Potential Bottleneck?

[ChiefMaverick]

Hey guys so I'm planning to do a budget oriented type of build. I can afford a 1070Ti founders edition and I would like to know if a Ryzen 5 2600X could cause any bottlenecks for my GPU because I'm really concerned as I can't afford to go up to a Ryzen 7 with my budget. 

[bleedblue]

You're good.

 

Also the Ryzen 7 1700 is cheaper than the 2600. Why not get that one? I'd take the extra cores of the 1700 over the minimal performance improvement of 2nd gen.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, bleedblue said:

minimal performance improvement of 2nd gen.

that's 10% btw

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

that's 10% btw

10% in fps

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

10% in fps

not necessarily. Using fps as standard means taking individual game optimization into account, and giving a meaningful number will be far more difficult

[bleedblue]

6 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

that's 10% btw

I still think the 1700 is a better value right now than the 2600. 

[ChiefMaverick]

9 minutes ago, bleedblue said:

You're good.

 

Also the Ryzen 7 1700 is cheaper than the 2600. Why not get that one? I'd take the extra cores of the 1700 over the minimal performance improvement of 2nd gen.

Where I live the 2600X is slightly cheaper than 1700x. Also I don't want 1st gen cause they had slightly bad memory controllers. And I don't want 1st gen stuff tbh

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, bleedblue said:

I still think the 1700 is a better value right now than the 2600. 

depends on how much gaming will be done with the system. 2600 beats the 170 in currently available games, both when both run stock and overclocked.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

for a 1070ti, 10 % is nothing noticeable 90fps vs 100fps maybe?

[bleedblue]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

depends on how much gaming will be done with the system. 1700 wont beat the 2600 in currently available games

In productivity workloads the 2 extra cores (plus a bit of overclocking) still gives the 1700 an edge. Besides, we don't know what OP plans to do with his system.

 

4 minutes ago, ChiefMaverick said:

Where I live the 2600X is slightly cheaper than 1700x. Also I don't want 1st gen cause they had slightly bad memory controllers. And I don't want 1st gen stuff tbh

Oh cool. Is it a lot more expensive than the non-X variant? I really don't recommend anyone get the X over the non-X if there's a large price difference.

[Cereal5]

15 minutes ago, bleedblue said:

You're good.

 

Also the Ryzen 7 1700 is cheaper than the 2600. Why not get that one? I'd take the extra cores of the 1700 over the minimal performance improvement of 2nd gen.

 

9 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

not necessarily. Using fps as standard means taking individual game optimization into account, and giving a meaningful number will be far more difficult

And two years ago everyone said you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming. Look how far we've come.

 

Go with the 2600, imo. More overclocking potential since the fewer cores will create less heat. Also since it's cheaper it'll save you some money to put towards a nicer board or SSD or something like that. Also, you might look into finding a used 1080. In my area they are around $400, which is price of the cheapest 1070 Ti new. Just make sure to buy from someone who is only selling one, as multiple might be used for mining.

[ChiefMaverick]

7 hours ago, bleedblue said:

In productivity workloads the 2 extra cores (plus a bit of overclocking) still gives the 1700 an edge. Besides, we don't know what OP plans to do with his system.

 

Oh cool. Is it a lot more expensive than the non-X variant? I really don't recommend anyone get the X over the non-X if there's a large price difference.

There is a significant price gap between the 2600 and 2600X. It's just that 2600X has greater OC potential than 2600 which is why I'm gonna use that. Yeah in productivity I guess the 2 cores are gonna help but I'm really just gonna game not video render. 

[ChiefMaverick]

7 hours ago, Cereal5 said:

 

And two years ago everyone said you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming. Look how far we've come.

 

Go with the 2600, imo. More overclocking potential since the fewer cores will create less heat. Also since it's cheaper it'll save you some money to put towards a nicer board or SSD or something like that. Also, you might look into finding a used 1080. In my area they are around $400, which is price of the cheapest 1070 Ti new. Just make sure to buy from someone who is only selling one, as multiple might be used for mining.

Yeah with mining in the equation I'm not gonna buy any used cards. I just don't trust anyone at this point. 

[bleedblue]

9 minutes ago, ChiefMaverick said:

There is a significant price gap between the 2600 and 2600X. It's just that 2600X has greater OC potential than 2600..

Erm the only difference between them is the out of the box clock speeds. They're the same chip.

[ChiefMaverick]

1 hour ago, bleedblue said:

Erm the only difference between them is the out of the box clock speeds. They're the same chip.

Really? But can't the X variant be clocked further?

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, ChiefMaverick said:

Really? But can't the X variant be clocked further?

maybe...maybe not...

[LukeSavenije]

10 minutes ago, ChiefMaverick said:

Really? But can't the X variant be clocked further?

silicon lottery my friend, we can't tell you

[bowrilla]

1 hour ago, ChiefMaverick said:

Really? But can't the X variant be clocked further?

No. Most likely not. You might need a bit more voltage but that's about it. All Ryzen chips are basically the same, a 6 core chips has only parts of the die disabled and so on. 2600 and 2600X are technically identical, the 2600X is ust cherry picked. The oc-limiting factor is the memory controller and not the rest of the chip. 4.1-4.2 is basically possible with all Ryzen chips. Beyond that it's absolute luck even with the binned X chips and you shouldn't count on it. Despite that: 100MHz more or less is basically irrellevant in games.

[ChiefMaverick]

55 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

No. Most likely not. You might need a bit more voltage but that's about it. All Ryzen chips are basically the same, a 6 core chips has only parts of the die disabled and so on. 2600 and 2600X are technically identical, the 2600X is ust cherry picked. The oc-limiting factor is the memory controller and not the rest of the chip. 4.1-4.2 is basically possible with all Ryzen chips. Beyond that it's absolute luck even with the binned X chips and you shouldn't count on it. Despite that: 100MHz more or less is basically irrellevant in games.

Yeah I agree 100Mhz wouldn't matter too much on games. But I don't understand why the memory controller has anything to do with this at all. Isn't that RAM related stuff?