Upgrading to Ryzen

[JonathanH]

I'm finally updating my old i5 2500k to one of the Ryzen series CPUs. I've been looking at all the deals going around during Black Friday and Cyber Monday and have narrowed my choices down to either the 2600 or the 2700X. Currently the 2700X is on sale for $265 and the 2600 is on sale for $160. In terms of bang for your buck, what is the most worth it you think? I use this computer to primarily play games.

 

 

[bleedblue]

How much is the 2700 non X?

[JonathanH]

1 minute ago, bleedblue said:

How much is the 2700 non X?

$250 on Amazon

[bleedblue]

6 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

$250 on Amazon

2600 all the way.

[JonathanH]

4 minutes ago, bleedblue said:

2600 all the way.

Alright thanks. Also idk if you know the answer to this, but I read somewhere that Ryzen benefits from higher frequency RAM. Is it worth investing in 3200 MHz RAM?

[jsonschema]

why not get the 1700 instead for that price

[NelizMastr]

2 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

Alright thanks. Also idk if you know the answer to this, but I read somewhere that Ryzen benefits from higher frequency RAM. Is it worth investing in 3200 MHz RAM?

DDR4-3000 or 3200, preferably CL15 would be good.

 

@jsonschema

 

Because the 1700 is a mixed bag when it comes to overclocking it, making it not great value unless you get one that does 4GHz, which is not super common.

[SupaKomputa]

With $100 difference 2600 is the bang for the buck.

[jsonschema]

3 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

DDR4-3000 or 3200, preferably CL15 would be good.

 

@jsonschema

 

Because the 1700 is a mixed bag when it comes to overclocking it, making it not great value unless you get one that does 4GHz, which is not super common.

but that still would mean 2 more cores and 4 more threads which would make processes faster not waiting  for threads to be allocated. That with fast ram should be it. From a Comp Sci point of view the 1700 even at 3.50 would be better.

[JonathanH]

5 minutes ago, jsonschema said:

but that still would mean 2 more cores and 4 more threads which would make processes faster not waiting  for threads to be allocated. That with fast ram should be it. From a Comp Sci point of view the 1700 even at 3.50 would be better.

Aren't most games single threaded processes? 

[NelizMastr]

8 minutes ago, jsonschema said:

but that still would mean 2 more cores and 4 more threads which would make processes faster not waiting  for threads to be allocated. That with fast ram should be it. From a Comp Sci point of view the 1700 even at 3.50 would be better.

In practice, applications don't scale to the full potential. If that would be the case, the best CPU for all tasks would be the Threadripper 2990WX and Intel would be weeping in the corner  

 

3 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

Aren't most games single threaded processes? 

Not single threaded, but certainly not multithreaded to a degree where you can saturate a Core X or Threadripper. Faster cores are preferred over a multitude of slower cores in most cases, though. IPC and clock speed are more relevant. You will, however, generally need 6 threads or more these days for a pleasant experience.

[xg32]

28 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

I'm finally updating my old i5 2500k to one of the Ryzen series CPUs. I've been looking at all the deals going around during Black Friday and Cyber Monday and have narrowed my choices down to either the 2600 or the 2700X. Currently the 2700X is on sale for $265 and the 2600 is on sale for $160. In terms of bang for your buck, what is the most worth it you think? I use this computer to primarily play games.

 

 

just gonna leave this year, forget the first gen ryzen at this point

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3877868

 

if you do all the rebates, it's the best deal i've seen this year.

[jsonschema]

21 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

In practice, applications don't scale to the full potential. If that would be the case, the best CPU for all tasks would be the Threadripper 2990WX and Intel would be weeping in the corner  

 

Not single threaded, but certainly not multithreaded to a degree where you can saturate a Core X or Threadripper. Faster cores are preferred over a multitude of slower cores in most cases, though. IPC and clock speed are more relevant. You will, however, generally need 6 threads or more these days for a pleasant experience.

how are 6 5% better ipc cores better than 8 5% less ipc cores for the same price. Lets say A has 8 threads and B has 6

 

A0 and A1 are being occupied by cs:go

 

A2 and A3 are handling some sort of streaming

 

A4 and A5 are lets say parked 

 

but in case the person is playing a good scaling game,most use max 4-6 threads

 

A0 - A3 are busy

A4 - A5 are allocated streaming work

 

now this will not but can lead to a fps drop or some lag in other applications

 

Whereas if the User had 8 Threads

 

B0 -B3  could handle games

B4-B5 streaming

B6-B7 could help with streaming or anything else as well.

 

Modern day schedulers atleast unix schedulers assign tasks to already empty threads especially if its priority stuff like streaming requiring more power.

 

for like a 5% ipc hit you get two more threads for the same price.

 

 

 

[NelizMastr]

10 minutes ago, jsonschema said:

*snip*

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about what you COULD DO with a 1700 IN THEORY.

 

What matters is whether a person's use case benefits from those theoretical numbers. Value is different for each person's use case, and therefore it's not clear cut that a similarly priced 8-core will always benefit you more than a 6-core.

 

For just playing games, IPC and clock speed matter. The 1700 has neither, or at least, it has less of both compared to the 2600. It's generally a worse overclocker and it costs more. In other words, it has significantly poorer value for @JonathanH. That's what it's all about here.

 

[jsonschema]

7 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about what you COULD DO with a 1700 IN THEORY.

 

What matters is whether a person's use case benefits from those theoretical numbers. Value is different for each person's use case, and therefore it's not clear cut that a similarly priced 8-core will always benefit you more than a 6-core.

 

For just playing games, IPC and clock speed matter. The 1700 has neither, or at least, it has less of both compared to the 2600. It's generally a worse overclocker and it costs more. In other words, it has significantly poorer value for @JonathanH. That's what it's all about here.

 

5% ipc dosen't do shit,maybe you loose 5 fps at max and as far as costs goes the internet especially reddit is filled with threads of combos and cpu's at the same price as second gen ryzen,one can get a 1700x at the price of a 2600 if you look around enough.So why not get that.

[NelizMastr]

1 minute ago, jsonschema said:

5% ipc dosen't do shit,maybe you loose 5 fps at max and as far as costs goes the internet especially reddit is filled with threads of combos and cpu's at the same price as second gen ryzen,one can get a 1700x at the price of a 2600 if you look around enough.  

Have it your way. If you're not accepting of other people's information and don't care enough to consider OP's needs then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[JonathanH]

13 minutes ago, jsonschema said:

5% ipc dosen't do shit,maybe you loose 5 fps at max and as far as costs goes the internet especially reddit is filled with threads of combos and cpu's at the same price as second gen ryzen,one can get a 1700x at the price of a 2600 if you look around enough.So why not get that.

 

9 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

Have it your way. If you're not accepting of other people's information and don't care enough to consider OP's needs then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

So I'm most likely not going to overclock and just stick with stock/boost speeds. Is the main difference between the 1700 and 2600 the trade off between cores and higher stock/boost frequency? I'm also looking around at the prices for the 1700 and I'm seeing an average price of around $200. So what justifies the extra $40 in my case?

[jsonschema]

4 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

 

So I'm most likely not going to overclock and just stick with stock/boost speeds. Is the main difference between the 1700 and 2600 the trade off between cores and higher stock/boost frequency? I'm also looking around at the prices for the 1700 and I'm seeing an average price of around $200. So what justifies the extra $40 in my case?

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/9Q98TW/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-34ghz-8-core-processor-yd170xbcaewof

 

176$ for the 1700x which is basically a better binned version with highter boost clocks of the 1700.

 

otherwise if the difference is 40$ then unless you are running bunch of vm's or streaming while playing multithreaded games the $40 ain't worth it for the 1700.

[Zando_]

9 minutes ago, JonathanH said:

 

So I'm most likely not going to overclock and just stick with stock/boost speeds. Is the main difference between the 1700 and 2600 the trade off between cores and higher stock/boost frequency? I'm also looking around at the prices for the 1700 and I'm seeing an average price of around $200. So what justifies the extra $40 in my case?

1700 is also a lot pickier with RAM. My R7 2700X hasn't had any issues, but my R5 1600 refuses to run my RAM at 3000Mhz, have to run it at 2933 (not much of a difference, but still kinda annoying). QVL list for your mobo matters a lot more on 1st gen Ryzen, they like the RAM they like and throw fits with anything else. The 1700 has more cores, sure, but in gaming you won't really notice the difference (same as how a 6c/6t i5 8600K competes with a 6c/12t i7 8700K in most games when both are at 5GHz). Whereas that little edge in IPC and the higher clocks on the 2600 will help a bit more in any CPU bound games. Unless you're doing a *lot* of streaming or rendering on your CPU then the 2600 is the better option IMO.

[JonathanH]

5 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

1700 is also a lot pickier with RAM. My R7 2700X hasn't had any issues, but my R5 1600 refuses to run my RAM at 3000Mhz, have to run it at 2933 (not much of a difference, but still kinda annoying). QVL list for your mobo matters a lot more on 1st gen Ryzen, they like the RAM they like and throw fits with anything else. The 1700 has more cores, sure, but in gaming you won't really notice the difference (same as how a 6c/6t i5 8600K competes with a 6c/12t i7 8700K in most games when both are at 5GHz). Whereas that little edge in IPC and the higher clocks on the 2600 will help a bit more in any CPU bound games. Unless you're doing a *lot* of streaming or rendering on your CPU then the 2600 is the better option IMO.

The main reason im upgrading is for Battlefield V. So I'm thinking of just going for the 2600.