Soldato
Ryzen 1600 or 1700.
-
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.
;)
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
Really, an 8c/16t CPU for a casual gamer/web browser, is that not a bit overkill?
Caporegime
In all fairness on the CPU side AMD are absolutely owning it at the moment, great to have them back, they have done an amazing job on coming back from nowhere on CPU and hitting that competition with a sledgehammer.
Oh no doubt, and that's why I dropped my 4770K for a 1700 pretty soon when things started stabilising.
Soldato
How's possible a £280 CPU being overkill, and referring to the 1700.
Associate
Exactly 8 core for that price is bargain, I am very happy with mine R5 1600.Runs without issues and the temps are so low compared to my previous i7.i can save some money on air con.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
£280 is about twice as much as I've ever paid for a CPU, so yeah, it's a bit overkill, 8c/16t or not.
About half that price is the R5 1400, still a lot better than Intel's offering at that price range, the i3-7350K.
To be fair, you didn't originally specify a budget, and that is a very fair price for a powerful cpu that won't hold you back ^^
Personally I wouldn't want to buy anything less than a 1600/1600X at the mo. It's become clear that newer games can and do take advantage of more than 4 cores, so while it's your prerogative to choose a cheaper 4c/8t cpu, you may find that it turns out to be underkill with regards to keeping up with a fast gpu in a modern title...
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
Cool. Must admit the R5 1600 is tempting. Does the fairly low single threaded core clock not hinder gaming at all?
AFAIK, it's around the IPC of Broadwell, so depending on what you have at the mo, it may be faster clock for clock. But technically yes, some games that only use 1-4 threads heavily are better on a highly clocked 7700K... but you'll pay more for it, and are buying a dead-end motherboard. The nice thing about AMD's latest platform is the promised upgrade path. 1600/1600X now, and Zen 2 next year on the same motherboard
Tbh I'm inclined to get the 1600X because I just can't be bothered faffing around for an overclock. With the X you have a guaranteed 4ghz in single threaded tasks, which will take care of older games nicely
You also won't get top clocks out of a 7700k without delid or paying a premium for someone else to do it. And serious cooling.
A 1600 will do 3.9 or even 4 ghz on a cheap air cooler with 50% more cores for 50% less money. With 3200mhz RAMM it's fast becoming a no brainier unless you're desperate for massive FPS at low res.
A 1600 will do 3.9 or even 4 ghz on a cheap air cooler with 50% more cores for 50% less money. With 3200mhz RAMM it's fast becoming a no brainier unless you're desperate for massive FPS at low res.
Depending on who you ask/what you want, 3200 ram is still a "future truth" though... Not seen anyone posting about a 2x16gb kit running at those speeds, but that's what I'm after :/ On the other hand, I'll settle for less as long as the overall system performance is higher than I have now, and especially if anyone can prove that it's the CPU that limits the memory rather than the motherboard. Got a lot of hope for Zen 2 and will be happy to invest in good memory today if the next gen will use it to its full potential
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
... but you'll pay more for it, and are buying a dead-end motherboard. The nice thing about AMD's latest platform is the promised upgrade path. 1600/1600X now, and Zen 2 next year on the same motherboard
TBH that doesn't worry me too much, I'm likely to keep whatever CPU long enough that a new board would be likely anyway. I wouldn't be upgrading to zen2 whenever that is.
CPUs should be a minimum of 5 year upgrades I reckon, if it's not good for that then it's no good to begin with. Plenty of people still rocking 2500/2600ks and only just upgrading now.
Blasphemer!
My plan, for semi-pro work, video editing etc. was to go for the R7 1700 now, then likely go for Threadripper2 on 7nm in late 2018-early 2019.
8 cores for sub-£300 seems like the true sweet spot. The 1600 6-core is the best for spending as little as possible, but the extra 2 cores on the 1700 is incredible value as well and gives you some breathing room.
Then Threadripper2 looks like it'll be 16-24 cores, instead of 12-16 cores. And each core will have mildly higher IPC, and clock to 4.5+ GHz due to the GloFo/IBM 7nmLP process.
By the time more than 8 cores is truly needed, Threadripper2 will be out and a ridiculous upgrade from the R7 1700, where the R7 1700 was a ridiculous upgrade from Sandy/Ivy Bridge.
The most up to date benchmarks I could find for Adobe Premiere Pro show it doesn't scale past 10-cores, for example.
8 cores for sub-£300 seems like the true sweet spot. The 1600 6-core is the best for spending as little as possible, but the extra 2 cores on the 1700 is incredible value as well and gives you some breathing room.
Then Threadripper2 looks like it'll be 16-24 cores, instead of 12-16 cores. And each core will have mildly higher IPC, and clock to 4.5+ GHz due to the GloFo/IBM 7nmLP process.
By the time more than 8 cores is truly needed, Threadripper2 will be out and a ridiculous upgrade from the R7 1700, where the R7 1700 was a ridiculous upgrade from Sandy/Ivy Bridge.
The most up to date benchmarks I could find for Adobe Premiere Pro show it doesn't scale past 10-cores, for example.
This is all based on the (AFAIK unproven but likely) assumption that AMD will move to using 6-core instead of 4-core CCXs when they move to 7 nm. If true, the mainstream parts will go up to 12c/24t too. I still think a Ryzen refresh is likely next year in the mean time, with maybe slightly higher clocks and/or IPC.
Nothing on a Zen refresh is confirmed. Only Zen2 on 7nm is the confirmed next thing to happen.
Also since the EPYC successor, Starship, is confirmed to be 48 cores on 7nm, it's very very likely they're moving to 6 cores per CCX.
They haven't shown off Infinity Fabric Scaling past 4 dies, and that would cause a lot of latency problems if some dies were significantly further away than others. And 7nm more than twice the density of 14nm. So do they really want to go down to ~100mm2 dies when they're already getting bananas yields?
Seems 99% certain they're moving to 6-per-CCX.
Ryzen 1600 with a good B350 board and high speed ram is the sweet spot, plus you can always upgrade the CPU to Zen 2 in a few years to extend life even further if you want too, which you won't be able to do with Intel's future releases.