Question ryzen 5 2600x vs ryzen 7 2700

Ij6969

Reputable
Dec 27, 2019
72
0
4,530
hey i want to build a pc and i am having a tuff decission on wich cpu to use weather the r5 2600x or the r7 2700. curently both are about the same price. also i want to spend about $650 on my pc can anyone help me sort out a pc and helpme chose wich cpu ive only built one pc in the past.
 

Ij6969

Reputable
Dec 27, 2019
72
0
4,530
Well I found an r5 2600x for $145 and the r7 2700 for $150 pretty close in price. I’m not sure I understood but the r7 would be better in your opinion right? And is the r7 overclockable?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
If you have the choice between one CPU and practically the same CPU with 33% more cores, extra cores rarely hurts and you'd be nuts to settle for less.

What Kara likely meant is that by having more cores, Windows may more inclined to schedule stuff on cores in such a way that each thread isn't getting slowed down by simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) unless there are that many threads that happen to demand CPU attention.

SMT enables a single core to independently schedule instructions from multiple threads (a single core pretends to be two or more) so that its instruction scheduler and execution resources can be more fully utilized than they can be on a typical single thread. The benefit is that you get 25-40% higher total throughput out of the CPU in heavily threaded workloads. The downside is that each individual thread may get 10-30% slower depending on how many gaps each thread is leaving for the CPU to fill using the other.

The more cores you have, the less likely you are to get slowed down by threads having to share a CPU. That's where the "SMT on vs SMT off" benchmarks come in.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
True. My pc is also in a cubby under my desk (took the asinine door off), so looks should have no priority as I can't see inside, but I know what it looks like regardless and it isn't sloppy. It could easily sit on top of my desk but the R5 footprint just eats up far too much real-estate.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
It could easily sit on top of my desk but the R5 footprint just eats up far too much real-estate.
I have a humble Antec 300v2 and there is no way in hell that thing would fit anywhere on my multi-level desk either... I've had to modify the side-shelves twice to fit larger monitors over the years as the original design couldn't accommodate more than ~20", widened it once to fit my 22" 15 years ago, widened it again to large enough to accommodate up to 28" when I got a 24" as that is about as far out to the sides I can offset them.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Lol, I have a hutch style, little bookcases overhead, 2 drawers on the side and a pc cubby next to that. Just enough space for 2x 24" monitors side by side.

I'd like one day to have a 27-28" main, flip a 24" portrait and stuff a mITX behind that since it's angled.
 
Definitely go with the 2700 for only $5 more. And don't worry about overclocking, they both overclock just about equally well in terms of delta above base clock. But even if you couldn't overclock the 2700 it's 2 extra cores/4 threads make for a much smoother experience in multi-tasking work environment like Windows 10.

You don't have to push performance to the max with rendering or encoding to appreciate the difference, just have several windows open with a bunch of tabs in Chrome or Firefox. With 16Gb memory (also cheaper now) it's so much smoother with no stutters and instant context switches using an 8 core/16 thread vs even a 6 core/12 thread processor. Running Windows the way I like, 4 core processors are just flat out annoying to me now.

It may not be worth it if price deltas were really big but having such inexpensive, and capable, 8 core processors available makes it really nice.