R5 1600 vs 1600X at current offer prices

alternate_UK · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:03

Looking to build for a friend.

At launch prices 1600 seemed like a no brainer. Save 50 quid plus the cost of a cooler and OC the 1600 as far as the stock cooler would allow.

However, at current offer prices the 1600 is £180 and the 1600X is £190 plus the cost of a cooler (as low as £25 for bog standard coolermaster 212).

My friend will not want to tinker with the OC in any way once I set it up. There is a reason he asked me to build it for him.

So basically, is the slightly higher base and turbo speed worth the 40 quid in this situation?

thx

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:12

For running at stock? Id say yeah. If you're going to tweak the system for him then maybe saving the £40 makes sense.

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:16

Or get the 8400 for £180 and watch it destroy the 1600x in games and not have to worry about setting memory up.
Boards are more expensive however, with the cheapest on ocuk currently at £109, but you can recoup some of the money by getting cheaper, slower ram.

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:20

gavinh87 said:
Or get the 8400 for £180 and watch it destroy the 1600x in games and not have to worry about setting memory up.
Boards are more expensive however, with the cheapest on ocuk currently at £109, but you can recoup some of the money by getting cheaper, slower ram.

Or get the 1700 and cheapest B350 motherboard. Destroys

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:26

jigger said:
Or get the 1700 and cheapest B350 motherboard. Destroys

Why? The 8400 even beats that lol.

alternate_UK · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:27

I am not keen on those bodged intel boards so it would mean convincing him to wait until the new year for coffee lake.

As background. He is only specing for a 1060 and isn't a core gamer so I am not sure the intel chip would be that much of a difference - although the idea of throwing any old RAM in there does appeal.

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:30

So also buy a 1080Ti and 250Hz 1280x720 screen to go with that 3.8Ghz 8400. I can't believe you've gone full circle again Gavin.

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:30

A gamer will likely upgrade his GPU before his CPU.
People talk about upgrading CPU like it happens all the time, people rocking 2500k's have likely been through 4-5 GPUs without touching the CPU.
Why sacrifice real performance now in hope for the future? We don't know how good new CPU's are going to be.

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:32

jigger said:
So also buy a 1080Ti and 250Hz 1280x720 screen to go with that 3.8Ghz 8400. I can't believe you've gone full circle again Gavin.

Are you actually disputing that the 8400 is a better gaming chip than the 1600? You see that 8400 is up there with the 7900x?
Thats because its capable of maxxing out the 1080ti, ryzen can't say that and it doesn't look good for future GPU releases.

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:32

alternate_UK said:
I am not keen on those bodged intel boards so it would mean convincing him to wait until the new year for coffee lake.

As background. He is only specing for a 1060 and isn't a core gamer so I am not sure the intel chip would be that much of a difference - although the idea of throwing any old RAM in there does appeal.

50ms spikes and Ryzen only works with £250 memory posts incomming.

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:39

Whatever man, the proof is up there in green blue and red, with red at the bottom.

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:40

gavinh87 said:
Whatever man, the proof is up there in green blue and red, with red at the bottom.

NO.

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:41

jigger said:
NO.

So, PC gamer rigged the test or something then?

haszek · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:49

gavinh87 said:
So, PC gamer rigged the test or something then?

So your tests are relevant when the guy has 1060? Jz

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:51

haszek said:
So your tests are relevant when the guy has 1060? Jz

No, but when he comes to upgrade that 1060 the difference will be greater.
Whats going to bring the bigger increases in future, a CPU or a GPU? And when ryzen is bottlenecking a 1080ti now, its not looking good for the next 2 years.

Doobedoo · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:56

What I don't understand is why that 8400 is above the 7700k despite clocking much lower and why is it so close to the 8700k?

What is the point of the 8700k at nearly double the price?

Journey · 7 Oct 2017 at 16:57

Who cares, really?

Back on topic,
You can get a cracking AM4 cooler for about £14, but it's hard to justify the extra outlay when the included cooler with the 1600 is good for 3.8-3.9GHz at sensible volts. If you are are doing the OC for him then save a profile, and don't bother with anything above 2933MHz on the RAM for now as it will be a pain in the butt for you if it starts to train all of the time and then resets to defaults.

If he's not planning on ever upgrading, and this is a one stop build then buy the cheapest board you can get with the features you need, if you start spending more than £70-80, then the i5-8400 becomes a really good alternative, and will last just as long, obviously no worrying about OC'ing etc.

I love the R5 1600, and can't fault the performance per £ spent, especially if you are are pairing it with an GTX 1060, although the sensible person in me says buy an RX 580 4GB/8GB and go Freesync for a system that will last even longer, with adaptive sync.

jigger · 7 Oct 2017 at 17:01

Doobedoo said:
What I don't understand is why that 8400 is above the 7700k despite clocking much lower and why is it so close to the 8700k?

What is the point of the 8700k at nearly double the price?

More cores. The 8400 would be great at RRP and with a £50 board. £200 for the chip and board and you can forgive the downsides of the platform.

Doobedoo · 7 Oct 2017 at 17:04

jigger said:
More cores. The 8400 would be great at RRP and with a £50 board.

So why is it a few fps off the 8700k. It clocks lower and it has less threads, it has no business being so close to the 8700k.

Which begs the question..... If all you need is a blazing fast gaming cpu why would you pay so much more for the 8700k?

gavinh87 · 7 Oct 2017 at 17:04

Doobedoo said:
What I don't understand is why that 8400 is above the 7700k despite clocking much lower and why is it so close to the 8700k?

What is the point of the 8700k at nearly double the price?

When faster GPU's arrive you will see the gap increase. Both are capable of maxxing out the 1080ti.