Jump to content


Ryzen 1600x vs Ryzen 1700...

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 kano



  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 07:13 PM

Which is better?


Ryzen 1600x is a six core CPU with a base clock of 3.5 GHz, but it does not come with a cooler. Presumably it would be the better option for gaming, emulators and anything that doesn't make use of loads of threads (which is most things).


Ryzen 1700 is an 8-core CPU, but it is base-clocked at a pathetic 3.0 Ghz, which means that performance of single threaded programs will be ass in comparison to the 1600x.

Edited by kano, 20 July 2017 - 07:15 PM.

#2 stgatilov


    Lead Programmer

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 11:40 PM

3.0 Ghz against 3.5 Ghz means roughly -14% performance.

But you have to keep in mind that if only one or two cores are busy, then Ryzen goes into boost-mode, and works on increased frequency.

Look at some reviews. They mension that boost frequency of Ryzen 1700 vs Ryzen 1800X is 3.7 Ghz vs 4.0 Ghz, which isn't much.

Also, there are plenty of single-threaded benchmarks (including games) on the net, where you can compare different Ryzen CPUs.

Of course, not every program can make more than six threads working simultaneously, so your +33% boost from two additional cores won't have effect most of the time.


I have bought Ryzen 1600 recently.

I was considering Ryzen 1500X too, but it's increased single-core performance seems too low for me.

Moreover, I have read many times that Ryzens without 'X' can often be overclocked to almost the same frequency, although no guarantee here and it depends on luck.

In fact, I often compile TDM using my home computer, and having 6 cores against 4 cores for me means almost +50% compilation speed  :D


P.S. And when looking at benchmarks, remember that 80 FPS vs 75 FPS is not a major difference   :laugh:

#3 jaxa


    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1301 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 12:14 AM



You may be making a bet on the multithreaded future of PC gaming.


And it doesn't look like a bad one because PS4 and Xbox One both have one and a half generations (the originals as well as PS4 Pro and Xbox One X) with 8 cores and 6-7 usable cores for gaming. AMD Ryzen 7 is making 8 cores accessible, Threadripper is making 16 cores downright cheap, and Intel is making its own attempt with 4-18 cores Skylake-X. Intel is supposed to come out with a relatively cheap Coffee Lake 6 core in the next year or so. 6-8 cores may become a new normal.


If anyone knows more about whether games are moving past quad-core, please share.


One thing I notice is that despite presumably brisk Ryzen 7 sales, Steam's stats don't show too much movement for 6-8 core CPUs. Maybe that will pick up when Threadripper and Intel Core i9 CPUs come out.


Also note that Intel is gaining ground in Steam's stats rather than AMD.

Edited by jaxa, 21 July 2017 - 12:15 AM.

#4 kano



  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 12:48 AM

What's really weird is that, $229 gets you a Ryzen 1600X without a cooler, and $269 gets you a Ryzen 1700 with a cooler. So, the obvious question becomes whether it is a bad move to get the 1600X for $229 and then buy a cooler on top of that, at which point, you are paying the same amount for a six core CPU as the 8 core version costs, which comes with the cooler.

#5 duzenko


    Advanced Member

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 1198 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 01:23 AM

1700 is unlocked, so just set its clock to 3500 and that's it.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users