Which Ryzen for Gaming?

[lettuce]

Im thinking of upgrading my HTPC which has an i5 2500 inside when i move to my new house and was looking at the R5 1600 but am wondering for the £200 is there a better Intel alternative for mainly gaming??

 

[Dervious]

Im thinking of upgrading my HTPC which has an i5 2500 inside when i move to my new house and was looking at the R5 1600 but am wondering for the £200 is there a better Intel alternative for mainly gaming??

I think the correct answer is "no".

 

[Brazo]

Im thinking of upgrading my HTPC which has an i5 2500 inside when i move to my new house and was looking at the R5 1600 but am wondering for the £200 is there a better Intel alternative for mainly gaming??

Not for £200 unless you go second hand.

If you want brand new, an i5 7600k will be better for gaming (after all it's Ryzens weaker point) but it will set you back another £40.

 

[meldarthx]

Not for £200 unless you go second hand.

If you want brand new, an i5 7600k will be better for gaming (after all it's Ryzens weaker point) but it will set you back another £40.

I wouldn't ever recommend 7600k over r5 1600 - those extra cores will always translate into smoother gameplay over 4

 

[DragonQ]

If you want brand new, an i5 7600k will be better for gaming (after all it's Ryzens weaker point) but it will set you back another £40.

Not really, they trade blows because some games won't utilise the extra threads on Ryzen and some will. I think spending more on an i5-7600K for very similar gaming performance in real-world scenarios and far worse multithreaded performance elsewhere is a very silly. Plus we've all seen the benchmarks showing smoother frame times and better minimum frame rates with Ryzen.

 

[Brazo]

Not really, they trade blows because some games won't utilise the extra threads on Ryzen and some will. I think spending more on an i5-7600K for very similar gaming performance in real-world scenarios and far worse multithreaded performance elsewhere is a very silly. Plus we've all seen the benchmarks showing smoother frame times and better minimum frame rates with Ryzen.

No they don't trade blows the intel wins period even on minimums.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QewJ6IzU8Hs

Now I do understand your reasoning on productivity but and correct me if I'm wrong the thread title states gaming

 

[DragonQ]

No they don't trade blows the intel wins period even on minimums.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QewJ6IzU8Hs

Now I do understand your reasoning on productivity but and correct me if I'm wrong the thread title states gaming

OK but that's a single video that doesn't even show frame times and I wouldn't really consider tests using a GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p realistic. Still, even if they used a more sensible setup that didn't put artificial strain on the CPU, I imagine the i5 would win in more tests than the R5 would. I would also expect them to be extremely close in the majority of games, as most benchmarks are showing, with the frame times generally being more consistent on the R5. Honestly recommending a Core i5 for gaming right now is crazy.

 

[flopper]

I wouldn't ever recommend 7600k over r5 1600 - those extra cores will always translate into smoother gameplay over 4

4670k upgrade to 1600 ryzen.
was no contest.
gaming and what else I do ryzen 6cores better suited for the job.

 

[Martini1991]

I wouldn't ever recommend 7600k over r5 1600 - those extra cores will always translate into smoother gameplay over 4

That's just not true, and I say that owning a 1700.
Although I wouldn't buy a 7600K.

 

[RavenXXX2]

£200+ for crusty old 4 thread v £160 ryzen 8 thread, yeah you would have to be loopy to go with the Intel. Bottleneck city in some games now and more so soon.

 

[humbug]

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?

if you're going to be keeping it for that long go with the 1700, it is better future proofing than the 1600.

I wouldn't ever recommend 7600k over r5 1600 - those extra cores will always translate into smoother gameplay over 4

That depends, the Ryzen chips have a lot more Cache so that can help in some situations, and yes having more threads to spread the load can also help with smoothness.

 

[8 Pack]

All are fine 1600 up... Dont waste money on X version just OC to 3.9 plus and put the saved cash into a better quality board.

 

[sockky]

If I were in the market for a new gaming system. I'd go 1600 and never look back!

 

[cimurray]

Which of the following would you suggest?

1. R5 1600
2. R7 1700

I have just bought the 1600 and am running it alongside my existing GTX 1060 running at 2560x1440 and it is fine straight out of the box. I will use the money I saved on the processor towards a GTX 1070 - if I feel it is necessary. It is very easy to get sucked into throwing money at technology when the existing hardware can do the job and in my opinion the best way to find out is to run with it yourself and see how it feels to you. So although I have a plan to upgrade the graphics card with the money saved I'll give the existing one a chance to see what it can do as I expect there are still significant performance enhancements still to come from the new AMD architecture as the platform matures and new drivers, chipsets and BIOSes are rolled out over the next two or three months in particular..