2600, 2700X or 3500X (available in retail) What should I get?

[MrlUnleashed]

Currently I have a Ryzen 7 1700 and Im selling it to my friend so I cant really decide what to get now.

3600 isnt available or is waaaay overpriced at the moment so the 3 from the title are the choice now.

I have 16gb 3600Mhz ram and a GTX 1070.

 

2600 is the cheapest option, 3500X (with which I can have my ram at 3600 hopefully as the mobo states for 3000 series, rn 3333 is the most it can go) is about 33$ roughly more and 2700X another 33$ (converted from my currency, and give or take if I find any for cheaper in another shop).

 

I play at 1080p 144Hz panel, so all Im looking for is which can get the most out of my 1070, as 1700 seems to struggle a little and I dont plan to overclock.

 

Im keen to 2700X, unless its worth saving about 60$ and go with the 2600. 3500X is just an option since its the cheapes 3000 series part (only cheaper is the 3100).

[Naijin]

1 minute ago, MrlUnleashed said:

Currently I have a Ryzen 7 1700 and Im selling it to my friend so I cant really decide what to get now.

3600 isnt available or is waaaay overpriced at the moment so the 3 from the title are the choice now.

I have 16gb 3600Mhz ram and a GTX 1070.

 

2600 is the cheapest option, 3500X (with which I can have my ram at 3600 hopefully as the mobo states for 3000 series, rn 3333 is the most it can go) is about 33$ roughly more and 2700X another 33$ (converted from my currency, and give or take if I find any for cheaper in another shop).

 

I play at 1080p 144Hz panel, so all Im looking for is which can get the most out of my 1070, as 1700 seems to struggle a little and I dont plan to overclock.

 

Im keen to 2700X, unless its worth saving about 60$ and go with the 2600. 3500X is just an option since its the cheapes 3000 series part (only cheaper is the 3100).

It depends, what do you use your pc for? Just gaming? Content creation? 50/50 or maybe 90%/10% gaming/content creation?

[porina]

From a pure gaming viewpoint, the 3500X is probably the best for most gaming even with the fewest threads. 2700X would be next, without overclocking it'll boost more than 1700 will so will still lead to an improvement there. The 2600 will still give a clock advantage over the 1700. Part of the problem is balancing the available cores, vs threads (a thread is worth a LOT less than a core), and generation differences from Zen 2 (3500X) to Zen+ (2600, 2700X).

[MrlUnleashed]

4 minutes ago, Naijin said:

It depends, what do you use your pc for? Just gaming? Content creation? 50/50 or maybe 90%/10% gaming/content creation?

Just gaming

[Naijin]

Just now, MrlUnleashed said:

Just gaming

For gaming only, I have to agree with what @porinajust posted. The 3500x would be the better choice, if you can find one, with the 2700x coming in second.

[MrlUnleashed]

1 minute ago, porina said:

From a pure gaming viewpoint, the 3500X is probably the best for most gaming even with the fewest threads. 2700X would be next, without overclocking it'll boost more than 1700 will so will still lead to an improvement there. The 2600 will still give a clock advantage over the 1700. Part of the problem is balancing the available cores, vs threads (a thread is worth a LOT less than a core), and generation differences from Zen 2 (3500X) to Zen+ (2600, 2700X).

Yeah pretty much what I thought but its kinda easier to get someone elses opinion aswell. Got the 1070 just recently and with 1700 in it I almost get the same performance as with the rx 480… maybe better frame time as it feels smoother but not much more fps. Just want to get something that can run the 1070 nicely.

[boggy77]

paired with a 1070, whatever you chose won't make a huge difference, they have pretty similar performance when paired with high end cards. with mid range cards, that difference is even smaller.

[MrlUnleashed]

2 minutes ago, Naijin said:

For gaming only, I have to agree with what @porinajust posted. The 3500x would be the better choice, if you can find one, with the 2700x coming in second.

3500X was what I first looked into since its available for a lot cheaper than 3600 and I dont really need the extra threads. Really wanted to get a second opinion since some say 3500X isnt really worth it but it seems to be the best option.

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, MrlUnleashed said:

3500X is just an option since its the cheapes 3000 series part (only cheaper is the 3100).

would wait and see if the 3600 returns to stock or becomes available on the used market. 

 

3500x should be avoided for the same reason that other 6c/6t parts should be avoided. which is due to lacking threadcount causing worse frametime performance. 

[MrlUnleashed]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

would wait and see if the 3600 returns to stock or becomes available on the used market. 

 

3500x should be avoided for the same reason that other 6c/6t parts should be avoided. which is due to lacking threadcount causing worse frametime performance. 

Not sure was it hardware unboxed review or on their site but the frame time was a lot worse than on the 3600 in their testing, average fps wasnt that much different. 

[FakeFBI]

arnt they all the fucking same the 2700x is fine tbh, as it competes wth zen 2 ryzen 5, so get a fujkin 2700x if you want extra cores ut same as ryzen 5 3600

[MrlUnleashed]

I might check the used market if anything pops up, people now mostly sell first and second gen parts.

