Ryzen 5 1500X vs 1600: worth extra $30 for 2 extra cores?

[maartendc]

Hi all,

 

So I'm choosing the parts for my new PC..

 

It will be firstly used for gaming, but in a year or so, I'm going to start doing a lot of 3D modelling and rendering, so it should also act as a solid workstation.

 

Now: I'm on the fence between the 1500x quad core at $190 and the 1600 hex-core at $220. For only $30 more you get 2 more cores, so that sounds like a great deal. But I'm already stretching my budget, so I want to keep it as cheap as possible.

I know in gaming, the difference between the two is small.

 

However, will it really make a difference in rendering and modelling to have those 2 extra cores. Or is 4 cores / 8 threads plenty already? What would you get in my case?

 

Also, which memory speed do you guys recommend. I've heard Ryzen depends on memory speed a lot. Is DDR4-3000 fast enough? Or DDR4-3200? Even faster? Is it worth saving some money on the R5 1500X and then buying DDR4-3400 or 3600 with the savings?

 

Thanks!

[Princess Luna]

Of course it is, for what is worth I would go straight with the 1600x to ensure rocking 4ghz on all those 6 cores, RIP i7 6800k

 

Also I am fairly pleased with the memory at 2933mhz(3000mhz stick) but I believe the 3200mhz would be ideal for those extra fps in gaming.

[The Benjamins]

the 2 extra cores will go a long way in 3D modeling and rendering, and 3000 Mhz ram is fine.

[RAM555789]

1 minute ago, maartendc said:

Hi all,

 

So I'm choosing the parts for my new PC..

 

It will be firstly used for gaming, but in a year or so, I'm going to start doing a lot of 3D modelling and rendering, so it should also act as a solid workstation.

 

Now: I'm on the fence between the 1500x quad core at $190 and the 1600 hex-core at $220. For only $30 more you get 2 more cores, so that sounds like a great deal. But I'm already stretching my budget, so I want to keep it as cheap as possible.

I know in gaming, the difference between the two is small.

 

However, will it really make a difference in rendering and modelling to have those 2 extra cores. Or is 4 cores / 8 threads plenty already? What would you get in my case?

 

Also, which memory speed do you guys recommend. I've heard Ryzen depends on memory speed a lot. Is DDR4-3000 fast enough? Or DDR4-3200? Even faster? Is it worth saving some money on the R5 1500X and then buying DDR4-3400 or 3600 with the savings?

 

Thanks!

From what I have seen, the architecture of the 1600 with that extra core "unlocked" (2 since one gets unlocked on each side) really helps to improve performance. I would say that you will defiantly see an improvement. If your system was just for gaming you could get away with just the 1500x but for workstation, if you can afford it, the 1600 will be a real nice sweet point.

[tom_w141]

Absolutely yes

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Of course it is, for what is worth I would go straight with the 1600x to ensure rocking 4ghz on all those 6 cores, RIP i7 6800k

 

Also I am fairly pleased with the memory at 2933mhz(3000mhz stick) but I believe the 3200mhz would be ideal for those extra fps in gaming.

I half agree. Just like the 1700, the plain 1600 non X can do 4GHz just fine. I helped someone from this forum set his up a couple days ago. @jjohnthedon1

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, maartendc said:

However, will it really make a difference in rendering and modelling to have those 2 extra cores. Or is 4 cores / 8 threads plenty already? What would you get in my case?

 

You're really going to have to decide that on your own, but yes 2 extra cores will make a noticeable difference in most rendering situations.  Whether or not it's worth the extra expense is completely up to you.  

 

Can the 4 core do it, yes.  Will the 6c do it better.  More then likely.

[EPPHO]

1600 for sure

[DocSwag]

Definitely worth it, no doubts about it.

[BloodyWaters]

I'd 100% go for it. 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

i half agree. Just like the 1700, the plain 1600 non X can do 4GHz just fine. I helped someone from this forum set his up a couple days ago.

Sure... but I'm the type that buys the 1800x to have the overlocked 1700 performance at stock without stressing the CPU Sadly I know OP is on the budget and 1600 is the way to go, but like we all know those 2 cores indeed value the 30 bucks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

R5 1600, B350 motherboard, 16GB 3200mhz DDR4 --> i recommend at this point.

[tom_w141]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Sure... but I'm the type that buys the 1800x to have the overlocked 1700 performance at stock without stressing the CPU Sadly I know OP is on the budget and 1600 is the way to go, but like we all know those 2 cores indeed value the 30 bucks.

You know the 1800X stock is still stressing an R7 zen cpu in the same way right? To confirm I have ran my 1700 at my friends 1800X stock settings including voltage. Due to them all being unlocked there is very little between the Zen CPUs - this is exactly the reason that intel do lock theirs, they want to sell you that 7700k instead of a 7700 that you can overclock to K levels.

 

EDIT: The difference is the small (~23% chance) that you can achieve beyond 4GHz

 

In summary the 1700 is for the tweaker and the 1800X is for the "fit and forget" user or business user. Sample applies to the 1600 and 1600X

[Princess Luna]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

.

Naah

When you rock the 1800x at stock it works with a lot less stressing than the 1700 overclocked, this videos talks about it... regardless the CPU is not for gaming but content creation and running at stock has been more than sufficient for the workloads.

