Ryzen choices

P

Phosphoros

n00b
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
60
I hope this is in the right section. I don't post a lot, mostly a lurker.

So, after a long time on an FX 6300 I have the opportunity to upgrade (I'm very excited). For the last 5 months I've been reading everything I can get my hands on, watching endless YT vids (some of questionable quality), and of course faithfully reading [H]. I'm down to processor choice and it's short circuited my brain.

So I ask... wtf processor do I get? I'm thinking either the 1600 or 1700.
My tasks are light-ish video editing, some audio work (editing and mixing down podcast tracks and some music), Photoshop, light rendering (mostly Poser nonsense), and a bit of gaming. I love games but I hardly "hardcore". I don't need 144hz gaming right now. It's beautiful but overkill for me. And finally the normal stuff, YT, FB, surfing, Office apps, etc....

I have every single part chosen except the CPU (and cooler. I'm going to upgrade perhaps to an AIO in the future)

I do plan to OC.

So do I need an 8/16 CPU or would the 1600 be a good little workhorse for me. I'm coming from the aforementioned FX 6300 so everything is badass to me. It's been a trooper but it's time to retire it (it was 3 years ago if I'm honest).

Just a note: I already have in my possession an Asus Strix x370-f Mobo.

Sorry for the length and thanks for any advice you can offer!
 
Last edited:
IMO. the 1600 is best bang for the buck but for video rendering, even light usage, the more threads the better.
 
Either of those CPUs will work for what you want to do, of course the 1700 will be better at it. If I were you I would get the 1700. The reason is this: from what you say, you are not a chronic upgrader and keep hardware a longish amount of time. So the 1700 will be a better spend over the long term.

144khz (?) Do you mean 144hz refresh rate? For gaming - that's mostly GPU nowadays, if being able to game at 144hz is your goal.

If 144khz is an audio engineering thing, sorry I have no clue about that :-D
 
Thanks for the replies.
144khz refresh rate. Sorry I wasn't clear. 144khz gaming seems to be the thing now so I was just trying to be clear it wasn't a priority for me. I understand it's mostly GPU now but it seemed important to my sleep starved brain to mention it. ;)

I don't mean to hold onto my hardware as long as I do, it just works out that way. lol
I have every intention of upgrading when the Zen refresh hits (if it seems worth it, better IPC, freq, etc) and, if AMD isn't pulling our legs, then Zen2.
 
FYI:
144 khz = kilohertz
144 hz = hertz

There is no monitor that refreshes in KHZ (144,000 hz / per second vs. 144 hz / per second)

I think you're confusing video refresh with audio bit sampling rates or something like that :-D
 
Get whatever fits your budget. If the difference between the 1600 and 1700 would get you to the next tier of video card power, then I would spend the money there as it will make more of a dramatic difference in the end.

Make sure that you have a SSD as a boot drive as that will make your system very snappy.

I bet these new processors last us a long time. Well I often get the upgrade bug so... :)

What everyone said above is correct. The 1700 would be the better choice in the long run, but the 1600 is just fine also.
 
dvsman said:
FYI:
144 khz = kilohertz
144 hz = hertz

There is no monitor that refreshes in KHZ (144,000 hz / per second vs. 144 hz / per second)

I think you're confusing video refresh with audio bit sampling rates or something like that :-D
Click to expand...

Thanks. My mistake. Not enough sleep. I'll fix the OP
 
cageymaru said:
Get whatever fits your budget. If the difference between the 1600 and 1700 would get you to the next tier of video card power, then I would spend the money there as it will make more of a dramatic difference in the end.

Make sure that you have a SSD as a boot drive as that will make your system very snappy.

I bet these new processors last us a long time. Well I often get the upgrade bug so... :)

What everyone said above is correct. The 1700 would be the better choice in the long run, but the 1600 is just fine also.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

Absolutely on the SSD. It was the first part I chose. Been using an 840 evo 120g but it's just not enough space for the growing programs sizes.
I was initially going to go with an NVME since my new mobo has an M.2 on it but decided to go with a Sata M.2. The speeds are still fantastic and as I'm not moving massive files around didn't think the NVMe was worth the extra cost... right now.

Good advice on the video card. I might have to reevaluate that once I make a CPU decision.
 
Hi, I have a similar question. I am looking to build a workstation, and am considering AMD for the first time, since AMD seems like it might be less expensive overall.

Here's a list of what I'm looking for in a CPU and mobo:

At least 3.7 GHz (base)

Under 100 W TDP

6 cores

At least 10 MB L3 cache

ECC memory (I've read about problems with the implementation of this back in the Spring. Have these problems been ironed out yet?)

PCie 3.0 x 4
NVMe
M.2
Thunderbolt 3

Is there an AMD chip that comes close to this? Would it be the Ryzen Pro?

What socket and motherboard chipset numbers should I look for?

Thanks!
 
By PCIe 3.0 x 4 does that mean you need a x4 slot or you need 4 PCIe 3.0 slots? If so how many at what speed?

I don't think any AMD mobo's come with thunderbolt.
 
