Ryzen 1600 or 1700

[uncfan07]

Looking to upgrade from my 1500x. Primarily used for gaming and will be paired with a GTX 1080 or maybe a 1080 TI. They are about $60-$70 price difference and just wondering if gaming performance would differ enough to justify the price.

[Aeternalis]

I have a 1700 and love it but if you're just going to game I'd take the 1600 and OC it.

[knightslugger]

6 minutes ago, uncfan07 said:

Looking to upgrade from my 1500x. Primarily used for gaming and will be paired with a GTX 1080 or maybe a 1080 TI. They are about $60-$70 price difference and just wondering if gaming performance would differ enough to justify the price.

depends on the game, but on the whole, very little will change. You'd want a 1700 if you were multitasking (playing a game WHILE streaming) or need speed for encoding or other heavy multi-core leveraged applications.

[ProximaOfZeal]

Wouldn't it be better to wait those what, 2 months? For the Ryzen 2x00 series, and upgrade to one of those? If I understand correctly, they should be backward compatible with Ryzen 1st gen mobos. If you already have a Ryzen cpu it feels like a waste to upgrade to the same generation now...

[DocSwag]

If you're just gaming definitely 1600. However, you may want to consider Covfefe Lake or Ryzen 2 instead.

[uncfan07]

Ok, did not realize that Ryzen 2 would be coming in just 2 months. If thats the case then i can wait and see what the 1600 successor will be. I wont be streaming or editing.

[ARikozuM]

If you have the 1500X, just waiting for the Ryzen+ will be better for you. 

[iiNNeX]

1500X to 1600 is no upgrade, nor is 1700. They all have the same IPC. Also they will all bottleneck a 1080/1080ti pretty badly in some games. Unless of course you play at 60fps (on a 60hz) screen, then you will be fine.

 

I know because I am currently testing a 1600 with a 1080ti

[knightslugger]

19 minutes ago, iiNNeX said:

Also they will all bottleneck a 1080/1080ti pretty badly in some games.

Can you name one? I have yet to experience a CPU bottleneck (meaning CPU is at 100% and the GPU is not) with my 1700x and a 1080ti.

[uncfan07]

22 minutes ago, iiNNeX said:

1500X to 1600 is no upgrade, nor is 1700. They all have the same IPC. Also they will all bottleneck a 1080/1080ti pretty badly in some games. Unless of course you play at 60fps (on a 60hz) screen, then you will be fine.

 

I know because I am currently testing a 1600 with a 1080ti

I have a Dell 1440p 144hz Gsync monitor

 

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, uncfan07 said:

I have a Dell 1440p 144hz Gsync monitor

 

1080ti at those refresh resolutions.

[iiNNeX]

32 minutes ago, uncfan07 said:

I have a Dell 1440p 144hz Gsync monitor

 

You are better off switching to an intel CPU. Ryzen will not get you to those framerates most of the time, even at Low settings. Then again it all depends on what games exactly you play, but honestly i7 8600k is a good cheap way of getting what you need.

[iiNNeX]

38 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Can you name one? I have yet to experience a CPU bottleneck (meaning CPU is at 100% and the GPU is not) with my 1700x and a 1080ti.

The CPU does not need to be at a 100% for you to have an IPC bottleneck mate...

 

BF1 is a good example, so is escape from tarkov, gta V ect.... Look at GPU usage, it is usually hovering between 45-65%. That is not normal, on both 6700k and my 7700k the GPU usage was in the 90s, but my 1600 at 3.9ghz sits at around 75-80% usage and yet it still is unable to keep up with the instructions due to it's low IPC.

 

edit: Here is a good bottleneck example of IPC:

 

[xg32]

2 hours ago, uncfan07 said:

Looking to upgrade from my 1500x. Primarily used for gaming and will be paired with a GTX 1080 or maybe a 1080 TI. They are about $60-$70 price difference and just wondering if gaming performance would differ enough to justify the price.

both the 1600 and 1700 would bottleneck the 1080 or 1080 ti depending on ur monitor refresh rates, unless ur sure u need more cores just keep the 1500x and at least wait for the zen + in april.

[stealth80]

10 minutes ago, xg32 said:

both the 1600 and 1700 would bottleneck the 1080 or 1080 ti depending on ur monitor refresh rates, unless ur sure u need more cores just keep the 1500x and at least wait for the zen + in april.

my 1080 is not bottlenecked at 1440P with 1700 @ 4ghz. There isn't many games (new) that will run max settings 1440P on even a 1080ti at above 100FPS (maybe doom, overwatch)

[xg32]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

my 1080 is not bottlenecked at 1440P with 1700 @ 4ghz. There isn't many games (new) that will run max settings 1440P on even a 1080ti at above 100FPS (maybe doom, overwatch)

op has a 1080p monitor at 144hz. the 1080 ti runs max settings at 1440p@120fps with some slight adjustments, a 1070 is the most i'd pair with a 1600 or 1700, but that should hopefully change with zen+.

