r5 2600x vs r7 1700 value for money?

[SupremeGOAT]

Currently and for a limited time there is a sale on the r7 1700 ($70 off) which brings it down to the price range of the newer r5 2600 and r5 2600x. The newer models of ryzen have improvements in their IPC, max clock speed and precision boost technology when compared to last year's models. The r7 1700  however does have a higher core count and better multitasking capabilities which are both good for heavy workloads. At this price point which one is the best value for the money.Your thoughts.

Further details of the comparison are here http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3917vs3955

[AvocadosGuac]

Go for the 1700 for sure, may be a "Gen" older, BUT the extra 2 cores for $20 is worth it IMO. Plus you can OC to approx the same amount.

[GrockleTD]

are you gaming or no?

[Nocte]

Depends on your usage.

Game only: 2600X

Game and workstation (e.g. streaming): 1700

 

The 2600X is capable of streaming and is excellent at workstation tasks as well, but you will probably enjoy the 2 extra cores that the 1700 has to offer more.

[SupremeGOAT]

6 minutes ago, Grockle88 said:

are you gaming or no?

well personally i have my eyes set on the 2700x for gaming in the future and maybe streaming however i am simply curious about the the thoughts for value when concerning these particular items at their current prices.

[Nocte]

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

i am simply curious about the the thoughts for value when concerning these particular items at their current prices.

Value is subjective and it really depends on the use case of the purchaser.

[Morgan MLGman]

3 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

well personally i have my eyes set on the 2700x for gaming in the future and maybe streaming however i am simply curious about the the thoughts for value when concerning these particular items at their current prices.

Again, it depends on what tasks you'll be doing with the CPU. If gaming is your primary aim then get the 2600X for higher clock speeds. Games benefit from more threads than 12 very rarely so the 2600X is a better gaming CPU.

However, when taking into consideration workstation-related workloads, an overclocked 1700 wipes the floor with the 2600X despite the 2600X being already A LOT better at it, than its Intel counterparts in the same price range.

[SupremeGOAT]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Again, it depends on what tasks you'll be doing with the CPU

 

4 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Value is subjective

in the end one has to be a better value for your money in the long run. Keep in mind both are at the same price range both do have cons and pros however which one of them has pros that are worth the money.What i'm asking is which one would you not regret buying for its current price 2 years down the line for either gaming or streaming or both.

[geo3]

IMO single threaded performance is king. Having better IPC and higher clocks can compensate for lack of cores in all tasks to a degree.  The opposite is not true however.  If I'm doing a lightly threaded workload with weak cores, it won't matter if I have 200 of them.

[Biggerboot]

The 2600 is actually going to come pretty close to the 1700 even firing on all cores (those 10 percent IPC gains per core add up).  A fair bit faster in single threaded situations.  Where I think you may be justified in picking up a 1700 instead is so you can get a cheaper motherboard like the B350, but you don't want to go too much cheaper if you plan on that board carrying you for a while on AM4.

All in all I'd get the 2600x.  But best value will vary. 

[Nocte]

3 minutes ago, geo3 said:

Having better IPC and higher clocks can compensate for lack of cores in all tasks to a degree. 

Some dual core machines that I still use beg to differ. Even Windows is noticeably slower in basic tasks because the CPU is often maxed out. 

 

For games IPC is king hands down, for most software that is optimised for multi-threaded workloads, cores rule. 

5 minutes ago, geo3 said:

If I'm doing a lightly threaded workload with weak cores, it won't matter if I have 200 of them.

GPUs would say otherwise  (but it's a long shot comparison). 

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, Eibe said:

GPUs would say otherwise  (but it's a long shot comparison). 

 

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison because if the software isn't optimized to work with more threads, having even thousands of them wouldn't improve performance

[geo3]

3 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Some dual core machines that I still use beg to differ. Even Windows is noticeably slower in basic tasks because the CPU is often maxed out. 

 

For games IPC is king hands down, for most software that is optimised for multi-threaded workloads, cores rule. 

GPUs would say otherwise  (but it's a long shot comparison). 

Your examples are bad.

 

What modern high IPC/clocked dual core are you talking about?

 

GPUs don't run lightly threaded workloads.

[GrockleTD]

hey, how close is current ryzen in terms of ipc to intel stuffs?

[geo3]

1 minute ago, Grockle88 said:

hey, how close is current ryzen in terms of ipc to intel stuffs?

They're pretty close. But the bigger issues is clocks. The best Ryzen at most gets 4.3, maybe 4.4 with really really good cooling. While Intel chips can easily hit 5Ghz and some can go beyond with nothing more than a beefy 3rd party air cooler.

[Santo22]

Right now at Microcenter you can get a 1700 for $199 and there's a $30 rebate. That to me is as steal! $170 for a newer generation 8core cpu that is easily overclockable and will perform just as well as the 1700x once dialed in. Again, my opinion, but this is one of the best value chips at the moment. 

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, Grockle88 said:

hey, how close is current ryzen in terms of ipc to intel stuffs?

About a 20 percent gap, give or take with overclocking considered.

[GrockleTD]

1 hour ago, Biggerboot said:

About a 20 percent gap, give or take with overclocking considered.

holy crap, it's that much? ima go buy a ryzen chip so they can get more R&D funds....

[geo3]

2 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

About a 20 percent gap, give or take with overclocking considered.

You don't consider clock at all though. That's not how IPC works. If you want to bench IPC you would have to set the clock rates the same.

[GrockleTD]

which i would do anyways if i had money.

[SupremeGOAT]

3 minutes ago, Santo22 said:

Right now at Microcenter you can get a 1700 for $199 and there's a $30 rebate. That to me is as steal! $170 for a newer generation 8core cpu that is easily overclockable and will perform just as well as the 1700x once dialed in. Again, my opinion, but this is one of the best value chips at the moment. 

wow that's TRUE VALUE!

[GrockleTD]

1 hour ago, SupremeGOAT said:

wow that's TRUE VALUE!

sarcasm?

[Biggerboot]

3 minutes ago, geo3 said:

You don't consider clock at all though. That's not how IPC works. If you want to bench IPC you would have to set the clock rates the same.

That's true, I might have misspoke there, thinking of single threaded performance instead of Instructions Per Cycle, which aren't the same thing.

4 minutes ago, Grockle88 said:

holy crap, it's that much? ima go buy a ryzen chip so they can get more R&D funds....

Not sure if you're serious.  AMD is doing fine (they're at their best when they get scrappy).

When you compare a 2600x to an 8700k the amount of performance you get for the price is about the same, maybe slightly more on AMD's side.

[SupremeGOAT]

1 minute ago, Grockle88 said:

sarcasm?

NO! if you can get a r7 1700 for $170 that's a STEAL !! IT IS NUMBER 1 VALUE if you can get it.

[Biggerboot]

1 minute ago, SupremeGOAT said:

NO! if you can get a r7 1700 for $170 that's a STEAL !! IT IS NUMBER 1 VALUE if you can get it.

Certainly not a bad deal, but the $30 off for CPUs at Microcenter is on most of their CPUs iirc.