Ryzen 7 1700 > Ryzen 5 2600x ?

[minervx]

 

The regular 2600 makes less sense because it's not much cheaper than 1700's at the moment.  The 2600x does offer 10% (?) more clock speed which is perhaps more preferable for gamers that want high frame rates.  However, in the long run, having 2 extra cores is just much better considering that games are moving in a multi-core direction

[PlayStation 2]

Uh... status update?

[minervx]

no

[jones177]

Pay the extra money and get a 2700x. You know you want one.

[minervx]

2 minutes ago, jones177 said:

Pay the extra money and get a 2700x. You know you want one.

33% more for a 10% boost is not efficient.  That money can be spent on 8 GB more RAM, a good SSD or a better video card.

[Razor Blade]

However the Ryzen 5 2600X not only outperforms in single core performance, it outperforms the Ryzen 7 1700 in overall performance in benchmarks.

 

For gaming you would benefit from faster single core performance.

 

As someone with a Ryzen 7 1700X I chose this CPU because the Ryzen 2nd gen didn't exist when I built my machine. The 2nd gen Ryzen is better in pretty much every way...except maybe price. Bottom line is if it were up to me, I would choose the Ryzen 5 2600X over the Ryzen 7 1700.

 

 

Here are mentioned benchmarks.

Ryzen 5 2600X

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+2600X&id=3235

 

Ryzen 7 1700

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+1700&id=2970

[minervx]

If you're only buying your PC for the next year or two, sure, but some people are buying it for the next 5-6 years

[dizmo]

I'd go with the 2600x. Better memory compatibility.

[Razor Blade]

14 minutes ago, minervx said:

If you're only buying your PC for the next year or two, sure, but some people are buying it for the next 5-6 years

Both CPUs should easily last you 5-6 years. I don't see games requiring more than 6 cores anytime soon (maybe ever really). If they did, Intel would be completely screwed.

 

The only reason I'm not upgrading to the R7 2700X is because the difference in rendering performance is not really worth it and the cost to upgrade would definitely not make it worth it (since I already own a 1700X). However if I was building the same system new, I would choose the 2700X all day long. Depending on what the Zen 2 brings, I may upgrade when that comes out.

 

I'm not saying less cores are better. For instance if you're putting together a hypervisor (for some reason using Ryzen), generally more cores will give you a bit more flexibility when running multiple VMs simultaneously. But for gaming? 6 cores will be more than sufficient.

 

But for today, right now, building a Ryzen system. My pick would be Zen+ CPUs.

[minervx]

2 hours ago, Razor Blade said:

Both CPUs should easily last you 5-6 years. I don't see games requiring more than 6 cores anytime soon (maybe ever really).

Phones and tablets use 8.  Consoles use 8.  PC games didn't mostly because a lot of people still had old computers from like 2006 which only had 1-2 cores.  But once multiple cores become more prevalent, of course game developers are going to utilize them.  Especially with how the mobile market is growing, going the route of less cores/more clock is just going to be too inefficient for that.

2 hours ago, Razor Blade said:

If they did, Intel would be completely screwed.

They'll come out with 8 core when it's necessary, like a lot of leading businesses do when eventually the competition gets to be too much.

 

[Razor Blade]

6 minutes ago, minervx said:

Phones and tablets use 8.  Consoles use 8.  PC games didn't mostly because a lot of people still had old computers from like 2006 which only had 1-2 cores.  But once multiple cores become more prevalent, of course game developers are going to utilize them.  Especially with how the mobile market is growing, going the route of less cores/more clock is just going to be too inefficient for that.

They'll come out with 8 core when it's necessary, like a lot of leading businesses do when eventually the competition gets to be too much.

 

Umm... might want to do a little research. Mobile market for something like big.LITTLE octa-core CPUs use 4 lower power cores to save battery life and 4 higher power cores to still deliver performance. Console CPUs such as the ones in the PS4 and Xbox one are an entire generation behind and won't hold a candle to modern AMD CPUs like Ryzen.

 

More cores are not automatically better. I have a dual CPU 12 core 24 thread server sitting in my cabinet right now that won't hold a candle in gaming or even something like cinebench that takes advantage of more cores/threads compared to my lowly stock Ryzen 7 1700X with 4 less cores and 8 less threads. These two computers have two different use cases. I use the high core count as a 24/7 365 hypervisor. My main PC is for work and gaming.

 

That Ryzen 5 2600X even outperforms my Ryzen 7 1700X in benchmark scores. It's single thread performance really makes it pull ahead.