Peat Moss said:
Hi, I have a similar question. I am looking to build a workstation, and am considering AMD for the first time, since AMD seems like it might be less expensive overall.

Here's a list of what I'm looking for in a CPU and mobo:

At least 3.7 GHz (base)

Under 100 W TDP

6 cores

At least 10 MB L3 cache

ECC memory (I've read about problems with the implementation of this back in the Spring. Have these problems been ironed out yet?)

PCie 3.0 x 4
NVMe
M.2
Thunderbolt 3

Is there an AMD chip that comes close to this? Would it be the Ryzen Pro?

What socket and motherboard chipset numbers should I look for?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Thunderbolt is intel only (for now). There are add in cards but it requires a license to use (thanks Intel) so no amd boards have the licensing required.

ThreadRipper is the only AMD to have 3.7ghz base (1900x, 3.8 base, 8c/16t, 16MB L3) but 180w tdp. TR has 64 pci-e lanes and can do 4 slots of pcie 3.0. 60 lanes for pcie 3.0 slots and m.2 nvme or sata, how it's split up can be determined by the board maker (ie more pcie 3.0 slots or multiple nvme), 4x pcie lanes for chipset (which handles usb, pcie 2.0 slots, sata etc)
Ryzen Pro has 3.4ghz max base on 8 core (3.2 on 6 core). Regular Ryzen does 3.6ghz base on 8 core (3.5 on 6 core). 95w tdp or lower (65w for 6 core). Both have 24 pci-e lanes. Both can have 2 slots pci-e 3.0 (8x each), the rest pci-e 2.0 through the chipset connected through 4x pcie lanes. Dedicated 4x pcie lanes for nvme and sata ports (chipset can also do sata, so some boards dedicate those lanes to nvme only).

I think that's all correct. For what you want, Threadripper sounds like the best bet amd wise as it has a lot more pci-e lanes so you can have more than 2 pcie 3.0 slots. TDP is higher, though I doubt a 1900x actually gets close to 180w as that's the same tdp the top dog 16c/32t 1950x has. Right now there's no way to get thunderbolt on amd until the licensing gets sorted out.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I guess USB 3.1 type C will do. I know that Intel recently stopped charging the licensing fee for T-bolt 3.

As for ECC RAM, are all Ryzen chips ECC enabled?
 
Peat Moss said:
Thanks. I guess USB 3.1 type C will do. I know that Intel recently stopped charging the licensing fee for T-bolt 3.

As for ECC RAM, are all Ryzen chips ECC enabled?
Click to expand...

Yes, all ryzen chips support ecc. Not sure if all motherboards do, so verify that before purchase, but I'd imagine most/all TR boards do.

I know Intel stopped charging for thunderbolt, but all of the add-in cards have a motherboard header that checks the bios for license on post, so don't think they'd work on amd, and afaik no boards have been announced with thunderbolt support on amd yet. I was going to replace my 4 port usb 3.1 card with a thunderbolt 3 card until I realized none of them would work without license information in the bios (and a corresponding thunderbolt header on the board).
 
Looks like Gigabyte is planning to be the first to offer Thunderbolt support on their AMD boards. Right now it's still in limbo:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11847/gigabyte-announces-x399-designare-ex

The Ryzen 5 1600X seems to be closest to my spec list: http://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600x

Odd that the Ryzen 5 Pro 1600 (presumably a workstation CPU?) is more or less the same, but has the clock speed cut back a little: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-pro-1600

Besides Thunderbolt, is there any other difference between Intel or AMD that, as someone who's always used Intel, I might notice or miss?
 
Last edited:
Peat Moss said:
Looks like Gigabyte is planning to be the first to offer Thunderbolt support on their AMD boards. Right now it's still in limbo:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11847/gigabyte-announces-x399-designare-ex

The Ryzen 5 1600X seems to be closest to my spec list: http://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600x

Odd that the Ryzen 5 Pro 1600 (presumably a workstation CPU?) is more or less the same, but has the clock speed cut back a little: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-pro-1600

Besides Thunderbolt, is there any other difference between Intel or AMD that, as someone who's always used Intel, I might notice or miss?
Click to expand...

as far as the difference between the 1600 and 1600x it's just clock speed and XFR support(which only matters if you don't plan on overclocking). other than that maybe the multicore boost clock mode difference is the only major loss going from intel to AMD.

ignore this post i was wrong, didn't realize they had actually released a pro version of the 1600, thought it was only the 1300/1500.
 
Last edited:
Both Ryzen and Ryzen Pro have XFR.

The differences seem to be that the Pro has: TSM Encryption, Secure Boot, DASH, and Trusted Applications. And also the chips are binned, and come with a longer warranty.
 
I got my Ryzen 1700 back in march and just yesterday built an FX6300 rig. did i do it in the wrong order?

Put my vote down for the 1700. I love the stock cooler and it sounds like you might actually get some use from the extra cores.
 
Peat Moss said:
Both Ryzen and Ryzen Pro have XFR.

The differences seem to be that the Pro has: TSM Encryption, Secure Boot, DASH, and Trusted Applications. And also the chips are binned, and come with a longer warranty.
Click to expand...

Ryzen Pro are also not unlocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top