add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

ryzen 5 2600 or ryzen 1700x

tukol

8 months ago

Hi. I am upgrading my old pc, and ryzen 5 2600/ryzen 7 1700x are both exactly same prize atm. I would mostly do gaming(sometimes perhaps some easy photo/video editing) and maybe use this pc for my studies in next year(lol). People say that 2600 is better for gaming but when i google it i see that they perform pretty much the same. Will the 2 xtra cores be needed or just the newer 2600 model, and which one is more "future proof"? Atm im going with Asus tuf b450 plus gaming mobo and having hard time deciding with with those 2 cpu. Every opinion is appreciated.

Comments

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Get the 2600

  1. The 2600 boosts to 3.9 and the 1700X boosts to 3.8
  2. At high refresh games (144hz) the 2600 will perform slightly better due to better single core performance
  3. In highly multithreaded games(DX12, Vulcan) the 2700X the 1700X will do slightly better.
  4. For light work, you probably won't notice the difference for video and photo editing. The true power of the cores and threads is more visible on very intensive workloads.
  5. You're not streaming, hence the 2600 is enough.
  6. The 2600 has a cooler that can run it at stock speeds. The 1700X doesn't
  7. The 2600 has better RAM compatibility.

If there is not immediate need to upgrade, there is also the option of waiting until next year after AMD releases ZEN 3.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Its not immediate need, but i dont think i could affor the new releases and these are on sale at the moment.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

older CPUs will go on sale allowing you to get something better at a later date

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

If you were to be buy a 1700X during the black friday week I'd say the 1700X all day. That chip was listed at $150 dollars but for $200 its not worth it and the 1700 is probably a better buy between the 1700X and 1700. The 1700 comes with a cooler and can easily be overclocked to 3.7ghz on all cores and should reach 3.9 on most.

Now between the 1700 and 2600 is probably going to be if you really need the extra cores/threads. The 2600 should overclock to 4.0-4.2 while the 1700 will max at 4.0. Gaming will be slightly better with the 2600 and you are saving $50 where you can throw that to a SSD, GPU or better power supply. If you have a build already created it would be best to supply it to better understand what you are trying to get at.

Like most ppl will say the 2600 does game slightly better but its not like its worlds better. You also have to account in your GPU. Plus you wont notice a difference in gaming until you factor in a GTX 1080 and up with both chips. anything less is a very similar experience.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I have a 2600 at work and a 1700X at home.

I like them both. Can't complain about either. The 2600... ironically, gets used for much more intensive workloads, as that machine is loaded up with 64GB of RAM and runs 5+ virtual machines.

The 2600 on an M9a at stock settings pretty consistently runs ~3.7-3.8GHZ in most normal workloads, rarely dipping below 3.6GHZ. It also handles RAM with a bit more grace. (more headroom for speed and/or rank loading).

The 1700X on a basic heat-pipe tower at stock settings was pretty consistently running 3.5GHZ in all workloads. I wasn't seeing turbo/xfr work with anything but synthetically generated single threaded workloads. I dialed in a fixed 3.7GHZ clock speed at 1.2V and called it good. Seems like a good approach for the 1st gen series. Sure it could clock higher but at remarkably higher voltage/power/thermal consequences. (3.9GHZ would require about 40% more power, so that doesn't make much sense...)

In practice I notice no difference in performance between these machines unless I'm running benchmarks. If the implementation price were exactly the same, I think I'd give the nod to the 1700X's additional cores, especially when combined with a willingness to dial in a conservative overclock, but in practice I think the 2600 is usually going to be cheaper to implement if using the boxed cooler.

I'm looking at pricing right now... it appears the 2600X and 1700X are about the same price, and the 2600X comes with a nice heatsink. In that comparison, I'd be very tempted by the 2600X for your intended workload, as the "X" models in the 2000 series have very aggressive clocking characteristics.... The 2600X rarely drops below 4.0GHZ, no tuning required, just plug-n-play, solid performance. Comes within about 5% of an i5-8400 in gaming and beats it by ~25% on average in productivity workloads. A 1700X's additional cores vs the higher clock speeds and IPC of the 2600X will be a wash in productivity. If gaming is a priority take the 2600X.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Not sure who is saying Ryzen is weak. Anyone who has looked at the issue in any detail can see that Ryzen has its roots in being an enterprise-first product that can scale usefully out to other workloads and applications. This is the same path AMD was on last time they captured 50% of the enterprise market share. As a workstation CPU they are fantastic value and efficiency. In servers they are delivering way more IO and compute per dollar for mainstream 1-2 socket systems that serve the vast majority of small/medium business at equal or better compute efficiency.

I'm getting ready to deploy 5 new servers where I work (hence, the VM's to simulate their configuration and functionality). I've looked at the hardware landscape and can't find any compelling reasons not to use EPYC. I can get more IO on a single socket EPYC server than many dual socket Skylake Scalable servers. I can get 24 cores on that single socket for the cost of 12 similarly clocked Skylake cores. Amazing.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube