Ryzen 1600X

So, is this (or the 1600) the new i5 2500k?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CZ0SxpGzbw0
youtu.be/ZxsIOV2AjMc?t=45s
youtube.com/watch?v=uzyUVQHzDwk
youtube.com/watch?v=HO20mmQjY40&t=20s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In that they're absolutely the only mid-tier CPU worth considering? Pretty much, matey.

I bought a 2500k back in 2011 and now I bought a 1600X.

2500k is eternal fag
>Not buying 1700
>No stutters open mutliple games and movies playing.

The 1600X doesn't clock as high, but at least you have more threads and a platform that will last more than a year. Also the AMD fine wine.

How long can we expect AM4 to last? I'm new to AMD, but I know they're pretty good in that regard. I'm sick of Intel jewing us with a new socket every year

They promised a 3-year lifespan at least, so AM4 is good until 2020, which is when DDR5 is expected to reach end-users.

AMD said 3-4 years, just in time for DDR5

No I don't think so.
This generation of Zen is like Intels Nehalem. I think that AMD will get all the low hanging fruit and release a Zen2 or whatever next year, and the mid tier CPUs from that generation will be 2500ks.

Tell me Sup Forums 1600 or 1600x?

4 years.

2017
2018
2019
2020

AM4's going to last a while. Good on AMD.

Overclocking? 1600
Not overclocking? 1600X

Speaking of, how good are the stock Ryzen coolers? I'm not sure if this H60 I've had for a couple years will be better or worse than it.

The stock coolers on 1600 and 1700 are very good, rated at 125W, people have been getting 3.8/3.9GHz stable overclocks on the 1700 with them, so for a 6 core doing the same should be nothing unless you really get the shittiest of shit bins that need like 1.35V to reach 3.7GHz
Which is probably rarer than getting Ryzen to 4.3GHz

They are worth 30€ of performances

I'm still on 2500k and I don't have any reasons to upgrade but I'm going to consider ryzen in a few years.

This.

I've got a 3570k @ 4.7 and I've decided to wait for Zen 2. There's nothing I use nor game that I play that stutters or lags on it yet, and when Zen 2 launches it should be able to clock higher and all the platform issues will be already sorted.

youtube.com/watch?v=CZ0SxpGzbw0

...

Get in the official Ryzen thread:

>this (or the 1600) the new i5 2500k
R5 1600 should be more value with OC than 1600X (assuming you don't spend arm+leg on cooler and stick to some sane B350 board), so R5 1600 IMO

what ram speed is in the middle?

Probably until DDR5 hits

There's gonna be X390 for their actual HEDT and Naples light, though.

if it would clock to 5ghz it would be, but sadly it doesn't

You should understand that muh gigahurts are not everything that matters

i know that, but it was muh niggahurtz that made the 2500k better than most locked i7's of the time

If Ryzen could clock to 4.5GHz, Intel would LITERALLY get bankrupt. Ryzen's main weakness is the low clockspeeds, however it has a fucking great multithread capability and very decent IPC, also it's really affordable.

if Zen is so good, why isn't Intel dropping prices?

>they aren't

No the 1500/1500x is.

>4cores
>8threads
>16mb of cache for only 4 cores

It pushes well over 60 fps at 1080p/1440p and can even drive 4K more or less with a strong enough GPU at 170-190$$ this is the new budget chip to go with an 80$ B350 motherboard.

Get that and then get a RX 580/570 and you are rock solid. Also thanks to AdoredTV we now know that AMD Ryzen combine with Polaris/vega in Crossfire runs flawlessly in DX12 games so you have a solid upgrade path if you buy an 6-8core chip and the SLI motherboard.

To me that what it looks like. I'm still on a 2500k and I'm seriously considering a 1600k

I can't see it having the same longevity for a few reasons.
Intel has a lot of money.
the 4GHz ceiling is pretty low and probably a fab limitation.
14nm is pretty old now so a node shrink next year is not unlikely. By 2019 it's inevitable.
Still it's a good upgrade FOR 2500k guys unless they're interested in thunderbolt or some other intel only shit.

Does it need 3600mhz+ ram?

If no then yes

>quad core meme

...

...

the kikes are scurrying in response to a flood

What's the best price/performance GPU to go with it for the purposes of playing modern games at 1080p?

RX 480
youtu.be/ZxsIOV2AjMc?t=45s

RX480 if you want some extra juice, RX470 if you really only need 1080p.

Maybe a 1050ti if you're into Nvidia.

RX 470

If only they built an new Ark.
Like AMD did with Zeppelin.

RX470 hits 60, and definitely above if you don't run ultra, but 480 would ensure 60 in games like witcher 3 on ultra, and games for the next couple of years that will require more power
youtube.com/watch?v=uzyUVQHzDwk

Thank you. I'll consider getting a 1600x/480 combo very soon.

>intel have made incremental improvements for years because no competition
>AMD finally challenges them
>people honestly believe Intel wasn't performing R&D for all that time
>people honestly expect Intel to just keep their recent pace and let Ryzen ejaculate all over them
R5 and R7 builds are going to quickly become a joke and we'll all pretend we never believed in AMD.
It shouldnt be this way, but it is.

>people honestly believe Intel wasn't performing R&D for all that time
>what is 7740k

All that R&D goes to the 10nmeme. Just. Wait.

Make sure to get the 8GB version instead of 4GB.

Sometimes you need to consider the field before making assumptions. IPC can't magically increase, by a large margin, already thermally limited 14nm chips. Intel isn't going to make quad cores with higher clocks, they're going to optimise hex cores and octa cores, following AMDs footsteps after they've already blazed a trail and increased stock confidence by a fuck tonne, able to reinvest that back into a technologically superior/newer chip that's proven to run better than intel with proper optisation acheived in only a month

even if you like amd you are stupid to call intel shit. i like them both and want one of each build. don't be such an asshat.

Not him, but you can't read for shit.

Use your superior reading comprehension and take a look at his filename.

Shilltel is not the same as shittel.

...

I missed the launch. Any non-jewish influenced reviews of 1500 and 1600?

NEW THREAD
see: youtube.com/watch?v=HO20mmQjY40&t=20s

>Ryzen to 4.3GHz
Do you remember the reviewer that got the 1700 to 4.3? Or were you just speaking generally? I can't find who it was anymore

yeah those fx series sure aged like wine LOL

Why would they? They have the market in their grasp, especially the normie one. Better competition doesn't automatically mean lost market share.
Their brand recognition is so strong, that even if Ryzen offered triple the performance for a third of the price, and also gave you blowjobs on a regular basis, there are people that would still buy Intel regardless.

I'd say it's main weakness is it's terrible ram compatability, and it's heavy reliance on ram speeds.

memory controller is on the cpu. does that mean that am4 motherboards could possibly support ddr5?

why would anyone bother with the 1600x when the 1700 is $100 more and has double the performance and can sit on 3.9ghz all day?

>and has double the performance
Cite.
That.
Shit.
Nigger.

>Can sit on 3.9 all day
>(At 1.395v)
When the silicone improves, when the fabs get shit nailed down, maybe we'll see better OC results in Ryzen. But right now, that's a bold call.

They did. This year or last the FX-8350 finally started beating out it's Sandy Bridge competition in current games and the gap closed every year before that as games finally started to take advantage of the higher core count. It's a recurring problem with AMD, the product finally outshines it's launch day competition after it no longer makes sense to buy one new and a great many people have already upgraded.

not actually that critical as 4gb still offers much better price/perf

FX8350 would still be a terrible buy, as it draws twice the power, some even got it up to 300W draw.

Even if you bought it cheaper, after a couple of years use, it's suddenly way more expensive.

no thanks I stay with intel.

>(At 1.395v)
More like 1.295v. These chips however start nomnoming volts like crazy once they are pushed past that 3.9ghz

>some even got it up to 300W draw.
What the fuck were they doing? I had an FX-9590 at 4.7/5.0 GHz and it was only (haha) 220W.

(Also no it doesn't. 95W on the i7 2600K vs. 125W on the FX-8350. Worse but not anywhere near twice the power).

Better be getting high frequency memory or you'll have shit performance.

You don't run them at stock.

Difference is probably around 80w, which ends up quite a lot of money if you use your computer a lot.

I guess the 300W was actually just spikes, and not consistent draw.

Something you'd have to take into account when buying a PSU I guess.

They would've had a jewtel killer if they hadn't limited the CCX to the same speed as the memory controller. That's just fucking retarded design.

I crushes the 7700k senpai for $245

would be fine if ram actually worked with ryzen.

Actually that seems to be the most reasonable approach to upgrading.

Which sucks, because I'm tired of my 2500K.

>Their brand recognition is so strong, that even if Ryzen offered triple the performance for a third of the price, and also gave you blowjobs on a regular basis, there are people that would still buy Intel regardless.
Mean while back in reality ryzen performs worse then fucking 4 core intel.
>w-why aren't people buying AMD we are shilling as hard as we can and yet people still don't want to buy it!

...

It doesn't perform worse than 4 core intel.

>How long can we expect AM4 to last?
Why does it matter? Cheap mobos die after two years anyway.

If you buy Asus or MSI, yeah.

>It doesn't perform worse than 4 core intel.
>but it does in gaming
>THAT DOESN'T COUNT REEE BACK TO Sup Forums IT"s only 20 fps, human eye cant see above 60 fps anyway etc

no it's piece of shit due memory on board aka latency is fucked so your performance suffers a lot, it's even worse than 1500x or 1700, even i3 will beat that trash cpu, i7 7700k is new i5 2500k

what should you buy then? gigabyte boards have no features and shit bios, and i don't know enough about asrock.

Buy Biostar

I wouldn't say it's worse than a 1500x though. The memory latency issues will be fixed in May, but it does not significantly hinder the performance of the 1600x. Also, don't even try to compare an i5 and i7. Were talking about mid-range here.

>Still 4 cores
>new anything

No.

I fear that 1600 is Nehalem of AMD, and that zen+ will be sandy.

except it can't be fixed

for one it's just 219
for two you don't need to replace half pc to get zen+, only cpu

it's already 15ns less than two weeks ago
they promise more cuts in may

It's true, didn't really think about that.

>IT IS WORSE!!! it's only worse in this specific scenario, but IT IS WORSE!!!!! WOOOOOOOOORSE!!!!!!!

Pretty much. It's basically the best mid-range CPU in the market right now and is massively future-proof.

Gigabyte or ASRock.

What fucking features are you looking for?

Jesus how much does electricity cost where you live?

check'd and this.
for 1080p gamers (majority of market) this cpu is all you really need on high settings for full fps that your monitor can handle. Ultra is a meme benchmark of which the fidelity could only be properly appreciated on 1440p and 4k at cost of your framerates being slashed hard.

for a 1080p 144hz gaming monitor that i have, this cpu on high preset gaming is absolutely the best performer whilst multitasking.

trips of truth

why dont these charts ever show the i5 7600k overclocked?

4threads in 2017 pretty much. Muh i5. Muh jewtel.