 

So Ill look if the 3600 price comes back down or if I find a good deal on 2700/2700X lets say. 

 

2600 is the cheapest but I dont really see it giving much more than my 1700.

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, MrlUnleashed said:

Not sure was it hardware unboxed review or on their site but the frame time was a lot worse than on the 3600 in their testing, average fps wasnt that much different. 

i mean the testing isnt really different from what we see from th 8600k, 9600k. so its not something id suggest getting at all. 

 

in fact id probably argue for a 3300x over the 3500x

 

as such id just do the following:

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

would wait and see if the 3600 returns to stock or becomes available on the used market. 

 

[MrlUnleashed]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

i mean the testing isnt really different from what we see from th 8600k, 9600k. so its not something id suggest getting at all. 

 

in fact id probably argue for a 3300x over the 3500x

 

as such id just do the following:

 

3300X went for a good price and I know its an awesome performer but its unavailable unfortunately.

 

But yeah its worth waiting for a bit more, I really dont want to make a small upgrade it makes no sense.

3600 or 2700 and up it is then. 

[porina]

29 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

3500x should be avoided for the same reason that other 6c/6t parts should be avoided. which is due to lacking threadcount causing worse frametime performance. 

We have to be careful what to compare against. I'd expect a 6c6t to generally perform better than a similar 4c8t for example, but not as well as 6c12t.

 

21 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

in fact id probably argue for a 3300x over the 3500x

Makes me wonder if there is some testing that shows this. I'd expect a 3500X to beat a 3300X in most scenarios. The cases where 3300X might get ahead are if the load is lightly threaded and relies more on boost clock, the software has extremely good thread scaling (it would have to match or beat Cinebench), or the software is adversely affected by multiple CCX.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, porina said:

I'd expect a 3500X to beat a 3300X in most scenarios.

i wouldnt say otherwise. its a fairly niche scenario where it has a notable affect, and its probably something you would notice rather than the lower average framerate. 

 

2 minutes ago, porina said:

The cases where 3300X might get ahead are if the load is lightly threaded and relies more on boost clock, the software has extremely good thread scaling (it would have to match or beat Cinebench), or the software is adversely affected by multiple CCX.

those cases and titles where for some reason the game engine doesnt like having less than 7 threads to play with. 

 

2 minutes ago, porina said:

We have to be careful what to compare against. I'd expect a 6c6t to generally perform better than a similar 4c8t for example, but not as well as 6c12t.

i mean i wouldnt argue for the 3300X at the same price as the 3500x, but its a combination of buying something we know have threadcount issues. and probably paying more for it. 

 

and if you then have the option to wait, id suggest doing that, as buying into dead-end stuff when you arguably have something decent is a bit "eh"

[porina]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

those cases and titles where for some reason the game engine doesnt like having less than 7 threads to play with. 

Such as? Unless there is some real reason for 7+ threads that absolutely have to run at the same time, it is more a throughput question and 6c6t will get through the work typically faster than a 4c8t would.

[Guest]

I vote 2700x. Just to avoid the thread and core count remorse.

 

3500x vs 2700x single core difference is in single digits.

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

Such as?

iirc battlefield 5 showed some signs of it. 

 

i cant really recall offf the top of my head. its a relatvily minor issue more prevelant on 4c/4t CPUs. 

 

some i could quickly find: (testing by Hardware Unboxed, from the 3600 review)

Spoiler

minor: not really noticable.

iirc there are like a couple of other titles that show similar behavior. these examples do show 4c/8t not doing all that great, take that for what you will

3 minutes ago, porina said:

Unless there is some real reason for 7+ threads that absolutely have to run at the same time, it is more a throughput question and 6c6t will get through the work typically faster than a 4c8t would.

dont really have an exact reason for why some titles like having a certain number of threads to work with. 

[porina]

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

some i could quickly find: (testing by Hardware Unboxed, from the 3600 review)

https://www.techspot.com/review/1966-amd-ryzen-5-3500x/

Why didn't I think of that, they also tested the 3500X. I stand corrected, in their testing the 2700X is ahead most of the time. I was probably internally thinking more about older titles than those used, where fast>wide.

 

[GoldenLag]

20 hours ago, porina said:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1966-amd-ryzen-5-3500x/

Why didn't I think of that, they also tested the 3500X. I stand corrected, in their testing the 2700X is ahead most of the time. I was probably internally thinking more about older titles than those used, where fast>wide.

 

its worth noting its not really a major issue, but its something to consider. its not like the 4c/4t which is essentially a no-go these days unless you have no other option

[porina]

22 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

its worth noting its not really a major issue, but its something to consider. its not like the 4c/4t which is essentially a no-go these days unless you have no other option

Yeah, there's different levels of performance and 4/4 is going to struggle on modern games. I just sold my 5675C system which was a struggle, and I'm not looking forward to doing same on 6600k. While I don't agree with the following statement for new stuff, it does seem to apply better for used parts: "There's are no bad products, only bad prices". At the right price, someone will take it.