• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ryzen 5 2600 vs Ryzen 7 2700

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vexr
  • Start date Start date

Vexr

Vexr

Looks like there's about a £100 difference between these two. I'm wondering if the 2700 is worth it for gaming? After seeing Shadow of The Tomb Raider utilise my FX-8350's 4 cores/8 threads with DX12 at ~100% (and getting 32-45 fps in the process), I'm wondering if the 2700 will offer some future proofing that the 2600 won't.

I game at 3440x1440 and am aiming for a steady 60 fps, so don't need to reach for the sky with single core performance. I'll be using a Corsair Hydro H90 watercooler, so I'd like to think OCing would be possible with that if necessary. Graphics card is a 1070 Ti.

I know the Ryzen 3000 series is set to be announced tomorrow, but it's unlikely I'm going to be able to hold out for it to hit the market as my current CPU bottleneck is annoying the heck out of me.

If I did go for the 2700, I'd be hoping it'd last for the rest of the AM4/DDR4 generation for 60 fps gaming... or is it likely the Ryzen 2600 will also last the distance?
 
From the benchmarks I've seen they aren't currently making use of 2700s extra threads/cores at all over the 2600. So you currently don't get any benefit

The 3600 will have a significant advantage over both of these CPUs. You might want to consider overclocking your CPU if you aren't currently.
 
If you're going to get a new CPU, I'd be inclined to just drop the extra ton and get the 2700. Even if games directly don;t make use of the 2 extra cores, it's still 2 extra cores for the rest of the system to use during your game. Plus, Intel were forced into upping to 8 cores themselves so the software market is likely to similarly follow and start going properly multi core at last. And then the Ryzen 3000s (allegedly) shift up the core counts again, pushing 6 cores at the bottom end all the way to 16 cores.

We're going to start using all these cores fairly soon I'd say, might as well jump on it now. 8 cores will do you right for a while I think.
 
Vexr said:
Looks like there's about a £100 difference between these two. I'm wondering if the 2700 is worth it for gaming? After seeing Shadow of The Tomb Raider utilise my FX-8350's 4 cores/8 threads with DX12 at ~100% (and getting 32-45 fps in the process), I'm wondering if the 2700 will offer some future proofing that the 2600 won't.

I game at 3440x1440 and am aiming for a steady 60 fps, so don't need to reach for the sky with single core performance. I'll be using a Corsair Hydro H90 watercooler, so I'd like to think OCing would be possible with that if necessary. Graphics card is a 1070 Ti.

I know the Ryzen 3000 series is set to be announced tomorrow, but it's unlikely I'm going to be able to hold out for it to hit the market as my current CPU bottleneck is annoying the heck out of me.

If I did go for the 2700, I'd be hoping it'd last for the rest of the AM4/DDR4 generation for 60 fps gaming... or is it likely the Ryzen 2600 will also last the distance?
Click to expand...

Meh,

Ryzen 2600 is fine for now but where as you know the 2700 is more future proof.

It comes down to this, which is games using the processor to the full you see and i really don't know but it seems new games are supporting 6 core processors more or maybe 8.

As for your question i'd pick the 2700 personally then prehaps upgrade the processor to a 3000 ryzen series processor or even better a 4000 ryzen series processor.

My 2 p,

Dan.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
From the benchmarks I've seen they aren't currently making use of 2700s extra threads/cores at all over the 2600. So you currently don't get any benefit
Click to expand...

That seemed to be the case when I looked into it, though there is one video with a set of benchmarks that seems to consistently show the 2700 significantly outperforming the 2600 in games:


Seems they're using the Oculus Rift for the benchmarks in a lot of them though - not sure if that somehow changes things.

Sadly my FX 8350 doesn't seem to want to overclock. The motherboard has a reputation for being an OCing dud (an MSI 990FXA-GD65) and I've never been able to get the CPU over its boost clock of 4.2 GHz, which didn't seem worth it so dialled it back to stock. I suspect I'll never know if this CPU is capable of more.
 
If you need the upgrade now you could grab the cheapest 2600 you can. Use the extra money to get decent RAM and best motherboard possible. Then can upgrade to Ryzen 2 down the line.
 
chroniclard said:
If you need the upgrade now you could grab the cheapest 2600 you can. Use the extra money to get decent RAM and best motherboard possible. Then can upgrade to Ryzen 2 down the line.
Click to expand...

