QOTW: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 or Intel Core i5-7600?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt_Custard

Coming from a £250 i7 2600k 4 core 8 thread, I refuse to spend £200 on i5 7600 4 core 4 thread 6 years later. I really will feel like going backwards despite the IPC increases. Now Ryzen 5 1600, 6 cores 12 threads. Now that's progress

---

Plus you didn't need to delid your CPU to get a decent overclock too!!

1600... AM4 socket should last, cant say the same for whatever socket intel are using this week.

When I bought my 2600k six years ago I'd never have guessed Intel would still be churning out hyper-threaded quad cores as their flagship mainstream processors six years down the line.

wow! I suspect the Intel fan boys have changed their T-shirts to Red

Does seem the tide is changing here doesn't it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly

1600.
Intel has been coasting for too long while putting in the bare minimum.

---

I still think Intel have been doing the best they can manage, not coasting at all. Bit depressing that. Let's see if they have anything left in the bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infraction

When I bought my 2600k six years ago I'd never have guessed Intel would still be churning out hyper-threaded quad cores as their flagship mainstream processors six years down the line.

---

Intel have been milking us, but then they always have if you go back and look up the price of a high end 486.

By giving us more cores than most software can handle, it looks like AMD have forced some programmers to up their game and scale better across those cores. That is just a win all around, thank you AMD. I don't need to build a machine just now, but AMD get the next wad of money if I need more than another Raspberry Pi, which also has as many threads as an i5 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly

1600.
Intel has been coasting for too long while putting in the bare minimum.

---

I still think Intel have been doing the best they can manage, not coasting at all. Bit depressing that. Let's see if they have anything left in the bag.

---

If that were the case, how have they been able to all of a sudden release a tonne of new high core count processors, like 7900X, 7740k and many others. Intel have indeed been cruising at the bare minimum, and now that they have competition they are actually trying a little harder. I think the 7700k equivalent will finally be at least 6 cores for the next gen.

Ryzen for sure and when I have some money free I will get a ryzen 5 1600 to replace my aging fx8350

Ryzen 5. It's better, and it isn't intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

Ryzen 5. It's better, and it isn't intel.

---

I've generally found that finding positive reasons for getting something is better than finding negative reasons. For some, Intel may be a better purchasing decision - and 'better' is a subjective view.

I'm putting a Ryzen 5 1600 system together come paycheck. Just wish Vega would hurry up... My 7950 doesn't support my new FreeSync display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Ryzen 5 1600 and that is from a FO4 player where the Core i5 7600K has the edge. The fact of the matter is when I am helping someone with a build many people I know would want a £200 CPU to last a few years,and as time progresses the Core i5 7600K will be more of a limiting factor. It also does not help it cost more as a CPU,it lacks a cooler,the Z series motherboards cost more than the B series ones and to get the best overclocks you need to delid destroying the warranty.

I helped someone with a build a while back,and by the time I had added the cost of even a £25 to £30 cooler,the added cost of the Core i5 7600K and the slightly more expensive motherboard,it was not worth it as the money saved went towards an SSD in the build. Plus in the games like Overwatch there is no difference between the chips too,and for their work related stuff it looked superior.

Also if the rumoured sub £130 price for the 4C/4T Ryzen CPUs is true then pay nearly double for a Core i5 7600K over a Ryzen 3 1100 seems a tad pointless for me.

---

Wot he ^^^^ said.

And for one other reason.

When offered two options, both equally attractive, my inner 'awkward git' likes to go for the underdog. If nothing else, the fact that there is a credible underdog helps keep the big dog relatively honest. I do not want to see AMD go under, so I'd be doing my bit to keep them afloat.

There is no competition, 6 cores and 12 threads vs 4 cores and 4 threads at roughly the same price point, the Ryzen 1600 wins hands down.

Up to 40% faster in applications, similar performance in games, especially games released in the past year or so that take advantage of more cores, cheaper and better motherboards and it comes with a better stock cooler, on which you can OC the 1600 easily up to 3.8GHz on ALL cores.

With better aftermarket cooler you can reach 4GHz on ALL cores. The 7600 can't even be overclocked, you have to buy the much more expension K version of it, and also the much more expensive overclocking motherboards AND you absolutely must use aftermarket cooler to overclock Intel CPU's, otherwise their stock coolers are garbage and you can barely get 300MHz OC on just 4 cores.

Ryzen processors are also more future proof and we've seen what game optimization can do for the performance, AOTS, ROTTR, etc... performing up to 60% better with patches. Imagine games being built from the ground up with Ryzen performance in mind and being optimized from the start!

R5 1600 all day, My personal plan is a R7 1700 for productivity but the 1600 pricing is making me think about it.

If I had to then the Ryzen 5 1600.
But in truth neither. I'm running a core i5 4670K. If you look at the specs of this 'end of life' processor it is 4 years old, has a TDP of 84W and runs at 3.4Ghz, 3.8Ghz boost.

Why would I spend £200 on a processor, £100 on a motherboard and ~£130 for 16GB of DDR4 ram?

If you really need to buy a new chip I think that the Ryzen 5 1600 has it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ik9000

Ryzen 5. It's better, and it isn't intel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

I've generally found that finding positive reasons for getting something is better than finding negative reasons. For some, Intel may be a better purchasing decision - and 'better' is a subjective view.

---

oh come on, that was one positive balanced with another positive. I make no apologies for the post. It's a far better all-rounder and is much better for my needs. As others have explained in more detail there is only a very narrow place where the intel is better, and for me that small margin just isn't that big a deal when in all other aspects Ryzen bests it. Also I'm delighted for once the better pick isn't Intel. I resent every penny I've had to give them in the past few years. Monopolies suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

When offered two options, both equally attractive, my inner 'awkward git' likes to go for the underdog. If nothing else, the fact that there is a credible underdog helps keep the big dog relatively honest. I do not want to see AMD go under, so I'd be doing my bit to keep them afloat.

---

That was behind my post too. See, a positive.