 

If anything I bought the CPU with the pre-order discount way back, therefore the paid price was equal of the 1700 right now so don't worry for me

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Naah

When you rock the 1800x at stock it works with a lot less stressing than the 1700 overclocked, this videos talks about it... regardless the CPU is not for gaming but content creation and running at stock has been more than sufficient for the workloads.

 

If anything I bought the CPU with the pre-order discount way back, therefore the paid price was equal of the 1700 right now so don't worry for me

*facepalm* ok so if chip A is a 1700 and chip B is an 1800X and both chip A and B are set at 3.9GHz 1.35V then NEITHER is being "stressed" more than the other. The only reason to buy an 1800X is the chance to reach that 4.1GHz. Also as much as I like LTT that video was out of date on release in terms of BIOS updates and its an overclocking guide so not sure of the relevance...

 

Stores had a preorder discount? 1st i've heard of it. I preordered my 1700 and at the time there was a £160 price difference.

[Xandaaa]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Naah

When you rock the 1800x at stock it works with a lot less stressing than the 1700 overclocked, this videos talks about it... regardless the CPU is not for gaming but content creation and running at stock has been more than sufficient for the workloads.

 

If anything I bought the CPU with the pre-order discount way back, therefore the paid price was equal of the 1700 right now so don't worry for me

I was about to link this vid as well...

[Princess Luna]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

.

I understand your point but you're ignoring the 1800x was made to operate on higher frequency, thus why it won't stress as much, if you overclock an i5 6600k to 4.2ghz it will be stressing more than the i7 6700k at stock because that is its native frequency, it isn't going "OVER-its-clock" get it?

 

I'm not going to extend this discussion because I don't suppose you're willing to change your thinking here, but thrown my 2 cents.

 

3 minutes ago, Xandaaa said:

I was about to link this vid as well...

Yes it is a good video, BIOS version has nothing to do with the physical stressing of the CPU therefore it is completely up-to-date for this matter indeed.

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I understand your point but you're ignoring the 1800x was made to operate on higher frequency, thus why it won't stress as much, if you overclock an i5 6600k to 4.2ghz it will be stressing more than the i7 6700k at stock because that is its native frequency, it isn't going "OVER-its-clock" get it?

 

I'm not going to extend this discussion because I don't suppose you're willing to change your thinking here, but thrown my 2 cents.

 

Yes it is a good video, BIOS version has nothing to do with the physical stressing of the CPU therefore it is completely up-to-date for this matter indeed.

I'm also not up for a debate with a brick wall but i'll have 1 last try  if voltage is the same please tell me how 1 can possibly be working "harder"

 

I can link better videos that say the contrary but if we must use the LTT video please see frame 3:54 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

I'm also not up for a debate with a brick wall but i'll have 1 last try  if voltage is the same please tell me how 1 can possible be working "harder"

You call me a brick wall and expect me to even try to reply properly?

 

Have a fine day.

[tom_w141]

19 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

You call me a brick wall and expect me to even try to reply properly?

 

Have a fine day.

Sounds like more of a cop out because you know you are wrong and can't answer the question I asked  but yes good day to you too  

 

EDIT: Mhm thats what I thought  And saying a special preorder discount that made your 1800X the same price as 1700 is a blatant lie.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

We can all link videos

[jjohnthedon1]

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

Hi all,

 

So I'm choosing the parts for my new PC..

 

It will be firstly used for gaming, but in a year or so, I'm going to start doing a lot of 3D modelling and rendering, so it should also act as a solid workstation.

 

Now: I'm on the fence between the 1500x quad core at $190 and the 1600 hex-core at $220. For only $30 more you get 2 more cores, so that sounds like a great deal. But I'm already stretching my budget, so I want to keep it as cheap as possible.

I know in gaming, the difference between the two is small.

 

However, will it really make a difference in rendering and modelling to have those 2 extra cores. Or is 4 cores / 8 threads plenty already? What would you get in my case?

 

Also, which memory speed do you guys recommend. I've heard Ryzen depends on memory speed a lot. Is DDR4-3000 fast enough? Or DDR4-3200? Even faster? Is it worth saving some money on the R5 1500X and then buying DDR4-3400 or 3600 with the savings?

 

Thanks!

Please get the 1600

it keeps up with my 4790k in term of fps 

but is a lot smoother in gaming 

and kills it in everything else

 

tom helped me oc to 4ghz ram at 2933

and set the power state for downclocking at idle 

 

amazing CPU 

[Simon771]

Once I decide to buy Ryzen I'm going with 1700 ... it might not overclock to 4,0GHz on all cores, but for now I have seen that every 1700 can handle 3,85GHz on all cores without any problems. Those additional 150MHz ... meh, not such a huge difference.

 

SO yes, go with 1600, 2 extra cores are more than worth of those 30$ more.

[zelix]

For me I was going with the 1500X then when I was at the store, it dawned on me that it was $40 dollars more for a 1600. It was an easy choice to opt up for my budget budget build.

[ColoradoClydesdale]

To the OP:  Get the 1600, just so you won't be wishing in a year that you had forked over the extra $30 for the better part.  I think you won't go wrong with 3000 or 3200MHz memory.  Memory speeds are finicky right now, but I believe these will get worked out with bios updates (it's already gotten a lot better).

 

RE: 1700 vs.1800x, or 1600 vs. 1600X.  These are the exact same layout -- there is only ONE Ryzen design.  BUT, all semiconductors have a max. frequency distribution (ie the silicon lottery), and the X parts MIGHT be binned to higher specs.  So, do you feel lucky, or do you want the sure thing?