Will Ryzen 5 1600x be a better deal than the 1700 or 1700x?

[toilet pepper]

With the specs released so far, the 1600x woulf be a better buy than the 1700x or 1700. Price and performance wise the 1600x would beat its big brothers at default state, due to better binning and having a higher clockspeed. Hopefully, we can unlock the locked core like the oldtimes.

Question: Anybody has a 1700 here? Does it clockdown on idle when overclocked? The power consumption on these things are high when overclocked.

 

[HD64G]

12 threads for 1600X's money will be THE BARGAIN, opposing a 4thread CPU (i5 7600). Gaming wise and in single-threaded software only, could be a bit lower in FPS, but I think in smoothness and when more applications than a game are running backround, it will be truly unbeatable. Both in raw performance and even better in value. Just get fast RAM to let it deploy its power and not cripple it with lower than 2933MHz.

 

[Vya Domus]

Don't bet your money on the fact that they can be unlocked, I highly doubt it. They haven't done it with the FX line and to be frank they are selling these chips for nothing compared to what you can buy now , they would be stupid to let people unlock a CPU that already has a ridiculously good price/performance ratio not to mention that I doubt their yields are that good for something like this to be a thing.

By the looks of it the 1600X or 1600 seems to be indeed the better buy since it will most likely perform identically to the 1800X/1700 in gaming for less money and you still have a decent amount of threads for other intensive non-gaming related tasks.

Idle consumption will be relatively low even if the chip is running all the time at it's highest frequency.

 

[r9]

And if gaming is the primary use of that machine the lower you go the better deal you will get, from the fact that most if not all games use only 4 cores.
So quad vs hex vs octa core at the same clock will give you same fps in games.
Ryzen 3 will be real bargain at rumored $130.
SMT gives almost no advantage in games, so 4c/4t cpu for $130 that can hopefully overclock to near 4GHz would be amazing bargain.

 

[toilet pepper]

I'm just waiting for the CH6 to be available here. So far only Aorus k7 and msi xpower is available locally. With the premium they are asking I'd rather have an Asus board atleast I can use my existing cooler and have more ports as well.

I really doubt we would see a game that would scale well on all 16 threads. I'm thinking 12 threads with high frequency would be enough. The rig won't be a gaming exclusive rig, i'll be using it for editing as well.

 

[r9]

I'm just waiting for the CH6 to be available here. So far only Aorus k7 and msi xpower is available locally. With the premium they are asking I'd rather have an Asus board atleast I can use my existing cooler and have more ports as well.

I really doubt we would see a game that would scale well on all 16 threads. I'm thinking 12 threads with high frequency would be enough. The rig won't be a gaming exclusive rig, i'll be using it for editing as well.

I would wait for the reviews what it says about overclocking potential, 1600 might be better choice for the money.
Pretty beastly for $219.

And little bit of topic here.
Its interesting how Ryzen 5 1500X has 16MB L3 and Ryzen 5 1400 has 8MB of L3.
So 1500x has to have two ccx with two cores disabled in each and 1400 should be just one CCX.
From all the rumors floating around at same clocks 1400 might end up performing better then 1500x.

 

[Iceni]

The 1600x will be the one to look at for sure. I'm not sure this is 100% correct but this is my understanding of the chip at this time.

If you look at the TPU review and notice that some of the gaming scores are lower when overclocked, It's because when using a single core the 1600x and 1800x can clock up to 4.1Ghz using XFR. When you overclock to 4.0 on all cores that feature gets disabled. W1zzard was kind enough to explain it in the thread joined to the review.

The 1600x again over the 1600 because of higher base clocks. 3.6/4.0 to 3.2/3.6 From what I understand this means XFR will pump a 1600 to 3.7Ghz single core.

Price wise I think there is $30 difference. So it's not worth thinking about the 1600 or lower unless some magician develops an overclocking route that can break 4.1Ghz on all cores as you will be better served by the X chip.

The 1500x is for the budget builder, 3.5/3.7 clocking and a slightly boosted XFR will pump it to 3.9Ghz for single thread. It might have a higher overall overclock potential and could be a real contender for breaking the 4.1Ghz on all cores barrier. It may also be all on one single core complex meaning they may have better overclocking potential than the other higher chips. Since it would bypass infinity fabric with this design. It'll be a case of waiting for the 11th of April to see if this is true.

 

[Kanan]

The 200-250 bucks Ryzen's (1600 + 1600X) are best bang for the buck, but the 1700 is really nice too. I wouldn't go for the 4 core Ryzen it's simply not good enough.