1600 or 1700 difference?

[Dennis]

Should I upgrade to the 1700 or 1600? I know the 1700 has more cores and threads, however, I do not do any editing of any sorts. Just gaming and YouTube. Is there a major fps difference between the two? If not, would it just be better to get the 1600? I heard that AMD new CPUs are coming in 2019 that supports AM4 mother boards( I could be wrong though). I have a 1070 by the way.

[Omega]

The 1600 is a 6 core CPU and the 1700 is a 8 core CPU. In single core performance they are identical.

For only gaming the 1600 will perform the same as the 1700 in most games.

AMD will release new Ryzen 12nm CPUs in february next year.

[vadim]

Ryzen 1600 looks as much better choice. Both have the same gaming performance, but 1600 is cheaper.

[ericcui1]

The thing is, if you are not doing any productivity work, Ryzen 7 1700 is not really that great. It costs about the same as a Intel 7700K and runs slower in games.
As for Ryzen 5 1600, it's another story. at that price point, you can only get a locked I5 7600 from team blue. Once overclocked, the R5 1600 performs pretty much the same as R7 1700 in games, not much slower than its Intel I5 counterparts. So, if you buy a 1600, compare to a I5, you get nearly the same gaming performance and 2 more cores. Remember, all Ryzen can overclock to roughly the same clock, the extra two cores in Ryzen 7 usually don't matter in games.
So, I'd say the best option is to buy a R5 1600 or a I7 7700K, depending on your budget. Also, wait a few weeks for the Intel 8th gen CPUs, if the 8th gen 6 core I5 is priced reasonably, it's probably a good choice too.

[ugafan]

they are going to be similar.

1600 actually has a little faster clock speed at stock settings, but the 1700 can easily be adjusted to the same speed. 1700 has a little more cache.

at the same clock speed, the 1700 should be a slightly faster, but improvement depends on how well the game utilizes the extra cores.

in most cases you're not going to see too much difference. 1600 has the better price to performance ratio. 1700 has a badass rgb cooler, whereas the 1600 has no rgb.

[GrizzGolf]

Would a 1600 be better for BF1?

[vadim]

Postat inițial de GrizzGolf:

Would a 1600 be better for BF1?

Why not?

[GrizzGolf]

Postat inițial de vadim:

Postat inițial de GrizzGolf:

Would a 1600 be better for BF1?

Why not?

Can it get 80-100 fps you think in BF1?

[vadim]

Look at this chart: https://www.hardwareluxx.ru/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/42779-threadripper-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x-test.html?start=10
All Ryzens except 1800X show nearly the same FPS.

[Omega]

Postat inițial de GrizzGolf:

Postat inițial de vadim:

Why not?

Can it get 80-100 fps you think in BF1?

If combined with a good GPU (GTX 1070 or higher) yes.

[SHREDDER]

1700 will have much better perfomance in games that will use 8 cores in the near future. That why i bought Ryzen 1700 instead of any of the 6 cores Intel cpus that were avaliable at that time(March 2017). Dont waste your money on any 6 core cpu. Buy a ryzen 1700 or better.

[Hare+Guu!]

Postat inițial de SHREDDER:

1700 will have much better perfomance in games that will use 8 cores in the near future. That why i bought Ryzen 1700 instead of any of the 6 cores Intel cpus that were avaliable at that time(March 2017). Dont waste your money on any 6 core cpu. Buy a ryzen 1700 or better.

Not exactly. 1600 uses 6 cores and 12 threads. 1700 is 8 core and 16 threads. Most applications really only care about the threads, and not the cores themselves. It's like saying don't buy a 7700k compared to an i5 because it only has 4 cores, even though it has 8 threads.

[FeilDOW]

Postat inițial de SHREDDER:

1700 will have much better perfomance in games that will use 8 cores in the near future. That why i bought Ryzen 1700 instead of any of the 6 cores Intel cpus that were avaliable at that time(March 2017). Dont waste your money on any 6 core cpu. Buy a ryzen 1700 or better.

6 cores 12 threads is plenty for gaming and anything else apart from HEAVY editing loads. There is zero reason to go with a 1700 for just gaming and even recording, in 4-5+ years when they have game engines that can use 12 threads your 1700 will be slow with 7nm Zen 2 and Intels Sapphire Rapids 7nm or better out in the wild by that time.

[vadim]

Postat inițial de SHREDDER:

1700 will have much better perfomance in games that will use 8 cores in the near future.

I'm absolutely sure that octacore CPU will NOT have any performance advantage over hexacore for a long time.

[Omega]

Postat inițial de vadim:

Postat inițial de SHREDDER:

1700 will have much better perfomance in games that will use 8 cores in the near future.

I'm absolutely sure that octacore CPU will NOT have any performance advantage over hexacore for a long time.

^ This

[ハイイロギツネ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svwus0dEWyE

The 1600 is the best bang for buck, you can see from the benchmarks that the 1600 and 1700 are almost identical with Battlefield 1 at 1920x1080 Ultra settings.

Even when benchmarked with AOTS: Escalation, you can see that the Ryzen 7 i700 offers very little performance gains compared to the 1600.