanks