So is Ryzen 5 1600X the best bang for the buck CPU for both gayming and workstation tasks?

So is Ryzen 5 1600X the best bang for the buck CPU for both gayming and workstation tasks?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cPWMIpVrVQ0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes and best of all you don't have to delid because it's soldered.

Nothing is, but figures it might work for you.

Go 1600 and overclock.

How the fuck would I know? I'm a faggot from Sup Forums.

Yeah it is.

No, the 1600 is. But if you have a cooler with the appropiate brackets, get that one.

1600 does include the wraith cooler right? I think 1600X does not, but I'm not sure

pretty much. If you need it, you could go to 3.9-4Ghz pretty easily. people like to compare the ryzen lineup against 5Ghz kabylake chips. good luck getting your kabylake to 5ghz without delidding and very good cooling. intel should solder their ihs like amd does, not use cum as tim.

if you are budget limited, the 1600x is the way to go, could not recommend the 1600 because its 30$ less and would need to be oc'ed unlike the 1600x

if you aren't budget limited, 1700 would be the bang for buck choice.

no, 1600 is.

yeah, the 1600x doesn't comes with one

not sure if you know what bang for buck means but ryzen 7 ain't bang for buck

the real gems are the 1400 and 1600

Good 8 Cores/16 Threads for 329$ is a steal. Not even Kaby Lake comes ahead of that processing power for workstation taks. You have to pay more than 1,000$ to get similar power from Intel.

dont forget you need a GPU so any "intel price point" cpu it "beats" gets a $100 cost added on because thats the average price for any new standalone GPU today

>intel does not need a gpu for gayming

You can't do gayming on integrated graphics anyways, unless you're into retro gaming alone.

get a 1600 and oc it to 3.9 GHz. It will be faster yet cheaper than a 1600X. If you don't want to oc get the 1600X.

Do you need to get a different cooler than the stock to OC Ryzen 1600 safely?

not to 3.9 you don't.

what voltage would that be?
>thanks for the answers

i dont fucking know. haven't OC'd one yet. look it up. spoonfeed denied.

>tfw tried to oc my 1600 to 3.5 just to start and my motherboard bios shits out

gg gigabyte.

>implying any Intel iGPU outside of Iris Pro from Broadwell is worth a shot

Even then it got it's ass handed to it by Kaveri gen APUs

>gigabyte
Then switch to the backup BIOS .....
i only buy gigabyte because of that

>just buy ryzen
>don't ask questions spoonfeed denied XD

>he fell for "cheap motherboard" meme
>doesn't realize you need a 200$ motherboard if he wants to overclock ryzen

>Then switch to the backup BIOS
aha. funny you should mention that...

Wait, I thought the Ryzen chips weren't being shipped with coolers to appease the third party companies, or am I completely wrong?

but friend, the ax370 gaming 5 is $200

What the fuck?

>aha. funny you should mention that...
It is funny, isn't it.

how are you so wrong?

no. both bioses on my brand new $200 board are toast. fuck my life.

I guess that's what happens when I bone ur mum

I have the 1700X at 4.0ghz stable.. should I throw it away and get a 1600?

How does one manage to do that?

How do you even fuck up a BIOS flash?

>put BIOS on USB
>go to flash bios option
>flash BIOS

did you unplug the USB halfway through flashing or what

flashed both to the latest bios. go into bios and oc to 3.5ghz and set xmp profile for ram. reboot to error message. switch bioses and try the same. same result. cmos clr and battery removal doesnt work. gonna try further troubleshooting tomorrow

Why the fuck would you do that

They all have coolers except the 1600x and the 1800x

The R7 coolers even have bonus RGB lighting

Which one gets the Wraith Max?

>flashed both to the latest bios
There we go, now why would you do such a thing?

1700x doesn't have a cooler either
Wraith max isn't out yet

CUZ Sup Forums SAID IT WAS THE BEST

Apparently it's OEM only.

What the fuck are you on about, boy?

Is the performance/hz of the 1700 any different than 1700X?

Or is it just the factory OC meme?

see agesa 1.0.0.4

I'll tell you in a week

I think it's just a factory OC meme
my 1700X seems to be the same, if I would have known I'd only get a 1700

Delid my dick

1700x are better binned

the higher you go up the better binned the chips are with the 1800x being crem de la meme

The difference is still marginal due to all good Zeppelins getting binned for Naples.

Probably

>agesa 1.0.0.4
But its not required to actually USE your Ryzen, the point of a backup is to have a fail-safe that is always going to be there if you fuck the first one up.

Shadilay brother. Checked.

...

true, but i paid a decent amount for ddr4-3000 and id like to use it at the rated speed, or close to it, rather than at 2133. unfortunately looks like that experiment ended up an expensive mistake.

1600 is the obvious choice compared to 1600X

How do you fuck up that bad?

fugg now i'm scared of updating bios, my father also told me that updating bios is dangerous like a week ago.

This. I'm getting 1700 and OCing for the extra frames/render times in highly multithreaded stuff, and having the extra 2 cores over 6 that will be more and more optimised means I can keep recording and streaming into the future with almost lossless minimum frames

>tumblr.jpg
Give it back, snowflake

i5 7600k is.

>Not getting a 1700
>Not separating ccx by OS

>One ccx for wangblows,one for Windows.

