Sweet spot: Ryzen 5 1600 ?

A

adobian

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
274
Is Ryzen 5 at 199 is most bang for the buck compared to Ryzen 7 1700 at 279 @ Micro Center ?
 
i went with the 1600 because of the price and the fact that i don't need 16 threads available all the time. sure i give up 30-40 minutes of encoding time on the few occasions i do it but it's worth it for the cost savings and knowing i get the same gaming performance out of a 200 dollar processor as i would a 280+ dollar processor.

plus if anything changes and i need a 16 thread processor i can just buy one and swap it out easily.
 
gigaxtreme1 said:
Few bux more and you could get the 1600X. Scale closer to 4Ghz on the OC
Click to expand...

from what i've seen the difference isn't that big, it's mostly based on luck like any other processor you overclock. i've seen plenty of 1600's hit 4Ghz and plenty that haven't, same goes with the 1600x i've seen them hit 4ghz and some that haven't. i haven't gotten around to overclocking mine yet due to the limited amount of time and energy i have due to work but i'll get around to it eventually.
 
I had my 1600 to 3.9, never stable on air. 3.8 so far stable. Waiting on my AIO cooler to see where it can go.
 
Definitely the most bang for the buck and it is fast as well. :) That said, I am an early adopter right from day one and the first month and therefore, I bought a 1700 and 1700x.
 
realworld said:
I would say the 1700
Click to expand...


if you need the thread count definitely the 1700's pretty hard to beat at it's current price but if you don't the 1600/x is priced perfectly for the casual encoder, 3d editor, etc i feel. hell even the 1500x is pretty damn nice for budget gaming and not being limited to just 4 threads like you would be on other budget cpu's.
 
I say the 1700 is the most bang for the buck. I see 8 core going to be more useful in future games now that core count is actually going up across the board. If that is your thing. If you plan to keep this system for awhile spring for the 1700. If it is a stop gap or something get the 1600.
 
Next year they may have a 1900X or something. I know they will have Raven Ridge APU with integrated graphics. The platform is suppose to be long lived. Zen + will be coming and that has to be faster.
 
vegeta535 said:
I say the 1700 is the most bang for the buck. I see 8 core going to be more useful in future games now that core count is actually going up across the board. If that is your thing. If you plan to keep this system for awhile spring for the 1700. If it is a stop gap or something get the 1600.
Click to expand...

at this point i wouldn't consider games as a deciding factor between the 1500x, 1600/x, and 1700. it's 2017 and we only have a few thread aware games let along games that use more than 4 threads, that's not going to change anytime soon even with the core/thread count push AMD and intel are doing right now. all 3 processors perform exactly the same in games currently. maybe in 2-3 years that might change but even then i don't think it'll make much of a difference. the biggest effect core/thread count is having is in the media usage with streaming and youtube video production which is where picking between the 1600/x and 1700 has a larger effect. that's just my opinion though and everyone has their own reasoning for deciding on what cpu they want..

gigaxtreme1 said:
Next year they may have a 1900X or something. I know they will have Raven Ridge APU with integrated graphics. The platform is suppose to be long lived. Zen + will be coming and that has to be faster.
Click to expand...

19XX tags reserved for threadripper, next gen am4 will be 2300-2800 and next gen threadripper will be 2900 most likely.
 
Right. I was thinking that TR was going to the 2000 series before they announced the model numbers. Losing track of all this stuff.
 
Nevermind. I wasted my money and life in college.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
Those are essentially air. You might not see the difference you hope for unless you get a top notch all in one.

Part of a true water loop cooling capacity is in the entire fabric of the system. Having a very large volume of water i.e. bigger radiator and a reservoir and large diameter tubing allows a mich larger thermal capacity. You see when all is flowing through the loop the temperature of the liquid stabilizes to a constant temp throughout the whole system even under heavy load. External pumps will lend a much higher velocity further diminishing a hot and cold side to the loop. That's why it's always been argued that a true loop has very stable temperature state under varyingload states.

When you sample coolant temp on a true loop you will see very slight coolant temp increase under heavy loads with minimal decrease when going back to a resting state.

All in one's lack the necessary volume of liquid and essential velocity to allow a stable thermal balance throughout the system.

Sure all in one's will lower temps of cpus all day long but they cant remain cool under hour long full load scenarios unless they are oversized for your Cpus total thermal output.

So get the biggest and best AIO you can find or put a true loop in if you want steady and consistent actual cooling performance.

My 1700x idles at 25c when AC is on and under full load never surpasses 55c. When I had an AIO on it for a temporary solution when the chip first came out my temps were 35 idle and full load for an hour was getting over 65 to 75c. Huge difference between all in one's (convenient compromises) or custom loops (expensive and best).

If your gaming only get the non x quad or 6 core. Save your monies for better things like a 1080 or a Vega when they hit the shelves.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. Mass has no influence on cooling. Speed does, but because of turbulence.
 
prava said:
Wrong on all counts. Mass has no influence on cooling. Speed does, but because of turbulence.
Click to expand...

Is that so? Care to explain? Im befuddled that all the laws and observations of physics do not apply.

That's a bold statement that requires explanation. "Wrong on all counts".
 
tangoseal said:
Is that so? Care to explain? Im befuddled that all the laws and observations of physics do not apply.

That's a bold statement that requires explanation. "Wrong on all counts".
Click to expand...

Sorry, was on the phone and simply couldn't offer what was needed. Lets go:

Part of a true water loop cooling capacity is in the entire fabric of the system. Having a very large volume of water i.e. bigger radiator and a reservoir and large diameter tubing allows a mich larger thermal capacity

This is simply not true. When you have a system with a lot of mass it takes a lot more time to heat it up, yes. But this has 0 effect on actual cooling once the system reaches equilibrium, which is what we are talking about. If you talk about a very short thermal peak then yes, having lots of mass helps... but on sustained loads (and a computer, by definition, creates a sustained load) it does not.

Imagine a system with 1 liter of total liquid vs another one with 10 liters of total liquid. Same pump, same radiator, same fans, same everything. Only the amount of water changes. What is the difference? The difference is that the system with 1 liter will reach equilibrium temperatures much quicker than the other... but the equilibrium temperatures will be EXACTLY THE SAME. So: same performance overall.

External pumps will lend a much higher velocity further diminishing a hot and cold side to the loop. That's why it's always been argued that a true loop has very stable temperature state under varyingload states

Speed of the water only matters regarding the amount of turbulence applied to any heat-transfer surface (be it to take heat away from a component, like a water block, or to dissipate said heat to the environment, like a radiator). Said turbulence improves the thermal capabilities of any heat-exchanging "thing". But not because you diminish the hot and cold side of the loop (that has no meaning, except when the difference is too big and you might cause condensation or other problems) but simply because of turbulence. Also, there is a point of diminishing returns: in the end, the amount of energy used to increase water flow will compensate the cooling capabilities gained by such flow increase, as pumps dump part of the heat they produce into the water they circulate.

All in one's lack the necessary volume of liquid and essential velocity to allow a stable thermal balance throughout the system.

Wrong. AIO lack the necessary quality on their parts to be as effective as heat-exchangers as other high-quality parts do. Volume has no part on that. And neither does speed in the sense that you imply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top