• 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.

Which Ryzen for Gaming?

Craig87

Craig87

Craig87

Associate
Joined
24 Apr 2010
Posts
105
Location
NW
Which of the following would you suggest?

  1. R5 1600
  2. R7 1700

I'd expect I'd still be using this CPU in about 4/5 years. I would overclock it. It would pretty much just be used for gaming. Do you think the additional cores in the R7 are worth having for gaming in the next few years? Am I right in thinking that the additional cores of the R7 are of no use to gaming at the moment?
 
Honestly I would go with the r5 1600 and put the extra money towards a better GPU or faster memory. Very few games use more than 8 threads, and while things will hopefully improve, by the time they do there will likely be other reasons to upgrade, so 8 core unlikely to have a substantially longer lifespan than the 6 core.
 
StarShock said:
Honestly I would go with the r5 1600 and put the extra money towards a better GPU or faster memory. Very few games use more than 8 threads, and while things will hopefully improve, by the time they do there will likely be other reasons to upgrade, so 8 core unlikely to have a substantially longer lifespan than the 6 core.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The 1600 is what I was leaning towards.
 
bought a 1700 sent it back and will be picking up a 1600 next month when amd send out the memory update, putting the extra 100 to some faster ram..
 
I went 1700. I'm sure over the years those extra cores/threads will come in handy.

Depends on your money situation. Bang for buck the 1600, more longevity the 1700.
 
Depends if you plan on upgrading within 2-3 years or not. R5 1600 now followed by a 10c/20t 3rd generation Ryzen on the same motherboard in 2019 = win?
 
I'm pondering the same thing, I know 'bottleneck' is all game dependent, and I realise at 4k the GPU in most cases is the limiting factor, but would the 1600 hold back a 1080ti for 4k gaming?

Sorry to hijack the thread a little, but as where asking the same(ish) thing I thought it's would be better than starting a new thread
 
opethdisciple said:
Another way to look at it tho, is current cost of 1600 + cost of 10c/20t ryzen vs just the cost of the 1700 middle ground.

In that sense, it's cheaper.
Click to expand...
Yes it's a gamble based on how likely you think AMD are to improve IPC and clock speeds in their next two iterations. Personally I think it's pretty likely considering this is their first design based on a brand new architecture, plus it's their first 14 nm CPU and we already know that Intel can get to 5+ GHz when overclocked on the same node.
 
DONOHUE07 said:
I'm pondering the same thing, I know 'bottleneck' is all game dependent, and I realise at 4k the GPU in most cases is the limiting factor, but would the 1600 hold back a 1080ti for 4k gaming?

Sorry to hijack the thread a little, but as where asking the same(ish) thing I thought it's would be better than starting a new thread
Click to expand...
Jay z has a youtube video playing games at 1080p with 2 titans and seems to be doing pretty good
 
DragonQ said:
Yes it's a gamble based on how likely you think AMD are to improve IPC and clock speeds in their next two iterations. Personally I think it's pretty likely considering this is their first design based on a brand new architecture, plus it's their first 14 nm CPU and we already know that Intel can get to 5+ GHz when overclocked on the same node.
Click to expand...

At £210 it's value is astonishing. :eek:

Go for it and put an extra £100 in to the GPU.

I don't think your regret it any time soon either way you go.

I went for the 1700 as I'd always envied people with 8 threaded CPU's and at £300 for my own I couldn't resist.

I suggest you do a lot of reading around at performance reviews and make a decision based on that.
 
If it's purely for gaming then the 1600 overclocked -- this platform is supposedly good for a few years to come so if you don't need the higher end thread count I'd save the cash for upgrades later on.
 
To give you an idea on 1080p playing BF1 on Ultra my rx480 is maxed out and my 1700 at stock speeds is barely pushed hitting a max of 51c using the stock cooler in game.

I went with the 1700 for more future proofing.
 
I'm in the same boat. 1600(x) or 1700. I see ocuk has 3000 bdie teamgroup? But if i go for 1600x and save some money do ocuk sell 3200 samsung bdie's?
 
opethdisciple said:
I went 1700. I'm sure over the years those extra cores/threads will come in handy.

Depends on your money situation. Bang for buck the 1600, more longevity the 1700.
Click to expand...

Better to have the system you need now, not what you think you might need a few years. Something else will come along in a few years, and if needed you go from 1600 > Ryzen 2.0 or whatever. Buying hardware faster than you need for longevity is just a waste of money. 1600 would be my choice in this scenario as the extra money can go towards fast RAM. The 1600 is not going to be obsolete within 2-3 years (for gaming use) is it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom