1500x vs 1600

[SSJGodemis]

 My mobo for my 2600(non-k) went dead a couple of days ago. I tried to toss in an older LGA 1155 mobo I had laying around and cant get it to boot. I really dont wanna spend more money on an old and mostly dead platform. Right now I am gaming at 4k with a 1080Ti as well.  I like Intel but I dont really wanna spend the extra money on an I7-7700k when I game at 60fps at 4k anyways.  So I am looking at the 1500x and 1600. I know they probably wont be a step up in single threaded performance gaming but they look to be a massive increase for everything else I use my PC for.  They both fit pretty well in my budget. However, I want to get the best bang for my buck. Is the 1600 worth the extra cash? 

 

 

[79wjd]

I'd get the 1600 because it's usually only like $20 more for 50% more multithreaded performance (which won't matter so much in games right now, but it may in the future), and it's better if you do anything heavily threaded.

[Emberstone]

And you can still overclock the 1600 to match the slightly higher out-of-the-box clock speed of the 1500X, or higher, if you need performance in single-threaded applications/games. I would highly advise doing so. The performance gains are pretty good.

[SSJGodemis]

1 minute ago, Emberstone said:

And you can still overclock the 1600 to match the slightly higher out-of-the-box clock speed of the 1500X, or higher, if you need performance in single-threaded applications/games. I would highly advise doing so. The performance gains are pretty good.

I didn't get a cooler for it yet as I heard the wraith spire is a pretty decent cooler in its own right. What Cooler are you using for yours? 

[Emberstone]

7 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

I didn't get a cooler for it yet as I heard the wraith spire is a pretty decent cooler in its own right. What Cooler are you using for yours? 

I have a 1600X, so I'm using a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo as it doesn't come with a cooler itself. I was able to achieve a 4.0 GHz overclock at 1.331v with torture tests like Prime95 and Aida64 pushing temps no higher than 75 C, and it games around 50 to 60 C.

 

If you opt for the 1600 the stock cooler is pretty solid. I think people like Paul's Hardware and BitWit on YouTube both have overclocking overviews on the stock coolers, so you can get an idea of where they'll take you in terms of overclocking performance.

 

It was probably dumb of me to buy a 1600X over the 1600, but I was planning on buying my own cooler anyway as I do prefer to turn on the overclock when my chip ages a bit, so I figured why not as they, supposedly, overclock better than the non-X variants. I can't complain with 4.0 GHz at 1.33v, though. That seems pretty good as far as I can tell based on what I've been seeing about Ryzen overclocking. I typically see people needing around 1.375 to 1.4v to get that high.

[SSJGodemis]

1 hour ago, Emberstone said:

I have a 1600X, so I'm using a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo as it doesn't come with a cooler itself. I was able to achieve a 4.0 GHz overclock at 1.331v with torture tests like Prime95 and Aida64 pushing temps no higher than 75 C, and it games around 50 to 60 C.

 

If you opt for the 1600 the stock cooler is pretty solid. I think people like Paul's Hardware and BitWit on YouTube both have overclocking overviews on the stock coolers, so you can get an idea of where they'll take you in terms of overclocking performance.

 

It was probably dumb of me to buy a 1600X over the 1600, but I was planning on buying my own cooler anyway as I do prefer to turn on the overclock when my chip ages a bit, so I figured why not as they, supposedly, overclock better than the non-X variants. I can't complain with 4.0 GHz at 1.33v, though. That seems pretty good as far as I can tell based on what I've been seeing about Ryzen overclocking. I typically see people needing around 1.375 to 1.4v to get that high.

Nice. I would be happy hitting 3.9 or 4.0 ghz with it. It looks simply enough to OC the chip also. My biggest concern is the ram. I got 3000mhz and am wondering how close to that I will actually get. Most people are still getting in the 2600 range for Ram. 

 

[Emberstone]

1 hour ago, SSJGodemis said:

Nice. I would be happy hitting 3.9 or 4.0 ghz with it. It looks simply enough to OC the chip also. My biggest concern is the ram. I got 3000mhz and am wondering how close to that I will actually get. Most people are still getting in the 2600 range for Ram.

I'm only able to get 2400 MHz out of my kit right now, but I'm certain it will get better with time. Mine is a 3200 MHz kit.

[He_162]

Ryzen will use all of the cores in a single CCX in sync to get the highest IPC possible in single threaded applications, not all, but some.

 

For example:
Arma 3 will run extremely well on this CPU (Ryzen 5 1600) as it uses all 3 cores, and 6 threads in a single core complex in sync to run certain commands in game, and the high amount of onboard cache allows this CPU to "pre-load" a lot of things before they are needed.

 

That being said, Arma 3 runs better on the Ryzen 5 1600, than it does on the i7-7700k, as long as you have a GTX 1070 or worse GPU, the maximum frames will be completely dependant on the GPU, but the minimums will be far higher than on a 7700k, and I have not experienced a single frame drop since I upgraded.

 

My i7-4790k performed far worse in Arma.

 

Other games that run this well on the Ryzen CPU:
Ark: Survival Evolved

Conan Exiles

Arma 2
DayZ standalone

H1Z1
Player Unknown's Battlegrounds
Kerbal Space Program
Space Engineers

[SSJGodemis]

7 hours ago, He_162 said:

Ryzen will use all of the cores in a single CCX in sync to get the highest IPC possible in single threaded applications, not all, but some.

 

For example:
Arma 3 will run extremely well on this CPU (Ryzen 5 1600) as it uses all 3 cores, and 6 threads in a single core complex in sync to run certain commands in game, and the high amount of onboard cache allows this CPU to "pre-load" a lot of things before they are needed.

 

That being said, Arma 3 runs better on the Ryzen 5 1600, than it does on the i7-7700k, as long as you have a GTX 1070 or worse GPU, the maximum frames will be completely dependant on the GPU, but the minimums will be far higher than on a 7700k, and I have not experienced a single frame drop since I upgraded.

 

My i7-4790k performed far worse in Arma.

 

Other games that run this well on the Ryzen CPU:
Ark: Survival Evolved

Conan Exiles

Arma 2
DayZ standalone

H1Z1
Player Unknown's Battlegrounds
Kerbal Space Program
Space Engineers

That is super interesting to me. I have had some difficulties with my I7 2600. I get good fps in many games with a GTX 1080 Ti at 4k but then have some really hard frame drops where it is practically freezing.  My Mobo went down and am not gonna invest more money in a 6 year old platform so I just bought the Ryzen 5 1600. I am really hoping that those minimums due great. 

[Princess Luna]

Short answer; the 1600 is worth it's cost.

[jjohnthedon1]

It will be a single thread increase in performance too once overclocked as it is inbetween has well and broad well in terms of ipc

 

id go for the 1600 and clock to 4ghz

 

the added threads really help with the fps minimums and will be more "future proof"

 

It's really worth it,

 

currently i have 2 builds and I game on my 1600 at 4ghz over my 4790k at 4.8