Ryzen 5 or 7? X or no X?

[josefk]

Hello! First time building and first time posting, though I've found this site really useful many times before. So thanks in advance and for everything else!

System Usage from Most to Least Important: Video editing, 1080p gaming, chess analysis (CPU-intensive, uses up to 512 cores and hyperthreading). Up to 12-16 hours a day – though it's mostly work and general use, neither of which are demanding on any system parts, I sometimes encode videos or run chess analysis in the background.

Games: Cities Skylines, heavily modded old-Skyrim. I'm usually more interested in small indie games so I don't mind not having max settings and FPS on the few other AAA games I'm interested in (Fallout 4, Hitman, Nier Automata).

Budget: Not fixed. Whatever is appropriate for my usage, but nothing I don't need either.

From what I've read, it seems I should use an overclocked 1600, since an overclocked 1700 is more for a workstation user. Here's the problem: I want longevity (NOT future-proofing) – my computers generally last 10+ years and I hope to do the same with my first build. To that end I have a few questions:

1. I keep reading about people talking about processors having a life span of 5 years. Do they actually just mean that they won't be able to run cutting edge AAA games in 5 years? If so, I'm OK with that.

2. Does longevity mean no overclocking? Or does it just mean I shouldn't overclock to the limit?

3. If I don't overclock, should I pick the 1600x over the 1600 for better single-core performance, which old-Skyrim apparently relies on?

4. I've read about some issues with Ryzen. So far I know that I should clean-install windows, update the BIOS, pick compatible RAM, and tweak things like the Ryzen power plan. Are there any other major issues I should be aware of? Is there anything complicated enough for a first time builder that I should just pick the i7-7700k?

5. I don't mind spending an extra £100 on Ryzen 7 if it's a good 10-year investment. However, I noticed on the handbrake speed tests of reviews by Anandtech, Bit-tech, Trustedreviews, and Kitguru that the 1700 (£275) is only 4% faster (on average) than the 1600x (£217) despite a 26% price difference. Does this mean that the 1700 isn't that relevant for someone whose main multi-core use is video encoding? Or does it mean that the 1700 is only worthwhile if you overclock?

6. I plan to get the GTX 1050 Ti as my GPU. Does this have any effect at all on which Ryzen processor I should get? (E.g. Is it going to be a bottleneck that makes Ryzen 7 pointless, gaming-wise?)

7. With consideration of all the above, what processor would you recommend for me?

If it's relevant at all, this is my first attempt at a build.

Sorry if this was kinda long, and thanks a lot!

 

[chemmajorp53]

1. Yeah they just mean they won't be able to run games well in 5 years, I have multiple computers with 10-12 year old processors and they're fine.

2. Very agressive overclocking can affect longevity if you raise the voltage too high, but a mild to average overclock isn't going to make your processor fail at any point. Processors are pretty hard to break unless you blatantly abuse them.

3. 1600 would still be a better choice since you can save even more by not having to buy a cooler, but an overclock to 3.8-3.9GHz would be very easy and I'd suggest it.

4. I haven't heard about any other problems. You don't need "compatible" RAM unless you want to run at 3200MHz or higher. You probably won't need to update the BIOS on a new board, but it's good practice to check for new ones every few months. Yes you need a clean install of windows for any new build.

5. That means that the tests don't linearly scale with cores. The 1700 is significantly faster in processes that can use all 16 threads, there just aren't that many programs that can. Video encoding will probably be able to use the extra threads, but whether 30s less encoding time per project is worth $100 is up to you.

6. 1050 ti is fine for 1080p, no there won't be any "bottlenecking" issues

7. Flip a coin between the 1600 and 1700 IMO. It doesn't make THAT much of a difference, both will serve you perfectly fine.

 

[josefk]

Wow! Thanks so much! I've actually seen your answers on several other threads before and they were really helpful then too!

About saving on a cooler – apparently a CM 212 EVO is about 10 degrees C cooler than the stock fan. So I was actually planning on getting the Deepcool Gammaxx 400 which seems to offer a similar level of cooling and is compatible out of the box, even if I had a stock fan and didn't overclock.

Do those 10 degrees actually matter for longevity's sake? Or is it enough that it's below a certain threshold?

Based on your answers, I'm probably going to lightly overclock a 1600, but it'll still be good to know the answer to the above.

Thanks again!

 

[chemmajorp53]

10 degrees might matter, might not. The difference between 90C and 100C certainly does, same with 80 and 90C, but 60C and 70C probably won't matter at all.

 

[josefk]

Thanks! You've been really great. I feel much more confident about using an overclocked 1600, which was kinda the typical recommendation in the first place.

Just for thread completeness, I'll just mention that I'm going to go for the “compatible” RAM since there's virtually no price difference. A few quid for something tried and tested is fine by me.

 

[chemmajorp53]

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-B350-F-GAMING/HelpDesk_QVL/

The one that says "memory QVL" should give you a full list of which memory modules are compatible at which speeds, you don't need to buy "Ryzen compatible memory"

 

[josefk]

Gosh, didn't realise individual parts had QVL lists. In that case it'll be the cheapest one from a decent brand that's on that list, which surprisingly is a DDR4-2666.

Also noticed the "Secure Erase SSD QVL", which includes the Samsung 850 EVO 1TB but not the 250GB version I picked - but I'm guessing it's not really an issue?

 

[mdd1963]

the assorted 850 EVO models are all quite fast for conventional SATA SSDs, typically all cranking out 840+ MB/sec sequential reads in CrystalDiskMark

 

[josefk]

the assorted 850 EVO models are all quite fast for conventional SATA SSDs, typically all cranking out 840+ MB/sec sequential reads in CrystalDiskMark

Thanks for your reply!

Perhaps my post was a little confusing - I was asking about the QVL lists chemmajorp53 mentioned above and any compatibility issues they might imply. The list includes the 1TB model but not the 250GB model - but I'm guessing it doesn't really make that much of a difference.

EDIT: And now that I've had another look at it, it seems that it's just a firmware thing that doesn't really matter at all.

I'm just glad I'm clear on RAM compatibility issues for Ryzen. So unless anyone has anything to add, I'm probably just going to post my current build on the systems part of the forum. Thanks to all!