 

It's unrealistic to expect a 4ghz oc on a 1700 with a b350 board, i know someone that swapped his ryzen build because he couldn't play some of the games @120

 

[uncfan07]

5 minutes ago, xg32 said:

op has a 1080p monitor at 144hz. the 1080 ti runs max settings at 1440p@120fps with some slight adjustments, a 1070 is the most i'd pair with a 1600 or 1700, but that should hopefully change with zen+.

 

It's unrealistic to expect a 4ghz oc on a 1700 with a b350 board, i know someone that swapped his ryzen build because he couldn't play some of the games @120

 

I got a 1440p 144hz

[xg32]

Just now, uncfan07 said:

I got a 1440p 144hz

ya i'd gone with intel for 144hz, but with zen+ coming out with better memory support, i'd wait til then to upgrade in your case, i'm guessing a 5-10% ipc improvement.

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, xg32 said:

op has a 1080p monitor at 144hz. 

You sure?

 

2 hours ago, uncfan07 said:

I have a Dell 1440p 144hz Gsync monitor

 

Ok now that's addressed

 

It would be less than a handful of games that are affected, I actually seen an increase in performance going from a 4790k to my 1700, initially it was a little slower, which was due to ram been down at 2400. But as new bios's were released, it eventually got faster than the trusty i7.

 

3 hours ago, uncfan07 said:

Looking to upgrade from my 1500x. Primarily used for gaming and will be paired with a GTX 1080 or maybe a 1080 TI. They are about $60-$70 price difference and just wondering if gaming performance would differ enough to justify the price.

1500X to 1700 isn't going to net you much extra FPS and it would only be in multithreaded games, which are rare to the extent of 8+. Wait for Zen+, I'm gonna be watching closely, rumours are daft, but I can see clocks of 4.4ghz when overclocked been likely, hopefully better ram speed support, I'm not expecting any IPC improvements though. Either way, you either get a newer faster chip, or you pick up an older one for less $$$ simply by waiting 9 weeks or so

[Ebony Falcon]

8 hours ago, iiNNeX said:

You are better off switching to an intel CPU. Ryzen will not get you to those framerates most of the time, even at Low settings. Then again it all depends on what games exactly you play, but honestly i7 8600k is a good cheap way of getting what you need.

I game at 144hz with ryzen you talking like he will only get 70 fps and Intel he will have 200 lol 

ryzen is a perfectly fine cpu for high fps gaming 

I get 350 in csgo

300 in ow

150 in bf1

150 Star Wars battlefront 

cod ww 2 150

bf4 200 if I drop msaa

witcher 3 110 (8700k is no better here)

the relavens of the 10 fps you get with Intel is beyond negligible 

[Ebony Falcon]

7 hours ago, stealth80 said:

You sure?

 

Ok now that's addressed

 

It would be less than a handful of games that are affected, I actually seen an increase in performance going from a 4790k to my 1700, initially it was a little slower, which was due to ram been down at 2400. But as new bios's were released, it eventually got faster than the trusty i7.

 

1500X to 1700 isn't going to net you much extra FPS and it would only be in multithreaded games, which are rare to the extent of 8+. Wait for Zen+, I'm gonna be watching closely, rumours are daft, but I can see clocks of 4.4ghz when overclocked been likely, hopefully better ram speed support, I'm not expecting any IPC improvements though. Either way, you either get a newer faster chip, or you pick up an older one for less $$$ simply by waiting 9 weeks or so

Is it really faster now than ur 4790k ? 

Do u have any stats please ? 

I had a 4770 ages ago 

were you overclocked 

[stealth80]

4 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Is it really faster now than ur 4790k ? 

Do u have any stats please ? 

I had a 4770 ages ago 

were you overclocked 

4790k was at 4.6ghz all cores

 

94.5 ish FPS

 

Once Ryzen ram was up, bios updates etc, I got 99.7 FPS

 

All here

 

 

[Ebony Falcon]

1 hour ago, stealth80 said:

4790k was at 4.6ghz all cores

 

94.5 ish FPS

 

Once Ryzen ram was up, bios updates etc, I got 99.7 FPS

 

All here

 

 

A fair enough tomb raider did get patched for it tho I went from 110 to 140 on a 1080ti 

[Emberstone]

21 hours ago, knightslugger said:

Can you name one? I have yet to experience a CPU bottleneck (meaning CPU is at 100% and the GPU is not) with my 1700x and a 1080ti.

This is a common misconception, but the CPU doesn’t have to be at 100% for there to be a CPU bottleneck.

 

If whatever primary thread(s) that a game uses are maxed out, that’s the CPU bottleneck.

 

For example, Heroes of the Storm is horrendously single-threaded. It only uses one core. If that core is maxed, the GPU will see no further usage beyond what it’s currently at. I get about 50-60% on my 1070 with an 8700K in Heroes. I only got 20-30% usage in HotS on an R5-1600X overclocked to 4.0 GHz.

 

Both CPUs are nowhere near maxed, but because of the CPU and how the game uses it, there will be no further performance gains even with a better GPU.

 

So CPU bottlenecking applies differently depending on the application, but you can still have a bottleneck if your individual thread performance isn’t up to the task of the game you’re playing.