4690k vs R5 1600?

J

Jeff G

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
234
Currently running a 4690k @ 5ghz with 16gb of ddr3 @ 2400mhz. Looking to pick up a Ryzen 5 1600 (overclocked to whatever I can get) with 16gb of 3000mhz ddr4. The last time I ran AMD was a 965be, so I'm out of the loop. Assuming I keep the same gpu, what system would be better for gaming? (Games like RE2 remake, Metro Exodus, PUBG, etc. Pretty much anything new.)
I'm keeping the 4690k setup, one will be mostly a backup/spare setup. Just curious which is the better choice for a main gaming pc.
 
Which GPU are you using and what resolution and framerate are you targeting? That will make a huge difference.
For 1440P or 4K and =<60fps I don't think there will be much difference at all between the CPUs. With 1.5x the cores and 3x the threads the Ryzen might be more future-proof as "any year now" games will start really needing more than 4 threads. But on the other hand the i5's much higher clocks will benefit some games, particularly older ones. But i really don't think it will matter unless you're targeting 120FPS+ at 1080P or 1440P. FWIW I just built a system with a Ryzen 5 1600, 16GB 2666mhz memory, and an RTX 2080 and even with my CPU at stock (waiting to OC till i'm fully satisfied with the build) my framerates perfectly match reviewers' 2080 benchmarks that were made on 8700K and 9900K systems; that is to say, at my target of 2160P and 48-60Fps there's functionally zero difference between my and your R5 1600 and the fastest Intel chip. YMMV, but IME CPU matters much less than people think unless very high framerates are desired.
 
Gpu is an overclocked 980 ti (1600mhz).
Gaming on a 144hz 1080p monitor.
 
Jeff G said:
144hz 1080p
Click to expand...
That changes things big time. Still depends on the game, but that 0-10% difference in favor of 5Ghz Intel at 4K60 goes to up to ehhh like 10-50% at 2K144. High framerate needs those megahurtz like whoa
 
Go for something better... the Ryzen 1600 @ 4ghz wasn't even worth the upgrade from my old X5650 @ 4Ghz system for PUBG not to mention your 5Ghz 4690k. It'll be a downgrade for you overall in gaming at any resolution for CPU bound games.
 
Unless you are picking up a 1600 for like $100 (MC deal), get a 2600. Much better chip overall.

If you're playing newer games, the extra threads are definitely going to help. PUBG...not so much.
 
kirbyrj said:
Unless you are picking up a 1600 for like $100 (MC deal), get a 2600. Much better chip overall.

If you're playing newer games, the extra threads are definitely going to help. PUBG...not so much.
Click to expand...

Yup. If he had an i7 4770K, then sure, hold on. But the reality with a four-thread CPU is that the extra single-core speed that may exist in a particular workload is probably being eaten up by multiple processes, so you're just not losing much on lightly threaded stuff and you're gaining significantly on multithread stuff.

[better of course would be a 9600k+, where you don't lose anything for gaming (today), but the cost remains a barrier and it's hard to argue that it's 'worth it' in a budget-limited scenario]
 
$136 is a super good deal for an 8 core/16 thread processor Ryzen 1700 with a heat sink even.

This will be an upgrade for your gaming and general purpose use with your 1080ti across the board. Any game that has potentially ever so slightly faster max FPS on the Intel due to a clock speed will already be fast enough it doesn’t matter——(IPC (instructions per clock/(MHZ) is really about the same between fourth gen Intel and first gen Ryzen), but modern games with directx 12 will be much better with 4x the core count. You’ll also encounter better minimum frame rates across the board even with old games because your CPU will be loafing while handling OS background tasks with extra cores. Generally it’ll feel like a big fat upgrade and it’ll feel better for everything going from 2 cores to 8.

https://slickdeals.net/f/12908395-a...-processor-135-99-free-shipping?src=frontpage

I would choose an eight core because the next generation consoles have already announced they will be using 8 core Ryzens. You don’t want to fall behind the new console tech that the new games engines are being optimized for.
 
Last edited:
Battlefield 5 uses 6 MAJOR threads. So will most new games for the next few years, thanks to the consoles hitting the CPU wall for multiplayer titles

https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

You're best-off buying a new Coffee Lake 9600k system. Ryzen would BARELY improve your performance (Your Haswell Core i5 at 5ghz = Core i3 8350k4GHz * 1.2):

2018-11-25-image.png
 
9600k is short term gain, long term loss for performance when next generation console developed cutting edge games will expect and utilize 8 cores and 16 threads. Not just 6 cores. It’s shortsighted to buy a hex core with no SMT/hyperthreading right now. Especially since it costs almos $200 more to buy the lesser core processor. (When you add both botherboard and processor expenses)

I wouldn’t even consider that 9600k over a 1700 unless your next upgrade horizon is about 2 years or you aren’t a gamer.

Did original poster ever say what resolution he games at?
 
Last edited:
I benchmarked a Ryzen 1600X with Nvidia 1660 Ti (great card for 1080p, by the way).