I agree get the ryzen 2600 now as it is fine for now then upgrade to a ryzen 3600 :0).
 
Vexr said:
That seemed to be the case when I looked into it, though there is one video with a set of benchmarks that seems to consistently show the 2700 significantly outperforming the 2600 in games:


Seems they're using the Oculus Rift for the benchmarks in a lot of them though - not sure if that somehow changes things.

Sadly my FX 8350 doesn't seem to want to overclock. The motherboard has a reputation for being an OCing dud (an MSI 990FXA-GD65) and I've never been able to get the CPU over its boost clock of 4.2 GHz, which didn't seem worth it so dialled it back to stock. I suspect I'll never know if this CPU is capable of more.
Click to expand...

It all depends whether games make use of the cores or not, as more do you'll see more difference

But personally right now I'd probably go for the Ryzen 1700, which can be had for £180. You save about £80 and get the extra cores running only about 10% slower. All these chips should drop in price when Ryzen 3000 series gets announced. I'll wait around for the right deal to hit.
 
I picked up a 2600 earlier this year. X470 high mobo also with intention to drop in the 3700x ryzen this year.

I found 2600 more than enough for gaming etc...

It's literally just around the corner mate. If you can hold back on the need to upgrade, you may even get a steal on the 2000 series ryzen.
 
I'll certainly be holding out for one more day to hear what's happening at CES. I'd be delighted if the 2000 series drops in price just from tomorrow's announcement, but I have a feeling it won't work like that.

Looks like fairly mixed opinions on here on the 2700 vs 2600, but slightly in favour of the 2600 overall. Cheers for your thoughts folks.
 
Wow, up to nearly 70% CPU utilization on 8 cores/16 threads in this SOTTR benchmark with the 2700 in crowded scenes at ~70 fps:


Shame I can't find a comparison video with the 2600. Only ones out there I've seen are with ~GTX 1060 level graphics cards and/or at higher resolutions, so too GPU bottlenecked to read much in to.
 
I keep saying it, buy a cheap 2600, for ~£140, then swap it out in 2-6 months with a Ryzen 3xxx. You'll have spent the same as if you bought the 2700 once you sell on the 2600, and have better clocks, more cores and more future proofing. :)

You know it makes sense.
 
Vexr said:
Wow, up to nearly 70% CPU utilization on 8 cores/16 threads in this SOTTR benchmark with the 2700 in crowded scenes at ~70 fps:


Shame I can't find a comparison video with the 2600. Only ones out there I've seen are with ~GTX 1060 level graphics cards and/or at higher resolutions, so too GPU bottlenecked to read much in to.
Click to expand...

Crysis 3 :)

 
I've pulled the trigger and gone for the slightly less recommended option of the 2700, hoping it'll last a good while as I don't tend to upgrade very often (hence why I'm still on an FX-8350). Hopefully it'll have some good OCing headroom too for when the day comes that stock speeds don't quite cut it.

Cheers for the input.
 
Vexr said:
I've pulled the trigger and gone for the slightly less recommended option of the 2700, hoping it'll last a good while as I don't tend to upgrade very often (hence why I'm still on an FX-8350). Hopefully it'll have some good OCing headroom too for when the day comes that stock speeds don't quite cut it.

Cheers for the input.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to overclock as the automatic overclocking is better than manual. XFR is really good.
 
Vexr said:
I've pulled the trigger and gone for the slightly less recommended option of the 2700, hoping it'll last a good while as I don't tend to upgrade very often (hence why I'm still on an FX-8350). Hopefully it'll have some good OCing headroom too for when the day comes that stock speeds don't quite cut it.

Cheers for the input.
Click to expand...

Post asking advice , then ignore it...hmmmm
 
easyrider said:
Post asking advice , then ignore it...hmmmm
Click to expand...
I listened to the advice and did my own research/guess work. It was a close call, but going by the track record of my upgrade cycles, I'll probably next get the itch around 2023+. Hopping on 8 cores now therefore seems reasonable.

Going by the rather pricey Radeon VII reveal, I'm also not convinced AMD will keep prices all that low for the Ryzen 3000 series, especially given the likelihood it's going to take Intel's crown for gaming performance. If that was the case, then I think I'd prefer not to risk being stranded on the 2600 as games start recommending 8c/16t. With the next gen consoles not being all that far off, I suspect development to take advantage of that many cores may start accelerating. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom