R7 1700 vs R5 1600

[greensauce]

sorry for posting this, I'm aware that this is a really common question, but I still have doubts about it

 

I'm on a tight budget and I'm trying to squeeze parts so it could fit my budget, currently the only thing that fits the budget is a 1600, 

I'll be running multiple softwares most of the time, like Unity, Photoshop, and After Effects (and sometimes Blender/Maya), would a 1600 fit in that scenario, or should I save up and get a 1700?

[LooneyJuice]

You could definitely live with a 1600 if you had to, and if budget is really that tight. Having said that, you are using stuff that will generally leverage the extra threads on a 1700. Especially overclocked, the 1700 would essentially be the most amount of well-priced performance you can get for the platform. It depends on whether you feel the time saved on your work and the extra power you can leverage is worth stretching your budget/saving a bit more.

 

The way I see it, it also eliminates the issue of needing an upgrade on the same platform if indeed you find yourself lacking in power. If this is your work, it's more of an investment than a hobby purchase.

[Mooshi]

Connect it with fast ram and you're golden. Unless you do heavy workloads frequently, a 1600 will do fine and is already better at that stuff than the more expensive 7700k with a heavy overclock.

[greensauce]

On 7/14/2017 at 10:01 PM, LooneyJuice said:

The way I see it, it also eliminates the issue of needing an upgrade on the same platform if indeed you find yourself lacking in power. If this is your work, it's more of an investment than a hobby purchase.

yes, this is exactly what I'm freaking out about, I don't want to find myself regretting my choice down the line and unable to go back with the 1600,

I don't really mind a slightly longer loading time, but I don't want things to get choppy to the point of being an annoyance 

oh and I forgot to mention that I'll be using this for college

 

On 7/14/2017 at 10:16 PM, Mooshi said:

Connect it with fast ram and you're golden. Unless you do heavy workloads frequently, a 1600 will do fine and is already better at that stuff than the more expensive 7700k with a heavy overclock.

come to think of it, I don't really do that much heavy workloads, would the faster ram affect that much?

 

I'm originally planning on getting this RAM  but held back on it because I can't find it in my motherboard of choice's Memory QVL so I opted out to Trident Z, but the problem about is only the RGB variant is in stock which is also not on the Memory QVL

[Emberstone]

An overclocked R5-1600/1600X is basically an i7-6800/6850K in terms of raw performance. Unless you really want to go ham, I think you'll be fine.

[greensauce]

19 hours ago, Emberstone said:

An overclocked R5-1600/1600X is basically an i7-6800/6850K in terms of raw performance. Unless you really want to go ham, I think you'll be fine.

is it hard to overclock ryzen? I've never overclocked a processor before,

extra note, I'll be using the stock cooler that comes with it, is it safe?

[Emberstone]

16 hours ago, greensauce said:

is it hard to overclock ryzen? I've never overclocked a processor before,

extra note, I'll be using the stock cooler that comes with it, is it safe?

Stock cooler is pretty solid. You should get around 3.8 GHz without much issue on that.

 

Ryzen, at least for me, was ridiculously easy to overclock. I just increased the multiplier from Auto to 40x, and upped voltage until it was stable in Prime95 without crashing in a LargeFFT test.

 

Multiplier and voltage were all I touched. I don't think you'll be able to hit 4.0 on a stock cooler, but 3.8 won't be far off. As for how the multiplier works, 38x is 3.8 GHz, 39x is 3.9 GHz, 40 is 4.0 GHz, etc.

 

Just fiddle with it to see what frequency you can achieve with temps below 80 C and voltage below 1.425v. All chips are different.

 

AMD said that voltage is safe up to 1.425v, so be sure not to go above that. I would personally stick below 1.4v just to be safe.

[greensauce]

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

Stock cooler is pretty solid. You should get around 3.8 GHz without much issue on that.

 

Ryzen, at least for me, was ridiculously easy to overclock. I just increased the multiplier from Auto to 40x, and upped voltage until it was stable in Prime95 without crashing in a LargeFFT test.

 

Multiplier and voltage were all I touched. I don't think you'll be able to hit 4.0 on a stock cooler, but 3.8 won't be far off. As for how the multiplier works, 38x is 3.8 GHz, 39x is 3.9 GHz, 40 is 4.0 GHz, etc.

 

Just fiddle with it to see what frequency you can achieve with temps below 80 C and voltage below 1.425v. All chips are different.

 

AMD said that voltage is safe up to 1.425v, so be sure not to go above that. I would personally stick below 1.4v just to be safe.

 

I Just found this video by Paul's Hardware recently, is it safe to overclock this way and leave the pc 'almost 24/7' ?

 

[Emberstone]

1 hour ago, greensauce said:

 

I Just found this video by Paul's Hardware recently, is it safe to overclock this way and leave the pc 'almost 24/7' ?

 

I've asked that question several times, and the general consensus is that your CPU's lifespan won't be dramatically altered as long as your voltage and temperatures are reasonable, like the numbers I outlined in my previous post.

 

Even though overclocking my 1600X has locked the clock speed at 4.0 GHz (it no longer steps up or down based on load), that doesn't mean the CPU is doing 4.0 GHz worth of work 24/7. This is why your idle temps will still be low, and your load temps higher.

 

For what it's worth, altered lifespan or not, that CPU will most likely outlast its useful life anyway.

[cymbalist]

On 7/15/2017 at 6:16 AM, greensauce said:

I'm originally planning on getting this RAM  but held back on it because I can't find it in my motherboard of choice's Memory QVL so I opted out to Trident Z, but the problem about is only the RGB variant is in stock which is also not on the Memory QVL

I have one of those 3200mhz RGB kits running from gkill on an x370 taichi from asrock and those ram sticks aren't on the QVL for that board either. But this is because those sticks are the same as the non rgb version they just have a few led's added. With an up to date BIOS they ran on xmp @3200 without any issues. (careful with MSI boards tho as far as info goes they seem to still have some kinks to work out with ram.

[greensauce]

On 7/17/2017 at 6:31 PM, Emberstone said:

I've asked that question several times, and the general consensus is that your CPU's lifespan won't be dramatically altered as long as your voltage and temperatures are reasonable, like the numbers I outlined in my previous post.

 

Even though overclocking my 1600X has locked the clock speed at 4.0 GHz (it no longer steps up or down based on load), that doesn't mean the CPU is doing 4.0 GHz worth of work 24/7. This is why your idle temps will still be low, and your load temps higher.

 

For what it's worth, altered lifespan or not, that CPU will most likely outlast its useful life anyway.

what would be the sweetspot for overclocked CPU temperature during idle and load?

[greensauce]

On 7/17/2017 at 6:32 PM, cymbalist said:

I have one of those 3200mhz RGB kits running from gkill on an x370 taichi from asrock and those ram sticks aren't on the QVL for that board either. But this is because those sticks are the same as the non rgb version they just have a few led's added. With an up to date BIOS they ran on xmp @3200 without any issues. (careful with MSI boards tho as far as info goes they seem to still have some kinks to work out with ram.

I'll be going with the Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 and in the QVL it includes this running at 2933, the numbers are exactly the same on the taichi's QVL, so should this be fine?

[cymbalist]

20 hours ago, greensauce said:

I'll be going with the Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 and in the QVL it includes this running at 2933, the numbers are exactly the same on the taichi's QVL, so should this be fine?

I took the gamble when i ordered my parts after i looked at a reddit ram list for ryzen and seeing they have the same dies as non rgb versions.

Asrock has a pretty stable RAM support so i personally would get them, not to mention they released a new BIOS recently with an AGESA 1.0.0.6A update. The worst thing that can happen is that you can´t reach the highest speeds (yet).

[greensauce]

On 7/20/2017 at 11:18 PM, cymbalist said:

I took the gamble when i ordered my parts after i looked at a reddit ram list for ryzen and seeing they have the same dies as non rgb versions.

Asrock has a pretty stable RAM support so i personally would get them, not to mention they released a new BIOS recently with an AGESA 1.0.0.6A update. The worst thing that can happen is that you can´t reach the highest speeds (yet).

I'm gonna pull the trigger on this one, fingers crossed, hope it'll do fine.

Thanks for the help!

[jjohnthedon1]

Well easy to oc

i just used voltage till I could pass r15 5 times in a row and Iv not crashed in anything I do yet 

[greensauce]

17 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Well easy to oc

i just used voltage till I could pass r15 5 times in a row and Iv not crashed in anything I do yet 

is there a difference if I overclocked using the ryzen master tool rather than changing settings in the bios?

[jjohnthedon1]

7 hours ago, greensauce said:

is there a difference if I overclocked using the ryzen master tool rather than changing settings in the bios?

Yes you have to do it every time with ryzen master 

it's always better to use the bios 

[greensauce]

16 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Yes you have to do it every time with ryzen master 

it's always better to use the bios 

thank you for clearing that up,

anyways, if I read your signature correctly, you have both the 1700 and the 1600, any thoughts about them?

[jjohnthedon1]

4 hours ago, greensauce said:

thank you for clearing that up,

anyways, if I read your signature correctly, you have both the 1700 and the 1600, any thoughts about them?

Yeah I do  the 1600 is by far the best for the money, it performs the same in all games the 1700 just has a edge in rendering so depends on your work load

but the 1600 is a fucking best at rendering too so really depends if u wanna spend the extra money 

you would be better off with a 1600 and a better gpu 

[Simon771]

Yeah 1600 will be fine.

Also 6 core CPU will stress your VRM less, so there's that.

 

And because it have 2 less cores that 1700, it's easier to cool it down and keep temps in check.

Less power ussage.

Might even get better OC out of it.

 

So yeah, I would say 1600 is worth it.

[jjohnthedon1]

42 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

Yeah 1600 will be fine.

Also 6 core CPU will stress your VRM less, so there's that.

 

And because it have 2 less cores that 1700, it's easier to cool it down and keep temps in check.

Less power ussage.

Might even get better OC out of it.

 

So yeah, I would say 1600 is worth it.

Temps were better for me on the 1700 for some reason 

[Simon771]

1 hour ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Temps were better for me on the 1700 for some reason 

Well that's surelly interesting lol

[jjohnthedon1]

1 hour ago, Simon771 said:

Well that's surelly interesting lol

I know lol although I did use a different method for the thermal paste so could be that but by like 12 degrees better

[greensauce]

Thank you so much for the help, I'll be getting the r5 1600!

[jjohnthedon1]

23 minutes ago, greensauce said:

Thank you so much for the help, I'll be getting the r5 1600!

Good choice mate