Performance was good, in the 90fps range with Ultra settings. With High or Medium, you can probably get to 144fps (or close).



That said, the CPU swap alone is probably not going to make a monster difference. Getting newer/faster RAM can help, and other things on a modern motherboard.

I'd also say go with the Ryzen 2600 unless the 1600 is a great deal. 2600 should be good for gaming and general PC usage.
 
Jeff G said:
Gpu is an overclocked 980 ti (1600mhz).
Gaming on a 144hz 1080p monitor.
Click to expand...

Jesus, 1600 Mhz 980 Ti? Best I've seen is ~1550 from DAMN good samples on custom water. pretty special card you have there.


edit: also the 4690K will be faster in MOST games, as the IPS of 1st gen Ryzen is about the same (a little faster actually) as 4000 series Intel, so the i5 has a clockspeed advantage for games. Do not that more and more newer titles are starting to use more threads, so this won't be the case for long, but if you switch now you'll see a net degrade in performance.
 
From someone who went from a 4690k to a Ryzen 2600 (4.2ghz > stock 2600 as I've yet to find a massive need to OC), if gaming is your only thing, stick with your Intel at 5ghz or consider maybe a 9700k upgrade. As much as I advocate for AMD, 1080p high refresh rates MUCH prefer the higher IPC/clock speed of Intel's lineup.

I found overall system responsiveness and usability go up a fair bit, but I also upgraded from a Sata SSD to NVME so YMMV. I did find the 4690k hit 90% usage sometimes just general use/opening browsers/several tabs at once in quick succession and no longer have this issue.

Also note AMD will be releasing a new Ryzen later this year, so if you're really into AMD, you can always do a drop-in upgrade later too.
 
I'm still using a Devil Canyon 4690K on our Oculus Rift setup. The processor still seems to be fine for that usage.

However, that motherboard chipset is really showing it's age at this point. If I was choosing between the two (and not upgrading from one to the other) I would go with the Ryzen 5 (or 7) and get a B450 motherboard. You get all the nice new features (like NVME) and USB3.1.

Additionally, I don't know if the older Socket 1150 boards will boot from an NVME on a PCI-E adaptor, but my X370 and B450 motherboards do show an NVME in the PCI-E slot as being bootable. Just something to consider if you have an extra PCI-E slot and want to add more NVME drives in the future.
 
KazeoHin said:
Jesus, 1600 Mhz 980 Ti? Best I've seen is ~1550 from DAMN good samples on custom water. pretty special card you have there.
Click to expand...

Custom bios with turned up voltage and power on a custom water loop. I had it higher, but wasnt real comfortable with the amount of power the card was pulling. 1600mhz has been the sweet spot for me, never gets above 60 degrees even with all the voltage.
 
Stopped at MicroCenter, it was my first time ever visiting one. It was almost overwhelming how much they had in store, and the prices were fantastic. Ended up picking up a 1700x and a 2x8gb kit of 3600mhz ddr4 on a killer sale. Couldnt help myself lol. I'm gonna swap over my 980ti tonight, and hopefully plum the new loop together. Tomorrow will see how much the 1700x will overclock on the same water loop my 4690k hit 5ghz with (the 4690k was delidded, which gave me a solid 10 extra degrees).

I appreciate all the help and opinions, at the end of the day the 1700x, MB, 3600mhz ram, and a new ssd together was much cheaper than just the 9700k cpu alone so I went that way.

I'm still open to thoughts and opinions on the 1700x in general, this is my first AMD build since the 965be so I'm basically learning all over again.
 
Jeff G said:
Stopped at MicroCenter, it was my first time ever visiting one. It was almost overwhelming how much they had in store, and the prices were fantastic. Ended up picking up a 1700x and a 2x8gb kit of 3600mhz ddr4 on a killer sale. Couldnt help myself lol. I'm gonna swap over my 980ti tonight, and hopefully plum the new loop together. Tomorrow will see how much the 1700x will overclock on the same water loop my 4690k hit 5ghz with (the 4690k was delidded, which gave me a solid 10 extra degrees).

I appreciate all the help and opinions, at the end of the day the 1700x, MB, 3600mhz ram, and a new ssd together was much cheaper than just the 9700k cpu alone so I went that way.

I'm still open to thoughts and opinions on the 1700x in general, this is my first AMD build since the 965be so I'm basically learning all over again.
Click to expand...

Nice buy! If everything together was cheaper than the 9700k that's a good buy! The 1700X will most likely easily do 3.9ghz, but you'll probably hit a cap at 4ghz. It's not really a temperature issue, just the silicon. Let us know how you go though! Would be interested to hear what you can achieve. You may also need to play around a lot with the memory speed. First gen Ryzen had issues with higher RAM speeds.
 
Very cool. 1700X should be a good chip (I'm running an 1800X now and had a 1700 briefly). There is not huge room on the overclock, but 3.9 or 4.0 may be realistic as ReaperX22 says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top