• 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.

1600X or 1700

Relentless81

Relentless81

Relentless81

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
12,832
Hi,

Your thoughts on my dilemma please.

I appreciate the 1600X isnt out yet and we know very little about it so lets just assume its similar to the 1800X but with less cores and this is for a gaming only build so I imagine its gaming performance will be very similar but not as good as app performance which doesn't bother me

I can get a 1700 now and will need to OC it for it to match the 1600X's clocks. Thats going to take time and effort, time is something I dont have much of at the moment, gaming time is precious

I can wait for the 1600X, it will be cheaper and should perform similar to OC'd 1700 for a cheaper price and be plug and play

What is everyone else doing? Not fussed on the premature release comments as that can be worked around whilst updates get released, I'm interested in what people are doing RE buying R7 now or waiting for R5 in terms of gaming builds

Thanks
 
Can't really give an honest answer yet.

I'm in the same boat though. Put it this way, I'm waiting for release of the R5 chips and hopefully in that time we will see maturity in motherboard BIOS, RAM compatibility and better software support.

From what rumours are around it is suggested that 1600X is not going to be particularly faster than a 1700 but I do hope that we will see 4.0GHz and a little higher a lot more easily. If that is the case then it will be an absolute bargain at £260 give or take.

It has been suggested that games, for example, see a better benefit from jumping to 6 cores over 4 cores than we would see from jumping to 8 cores from 6. So if this really is the case then the 6 core 1600X makes a lot of sense for a gamer in the here and now.

With AMD promising to support the AM4 platform for 4 years it would be economical to choose a sub £300 R5 series chip this year and upgrading to an 8 core R7 in, say, 2 years if and when we see games that really shine with 8 core chips.
 
My opinion..

If you do a lot of editing or cpu hungry multitasking, then go for the 1700.

If you want a good all round cpu for everyday gaming and the odd bit of editing, then go for the 1600X,

The upside of the latter choice is that less cores would probably result in a higher max overclock, so single threaded performance will definitely be better than the 7 series.

Most importantly, by then most of the initial teething problems will hopefully be ironed out..
 
If you took the time to see the benefits of offset voltage with your fx all those years ago, that knowledge would have helped you with AM4. The R5 1500x will be cheaper than the 1600x but both R5's will be the sweet spot.
For gaming the r3 4c8t will be budget kings.But you'd be better off buying an R5 and then in a couple of years as the process improves upgrading to a more refined r7.

Myself i'm waiting for the r5 and itx boards, i'm sat on a 2600k and 3770k so i've had 6 years of great performance, I don't do as much video editing/converting these days and I'm only a casual gamer.
 
In the main review thread someone actually disabled 4 cores on the 1700 and ended up with only 200mhz higher overclock, probably due to less heat/less stress on the vrm. If 1600x is indeed just 1700/1700X/1800X with 2 cores disabled then I don't think you will get much higher clock than what people are getting now on full fat 8 cores tbh. I think we will only start seeing better overclocks with the next iteration of the zen architecture.

In your op it seems like you can't wait that long anyway, and also it seems you don't mind a bit of tinkering and troubleshooting so I'd say just go for 1700 now.
 
Davedree said:
If you took the time to see the benefits of offset voltage with your fx all those years ago, that knowledge would have helped you with AM4.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here, did we used to chat about AM3 OC'ing in the AMD OC'ing thread?

Offset voltage is over my head, cant understand why to bother with it when you can just seek out the VCore sweet spot for the highest multiplier and stable LLC combination
 
Davedree said:
If you took the time to see the benefits of offset voltage with your fx all those years ago, that knowledge would have helped you with AM4. The R5 1500x will be cheaper than the 1600x but both R5's will be the sweet spot.
For gaming the r3 4c8t will be budget kings.But you'd be better off buying an R5 and then in a couple of years as the process improves upgrading to a more refined r7.

Myself i'm waiting for the r5 and itx boards, i'm sat on a 2600k and 3770k so i've had 6 years of great performance, I don't do as much video editing/converting these days and I'm only a casual gamer.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the R3 chips are all straight up 4 core with the entry level R5s being 4c8t and the top end being 6c12t.

I'm also waiting on R5 chips and a bit more stability

Not trying to be that guy by the way ;-)
 
Relentless81 said:
Not sure what you mean here, did we used to chat about AM3 OC'ing in the AMD OC'ing thread?

Offset voltage is over my head, cant understand why to bother with it when you can just seek out the VCore sweet spot for the highest multiplier and stable LLC combination
Click to expand...

Yeah man many years ago. Well guess you like to do it your own way that's cool.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
Pretty sure the R3 chips are all straight up 4 core with the entry level R5s being 4c8t and the top end being 6c12t.

I'm also waiting on R5 chips and a bit more stability

Not trying to be that guy by the way ;-)
Click to expand...

Well corrected and spotted about 1500x if true, i was going off of old speculation lineup for the r3's.
 
Relentless81 said:
Yeah I remember, I still have the same 8350 :)

Remind me why you prefer offset? It might help me make a decision 1700 instead of the 1600X
Click to expand...

I was using a 4+1 78lmt usb3 and I did it to help preserve the mosfets using an fx8320 at 4.8-5ghz @ 1.45-1.55v.
It saved power and idle temps and heat but mostly it stopped unecessary current load through the mosfets, when most the time the pc was sat idling.
 
Davedree said:
I was using a 4+1 78lmt usb3 and I did it to help preserve the mosfets using an fx8320 at 4.8-5ghz @ 1.45-1.55v.
It saved power and idle temps and heat but mostly it stopped unecessary current load through the mosfets, when most the time the pc was sat idling.
Click to expand...

I thought it was going to be something along those lines as I did a bit reading into how to get voltage to drop at idle today as its obviously fixed when OC'ing with the method I stated

What I dont get is someone else mentioned their OC'd Ryzen CPu voltage drops at idle on here today but AMD state that manual OC will fix the Vcore to the manual setting.

See its a slippery slope, on one hand the 1600X is attractive as its more likely fit it and forget it where as the other option is hours of obsessing
 
Scramz has been havig a great time and posted some great voltage scaling. I'm sure if you use offset voltage with the gigabyte am4's they still drop down when in manual oc mode.But i get what you're saying fit and forget 1600x.
 
Until the r5 range release nobody knows... the 1700 is here now and is proving itself to be both awesome and likely highly future proof.

I would be keen to see if there is also a 1600 (-x) and if that is that same level of bargain that the 1700 is turning out to be.

We don't know if they are building stock for the r5 from failed r7 stock and therefore possibly not getting a chip that is going to do any better Mhz or are we going to see chips that can actually do more than 4ghz and therefore be better gaming chips...

Bottom line - if it is an upgrade from your 8350 you are going to see a massive upgrade going to a 1700 even if you stay close to stock - and then as the platform matures you could potentially push the clocks in a couple of months much more easily as by then we will have really good overclocking guides.
 
Beren said:
Until the r5 range release nobody knows... the 1700 is here now and is proving itself to be both awesome and likely highly future proof.

I would be keen to see if there is also a 1600 (-x) and if that is that same level of bargain that the 1700 is turning out to be.

We don't know if they are building stock for the r5 from failed r7 stock and therefore possibly not getting a chip that is going to do any better Mhz or are we going to see chips that can actually do more than 4ghz and therefore be better gaming chips...

Bottom line - if it is an upgrade from your 8350 you are going to see a massive upgrade going to a 1700 even if you stay close to stock - and then as the platform matures you could potentially push the clocks in a couple of months much more easily as by then we will have really good overclocking guides.
Click to expand...

Fair points, it also bothers me that some of the 8 cores might just sit there doing nothing though and we're talking approx £80 in cost between the two

Also how much of an upgrade are we talking, would kill to see 1440p bench marks of BF1 8350 vs 1700
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom