• 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.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Hotwired said:
Please read the notes on it, the final test is two cpus running the benchmark.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was confused by the comment since the video doesn't show perfect scaling for EPYC at all. However, the EPYC CPUs are clocked much lower, so it might have been a more interesting test to drop all the CPUs down to 2.2 GHz.
 
£60 for a 92mm single fan heatsink isn't the most efficient use of money.

But hey, it's kinda flashy, something to pimp an amd rig with just because.

Wonder if it's intel compatible...
 
This seems as good a thread as any to ask (rather than pointlessly starting a new one)...

I have an FX 8350 atm and being honest it still mostly does what I need. It's starting to show its age on things like taking forever unpacking large RAR archive sets though (it's an NZBGet download server). Having browsed Zen with apparently justifiable excitement, I noted that even the 'lowly' 1600X is twice as fast as my 8350 in multicore operations, despite having two fewer cores. Having dug into the various comparisons and benchmarks a little bit, it seems to me that the 1600X is a bit of an under-rated value champion. It has a higher base and boost clockspeed compared to the 1700 series; exactly the same speeds as the 1800x actually, but just has the two fewer cores. Being objective however, that still makes it a 4GHz 6 core/12 thread monster which outpaces the 7700K easily in multicore operations. It's faster for single thread work than a stock 1700x due to its clockspeed, and still manages to outpace the more expensive i7s for grunt work. What's not to like at the price?

Given my desktop is primarily a workstation (next to no gaming, serving Plex / NZBGet / Sickbeard and working with multiple VMs at a time), would it not make sense while on a budget to grab a 1600x instead of a more expensive 1700 or 1800 series chip? It's still a big upgrade over my 8350, has a long upgrade path with AM4 (I'm looking at the Strix board), and gives the single core performance of the 1800x while still being almost as capable at multicore crunching. Or should I just save longer and get the 1800x? I'm loathe to mess with overclocking as I've never really had good results. That's what is putting me off getting a 1700 chip and overclocking it. I got my 8350 to 4.5GHz but I gave up trying to get it fully stable in the end. I'd rather have decent performance OOTB so if my clocking attempts fail I still have a decent enough stock chip, if that makes sense.

So, is the 1600x the unsung champion of the range for mainstream desktop usage? Or no?
 
Rainmaker said:
This seems as good a thread as any to ask (rather than pointlessly starting a new one)...

I have an FX 8350 atm and being honest it still mostly does what I need. It's starting to show its age on things like taking forever unpacking large RAR archive sets though (it's an NZBGet download server). Having browsed Zen with apparently justifiable excitement, I noted that even the 'lowly' 1600X is twice as fast as my 8350 in multicore operations, despite having two fewer cores. Having dug into the various comparisons and benchmarks a little bit, it seems to me that the 1600X is a bit of an under-rated value champion. It has a higher base and boost clockspeed compared to the 1700 series; exactly the same speeds as the 1800x actually, but just has the two fewer cores. Being objective however, that still makes it a 4GHz 6 core/12 thread monster which outpaces the 7700K easily in multicore operations. It's faster for single thread work than a stock 1700x due to its clockspeed, and still manages to outpace the more expensive i7s for grunt work. What's not to like at the price?

Given my desktop is primarily a workstation (next to no gaming, serving Plex / NZBGet / Sickbeard and working with multiple VMs at a time), would it not make sense while on a budget to grab a 1600x instead of a more expensive 1700 or 1800 series chip? It's still a big upgrade over my 8350, has a long upgrade path with AM4 (I'm looking at the Strix board), and gives the single core performance of the 1800x while still being almost as capable at multicore crunching. Or should I just save longer and get the 1800x? I'm loathe to mess with overclocking as I've never really had good results. That's what is putting me off getting a 1700 chip and overclocking it. I got my 8350 to 4.5GHz but I gave up trying to get it fully stable in the end. I'd rather have decent performance OOTB so if my clocking attempts fail I still have a decent enough stock chip, if that makes sense.

So, is the 1600x the unsung champion of the range for mainstream desktop usage? Or no?
Click to expand...

Its because the 1600 is cheaper and comes with a decent stock cooler.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Its because the 1600 is cheaper and comes with a decent stock cooler.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're answering a question I didn't ask, or if I've just misunderstood you. :p I'm comparing the 1600x to the 1700/1800 range for my own circumstances. I know the base 1600 comes with a cooler, but as I already have a decent AIO (AM4 bracket available) and the 1600x has a much higher stock speed, I'd discounted it from consideration. I wasn't talking about the 1600 at all?...

/confused of Tunbridge Wells.
 
Rainmaker said:
I'm not sure if you're answering a question I didn't ask, or if I've just misunderstood you. :p I'm comparing the 1600x to the 1700/1800 range for my own circumstances. I know the base 1600 comes with a cooler, but as I already have a decent AIO (AM4 bracket available) and the 1600x has a much higher stock speed, I'd discounted it from consideration. I wasn't talking about the 1600 at all?...

/confused of Tunbridge Wells.
Click to expand...

The 1600 is the value champion, as it can be easily overclocked to 1600x speeds. As for the 1800x Vs the 1600x I would personally just get the 1700 and overclocked it. You'd easily get 3.8 out of it under an aio and it'll be 2 cores worth quicker than the 1600x.

Bottom line, get a 1700 and do a mild overclock.
 
Rainmaker said:
So, is the 1600x the unsung champion of the range for mainstream desktop usage? Or no?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is probably (a qualified) yes.

Two fewer cores but a higher base clock. TBF my 1700 on stock clocks with 3200 memory is a huge step from my stock FX9590. A lot quieter as well. I will get around to overclocking it though and then it will be better still.
 
AiiR said:
The 1600 is the value champion, as it can be easily overclocked to 1600x speeds. As for the 1800x Vs the 1600x I would personally just get the 1700 and overclocked it. You'd easily get 3.8 out of it under an aio and it'll be 2 cores worth quicker than the 1600x.

Bottom line, get a 1700 and do a mild overclock.
Click to expand...

I had considered that, but as I said above I've never really had great success with overclocking. I couldn't get my E8600 stable back in the day, and my FX8350 runs at 4.4 to 4.5 GHz but I can't fine tune it for stability because I don't understand how. Following guides on the internet only gets you so far when you don't actually understand what you're doing. :D Hence favouring the X for the OOTB extra speed. I'm willing to learn though - I just never really managed to before now.
 
Rainmaker said:
I'm not sure if you're answering a question I didn't ask, or if I've just misunderstood you. :p I'm comparing the 1600x to the 1700/1800 range for my own circumstances. I know the base 1600 comes with a cooler, but as I already have a decent AIO (AM4 bracket available) and the 1600x has a much higher stock speed, I'd discounted it from consideration. I wasn't talking about the 1600 at all?...

/confused of Tunbridge Wells.
Click to expand...

The 1600X is not really under consideration by many as with the standard stock cooler the 1600 can be overclocked to 1600X clockspeeds reasonably well as it has one of the best stock coolers ever made. Plus for a lot of builds,the need for a stock cooler for a 1600X means it bumps the price up. Also remember the 1600 has a 65W TDP and the 1600X has a 95W TDP,so at stock the 1600 also has more chance of running in even the cheapest A320 motherboard too.

There is also not a massive difference between the two in performance anyway:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1381-ryzen-1600x-vs-1600/

Rainmaker said:
I had considered that, but as I said above I've never really had great success with overclocking. I couldn't get my E8600 stable back in the day, and my FX8350 runs at 4.4 to 4.5 GHz but I can't fine tune it for stability because I don't understand how. Following guides on the internet only gets you so far when you don't actually understand what you're doing. :D Hence favouring the X for the OOTB extra speed. I'm willing to learn though - I just never really managed to before now.
Click to expand...

The issue is when you add the price of a comparable aftermarket cooler to the one you get with the 1600 to the 1600,it bumps the price of the 1600X closer to £240 to £245,which makes it around £50 more than the Ryzen 5 1600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom