Ryzen 5 1600X vs 1600

[locomoco321]

I'm in the market for a new build, and am looking heavily into the Ryzen 5 lineup.

Here's my question: Does the TDP difference between chips have any real world effect on performance?

The TDP numbers quoted are what I assume to be under the AMD-defined base/boost speeds, and overclocking will increase total heat output, but in terms of thermal design, is the 1600 inferior to the 1600X? Are the X-series chips simply binned 1600's?

I have seen a 1600 hit 1600X base speeds, but inherently does the 1600X have more potential?

Thanks in advance

 

[exroofer]

I got a 1600x because..
I had no intention of using the stock cooler.
It was only $30 CDN more, free cooler worth zero.
It pushed my "silicon lottery " odds a little higher.
Reviewers noted that the "X" variants "seemed" to have higher odds of hitting the same OC's at lower voltages.
Also "seemed" to hit 3200 memory speeds more often.
If you are building a new Ryzen based system and have no intention of using the stock cooler, the minor price difference is inconsequential overall.

At identical clocks a 1600 and a 1600x will make the same amount of heat, roughly, depending on voltage needed to hit said clock.

There is literally no difference between the chips EXCEPT that AMD garantees one to run at higher clocks out of the box.

I see you have a H100i. Get the AM4 bracket, get a "X" chip if you so choose, or not.
The real world difference will be very slight.

*Note. My Crosshair 6 mobo has holes predrilled for AM3 coolers, so I swapped the backplate, and dropped my cooler on. AFAIK this is the only AM4 mobo you can do this with.

 

[Ditt44]

Pretty much what exroofer said. The 1600x is going to have a higher base speed and if you do not want to overclock your CPU, this is a good choice. You need to buy your own cooler and air is fine, no need for water. I bought the 1600x and in a short OC got it up to 3.95 at stock voltage on an ASRock Taichi.

Memory on the Taichi was at 3200 using the XMP settings in the board bios without any issues.

As for coolers, the base-1600 comes with a stock cooler that should be fine for your uses. For the 1600x, I ported a Zalman 92mm cooler from a prior build and it is more than sufficient with great temps. You don't need to spend a ton on a cooler unless you want to.

 

[madmatt30]

General load even though the 1600x boost speeds are higher on paper its been shown in an awful lot of reviews that the 1600 hits the same tri-core 3.7ghz boost as the 1600x at stock settings.
Base is higher on the x & the single core xfr is higher (in real world use this is insignificant)
To me there is little to no difference between the 2 chips , I'd just take the 1600 & run it at 3.8ghz straight.

 

[locomoco321]

I would be reusing my H100i cooler, and would have no need for an included cooler, so the 1600X sounds like a good option. I mean, wouldn't a guaranteed higher base clock be better in the event that the chip is garbage for overclocking be better? At least I'd already be hovering with the 4.0 GHz frequency.

Now, how is AMD calculating the TDP? The extra bit of core clock the 1600X has shouldn't increase the TDP by 30 W. Or is this just to cover themselves so people buy adequate coolers? The 4-core 1500X also has a TDP of 65 W, with 2 fewer cores. Basically, I'm concerned in terms of the design spec AMD has opted for between the chips.

This generation of CPUs are a bit confusing (still running my 2600K strong, and honestly not even sure if I should swap it out) in terms of the new CPU boost technology. My 2600K has it shut off and instead I just enable Enhanced SpeedStep so I can run from 800 MHz to my 4.4 GHz OC. Does XFR utilize that extra TDP AMD has allotted to boost higher, and if I overclock, would I be essentially just losing out on the XFR feature?

 

[madmatt30]

If you're going to overclock both the boost & xfr are redundant.(which is why I think the 1600 is a far better deal than the x)

The tdp? I'm not sure how amd are determining this in all honest.

With the old am3+ chips the tdp was directly related to the power draw , with the ryzen I don't think it is at all.

 

[Ditt44]

If you are OK with doing an OC, get the 1600. You'll end up in about the same place, +/- 3.8. If you get a good 1600x, sure, you'll hit 4.0 or maybe 4.1 but that's all luck. I have no doubt I can push if not top 4.0, but I just don't "need" to.

At the price range, and having a nice AIO, I'd still take the 1600x and call it a day, knowing my base speed is 3.6 and that I can squeeze more out of it if and when I "need" to

"Needs" and "Wants" are not the same thing. Like taking a girl shoe shopping for a hiking trip and going home with three pair of heels and no boots. Sexy, but useless for the task at hand.

 

[exroofer]

Keep in mind that TDP ratings aren't indicative of actual power draw, but rather the recommended amount of heat dissipation needed.

Your 2600K is still to this day a solid processor. You will NOT see some miraculous doubling of gaming fps.
I am sure you have already looked at a bunch of benchmarks, so I won't bother listing any here.
The 1600(x) IS faster than your 2600K, but not gigantic amounts faster.

Where I notice the difference, and you certainly would, is when you are doing more than one thing at a time.
Myself, and a lot of people, have 8 or 10 browser tabs open, a Youtube video going, and w/e other crap people like on their second monitor.
And Ryzen 6 C/12T chips do not care in the least. I have to try real hard to get more than half the cores above 50% usage. As in, I can't do it unless I deliberately launch several cpu intensive tasks. While running, like, Star Citizen. Which is heavily multi-threaded. Although i don't render videos in the background, that would peak a few of them lol.
But you can literally render a video WHILE gaming, and with a little affinity adjusting, you wouldn't even notice.
Much.

One of the many reasons I went with Ryzen was forward compatibility with Gen 2 and Gen 3 Ryzens over the next 3 plus years. Maybe a bios update, drop 3rd gen chip in, and be happy. No new mobo, no new OS license, etc.
As opposed to "somebody" who finally offers up more than 4 cores on the mainstream platform, and makes you buy a new mobo for it...
Just sayin.

I'd get a 1600x if I was you. Because the price difference is so small. And I pretty much garantee 6C/12T blue team offerings, while probably a little faster, in this generation, will cost a LOT more.

Your Mileage May Vary.

 

[locomoco321]

Thank you all for the help! I appreciate all your insight. With the price difference not being all that much, and me already having an AIO liquid cooler, I justify the extra price for the 1600X just a little bit more. From what I understand, TDP isn't an inherent restriction AMD has placed on the 1600 to make it weaker in any sense, but is just as a reference for the required thermal dissipation. To be honest, I'll probably buy a 1600X, simply because even if it's a bad overclocker, it's still a good "bad" chip, as far as a stock chip is concerned. If I got a bad overclocking 1600, it would be a less-good "bad" chip, and for the money I plan to spend to overhaul my system (as you can see I don't upgrade every generation), I don't wanna play the lottery if around $30.00 CAD will guarantee me extra performance.

To exroofer:
The reason I'm even looking into upgrading isn't even because my chip is bad or slow for what I do (the RX 480 solved my gaming limitations), but my motherboard is having some SATA issues where my drives aren't being detected at times on boot. I figure if that goes, and the problem is only getting worse, I may as well just get a whole new core system. With a lot of newer engines favoring core count vs. straight IPC performance, and me doing some chemical simulations (school) at home, Ryzen just seems like a better option now. I love my 2600K to death, but increasing total thread count for around the same price as a 7600K, it's a no-brainer.

Anyway, thanks again for the help guys! Love this community