gaming Ryzen 5 1600X or Core i5-7600K? Which wiil be better for gaming??

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, othertomperson said:

To an extent, but the 7600k overclocks well enough that hyperthreading doesn't matter so much. The 7700k is only marginally ahead.

Not marginally.... Any 4C/8T or higher CPU will be better right now.

As you can see the 3.8GHz 7600K gets beaten by the 3.2GHz 6900K. So even a 5GHz i5 won't be better than a 4C/8T or higher CPU.

[tom_w141]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

How about minimums? Minimums are more important than averages (IMO)...assuming the averages are close enough...

If only more people realised this.

[Cracklingice]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

I.e.

i3->Pentiums (already has happen...ish)

i5->i3

Consumer i7->i5

Extreme/enthusiast 6c/12t i7->Consumer i7

8c/16t+ enthusiast i7s

I agree that we'll see 2/2 celeron, 2/4 pentium, 4/4 i3, 4/8 i5 and 6/12 i7.  We'll also see 8+ high core one gen older enthusiast and 6 core current generation enthusiast.  

With intels move towards enterprise first I think we'll see low core count new generation first on enthusiast, followed by consumer chips within 3-5 months and then 3-5 months after the consumer high core count versions with high core count on the same generation 3-5 months after that.  Possibly with a flip of the consumer and high core count if they're confident in their ability to produce the high core count in high enough yields without first refining by making the consumer chips, though I think the consumer chip run will give them a good amount of experience in perfecting the process so they'll probably stick with the consumer in the middle strategy.

[knightslugger]

i think if yall are whining about gaming speeds you aught to shut down a few cores and overclock the snot out of the remaining ones. what's the difference? you ain't using those cores anyway right?

[Cartoons Plural]

The 7600k gives a little better averages right now. That being said, 4 threads is what I would consider the minimum in 2017.

 

R5 1600 and 1600x (you should be considering the former instead) gives better minimums. With 12 threads it's going to have some headroom leftover.

 

Conclusion: You'll be happy with either chip right now. Later on down the line though? I think the better investment is the 1600.

[Cracklingice]

29 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

i think if yall are whining about gaming speeds you aught to shut down a few cores and overclock the snot out of the remaining ones. what's the difference? you ain't using those cores anyway right?

Sadly I have seen zero evidence that fewer cores result in higher clocks. 4-4.1 seems to be the conventional cooling (air, water) ceiling for Ryzen.

[Newbie0]

14 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Get a Ryzen 5 1600 (non X) or an i7-7700 (non K) with a B250 motherboard

Why Non X or Non K??
Isn't the 1600X gives me more clock?

[PCGuy_5960]

52 minutes ago, noobie1 said:

Why Non X or Non K??
Isn't the 1600X gives me more clock?

Non K, because it is cheaper and comes with a cooler. Non X, because it is cheaper and you can easily OC it to the same speeds as the X

[Conan1600]

1 hour ago, noobie1 said:

Why Non X or Non K??
Isn't the 1600X gives me more clock?

Personally i never bother with non k chips in MY personal rig. OCing is a large boost on intel i5/i7 and the price of k vs non k is too close not to buy k. on the ryzen platform the non x as on this generation almost all sku OC to the same or close to the same point and all sku's are overclockable.