>Down clock Linux one since no games

By separating you mean giving cores 1-4 to the windows and rest to the games?

...

While being a fair point and one to consider most people use a standalone GPU anyway. Even the (admittedly) few business/enterprise desktops I've taken apart had standalone GPUs.

prices are all over, stock is in and out.
might just wait to buy in for now.

in terms of processing power, you have the 1600 and 1600x, amd 4 cores aren't an option as they perform disproportionately bad, the 1600 once bios gets sorted will be a gem, but if you want to circumvent all the ocing bullshit, its only 30$ more for the 1600x, you may need a cooler, so another 20-30 you would be spending no mater what if you went intel and their k line anyway.

as for the 8 core, it has the most headroom, once everything is settled, likely going to be a monster, but is held back by the need to oc, and need for faster ram, likely fixable, but still a concern, plus, if you use programs that can actually benefit from 8 cores that's a jump up from the 6 core, and if you don't, at least 2 more cores worth of head room from the 6.

kaby does pull ahead in some workstation tasks, but only because the programs literally do not benefit from more cores, like photoshop.

in 2-6 months, no shit, it will be the easiest cpu to recommend aside from the 1700, however right now when you need to update the bios... that 1600x will come stock far faster and will require less bullshit to make work.

already bought a 1700, going to run it stock when it gets here till the noctua brackets come, then i'm going to oc it to 3.6 and see where it goes from there. honestly would be happy even if it only hits 3.6, hell even stock that thing is worlds ahead of my current cpu.

I mean since 1700 is 2 ccx aka two quad cores complexes on the same dye you can. Use one as Linux machine a Windows machine

oem only for now at least, amd got threatened by its partners that if they put the wrath max in box they would end amd support.

considering on a 1700 you can oc to 3.8 on most cpus with stock cooler, kind of see why, and also am starting to despise 'partners' in the graphics card industry and aftermarket cooling as I now know why we get such shit out of the box.

Go look at stats from silicon lottery, realistic OC expectation with safe volts from 1700 is 3.8ghz, 3.9-4.0 from 1700x and 4.0-4.1 from 1800x.

most recent bios updates lowered the voltage to get them by .05 on many boards,

>1600 is like 100-200Mhz worse depending on your luck
>comes with a useless cooler youre going to throw away
>price difference is insignificant

Maybe getting the 1600x is actually a good idea?

>useless

Ain't niggas getting 3.9 on the stock cooler?

And what are the fan RPM?
i inow it can handle the task, but it gotta be far from a silent system.

If that's your definition of useless then by the time you've dropped the cash for an overpriced meme cooler for the 1600x then you've already spent enough for an R7 1700

Is there any difference in overclocking between 1600 and 1600x? Like will be ocing 1600 to 4Ghz more stressful for mobo than doing it with 1600x or will it exactly the same? What about TDP and all that shit? What about silicon lottery?

I mean if everything is the same what's the reason for 1600x existance?

no, 1700 is.

one thing for sure: better than inteljew.

1600x will do it at 1.35v
1600 will do it at 1.45v

power and temps will scale accordingly
I'd say you can save easily on electrical bills $30 in 3 years if you keep it at 1.35v

but if your heating sucks get 1600 and OC to 4.0 it sits at comfortable 75C if you got bad chip(on load obviously)

If you do both gayming and workstation tasks yes.

If you do only gaming, it beats the 7600k in games where cores matters, and loses where IPC and clockspeed matter

>*in 720p lowest settings

...

>it loses less than 7% at 17% clock deficit
>IT'S BAD FOR GAMING

>the real gems are the 1400

Good luck with your gimped chip missing half its cache, retard.

so how much of a housefire is an oc 1600? i have the regular poorfag 212 evo but am eligible for a free am4 upgrade kit. will it be enough to keep temps low on an oc 1600 4.1ghz?

my current 4690k at 4.4ghz idles at the 40's and maxes at the mid 60s or very rarely low 70s if my room is hot.

7600k is complete shit compared to 1600X

youtube.com/watch?v=cPWMIpVrVQ0

>he doesn't realise I've had a 1600 running at 3.8 on stock cooling and the cheap Asrock B350 24/7 for the best part of a week without drama
Here are your shekels and your (You).

It sure is

Not imagine if both are oc'd, the 7600k would be even more shit!

Does it matter? It's faster at the same price

You'd have to be an absolute mongoloid to go for the inferior product at the same price, if all you do is game

...

for one it's not better in frametimes which all that matters
for two it's a 4 core with same performance at 100% util - no headroom
for three it's proven fact that i7 now is better than i5 for gaming even though they got similar averages

if 6800K wasn't housefire and $400 i'd get that for pure gaming year back

with 1600 you get benefits of i7 and no i5 downsides

>.x on fps numbers

I can't take this seriously. Also how did it take you to find that old benchmark?

>it's not better in frametimes
This meme again, you people keep shifting the goalpost.

And yes i7's are better than i5's, modern i7's easily oc to 5 ghz though, while AMD's shit can't even get past 4.1 ghz.

So you can't extrapolate from i7 > i5 so 1600x > 7600k.

>easily oc to 5 ghz though
>This meme again

>this benchmark doesn't count
Said every fanboy living in fantasy land ever, lmfao

will you fuck off with your day 0 benchmarks, please?