Question Ryzen 5 1600 - Ryzen 7 1700 / Price

[cantthinkofanickname]

Hello,
Quick question
Is Ryzen 7 1700 worth the +30€ over Ryzen 5 1600???
tight budget..
Regards.

 

[Barty1884]

Depends on your intended workloads.

For single threaded workloads, or even workloads that need a few cores/threads, the 1700 would likely boost marginally higher. (3.7GHz vs 3.6GHz), not likely to impact much at all, honestly.
If your workloads can utilize the 8c/16t nature of the R7 fully then yes, I'd say it's worth it.

For the 'average' user though: gaming, hobby level content creation etc, the 1600 is perfectly adequate.

 

[cantthinkofanickname]

Depends on your intended workloads.

For single threaded workloads, or even workloads that need a few cores/threads, the 1700 would likely boost marginally higher. (3.7GHz vs 3.6GHz), not likely to impact much at all, honestly.
If your workloads can utilize the 8c/16t nature of the R7 fully then yes, I'd say it's worth it.

For the 'average' user though: gaming, hobby level content creation etc, the 1600 is perfectly adequate.

I want to get into 3d modelling which is a single threaded action except for rendering.. which needs more cores
and im afraid 3ghz of the ryzen 7 1700 could not be enough . thanks for the reply

 

[punkncat]

Yes, it is.

Keep in mind that the 1700 has astounding OC headroom. It will without a doubt overclock to 3.5 on the stock cooler, probably 3.6 or better and certainly could do 4 with a decent cooler.

 

[Barty1884]

I want to get into 3d modelling which is a single threaded action except for rendering.. which needs more cores
and im afraid 3ghz of the ryzen 7 1700 could not be enough . thanks for the reply

That's the base clock, which you can overclock from. Out of the box, it'll do >3GHz unless you're loading up all cores (assuming thermals are in check).
Single-threaded workloads will push to 3.7GHz out of the box, and for multi-threaded workloads, the additional threads will likely be preferred over clock speed anyway.

Don't forget the memory aspect though, as you'll benefit from both dual channel and faster (3000-3200MHz) memory.

Yes, it is.

Keep in mind that the 1700 has astounding OC headroom. It will without a doubt overclock to 3.5 on the stock cooler, probably 3.6 or better and certainly could do 4 with a decent cooler.

I'd hardly call barely able to hit boost clocks on all cores "astounding". Ryzen, generally is pretty much at it's cap out of the box (single core), - but I agree, bumping to ~3.5 - 3.6GHz on all cores should be just about doable.

 

[punkncat]

That's the base clock, which you can overclock from. Out of the box, it'll do >3GHz unless you're loading up all cores (assuming thermals are in check).
Single-threaded workloads will push to 3.7GHz out of the box, and for multi-threaded workloads, the additional threads will likely be preferred over clock speed anyway.

Don't forget the memory aspect though, as you'll benefit from both dual channel and faster (3000-3200MHz) memory.



I'd hardly call barely able to hit boost clocks on all cores "astounding". Ryzen, generally is pretty much at it's cap out of the box (single core), - but I agree, bumping to ~3.5 - 3.6GHz on all cores should be just about doable.

I would mention that almost every single video review thread you watch mentions that both the 1700 and the 2700 OC far better than the X variants, in general, due to the fact that the others simply being binned better are (stock) set closer to those do-able parameters.

Spend your money any way you see fit, of course. Never mind the educated reviews of the people who are offered these by the manufacturers to test and tell us what's up.

No dodgy...spending $60-80 bucks less on a chip that you can turn around an EASILY OC to the X variants out of box speed is a value that shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I would mention that almost every single video review thread you watch mentions that both the 1700 and the 2700 OC far better than the X variants, in general, due to the fact that the others simply being binned better are (stock) set closer to those do-able parameters.

I was confused by this statement, until I realized that you are saying non-X chips overclock better relative to their respective base clocks(?) Because in absolute terms both X and non-X chips seem to OC to around the same level.

 

[Barty1884]

I would mention that almost every single video review thread you watch mentions that both the 1700 and the 2700 OC far better than the X variants, in general, due to the fact that the others simply being binned better are (stock) set closer to those do-able parameters.

Agreed. Still hardly "astounding".

The 'best' you can hope to do on a 1700/1700X is right around 4GHz (+/-), but that's typically with a sizeable voltage bump, and a quality motherboard for sustained use
On a budget, as the OP is, that doesn't really seem viable. So, 3.5 - 3.6GHz all cores, maybe even marginally more.... Reasonable, for Ryzen, but hardly astounding.

 

[moulderhere]

I originally wanted a 1600, but spoke with a supplier I deal with, was advised that the 1600, 1700 and 1800x cpu said its all the same price, so I bought a 1800x.

 

[punkncat]

With that 1800x spec a motherboard with good VRM.

 

[rigg42]

The MSI B450 tomahawk or The b450i gaming plus ac will have the best combination of VRM and VRM cooling for the money. If the ITX board isn’t a limitation for you it comes in about 5th or 6th place among all 400 series AM4 boards in terms of power delivery. It’s easily the best b450 board in this regard.