Read more.Quote:
Competition has been restored, but which £200 chip would you choose?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Competition has been restored, but which £200 chip would you choose?
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.
1600.
More cores, more threads, cheaper motherboards and a better stock cooler. The biggest reason is that it'll be better for the industry as a whole if AMD can cut into Intel's market share.
Intel has been coasting for too long while putting in the bare minimum.
Ryzen 5, no question. Just need some money for an upgrade.
1600 - 6 cores and 12 threads is more future proof than 4 cores with 4 threads. AMD's SMT is fairly decent too, so those SMT threads are useful.
Sure, the Intel part is faster in single thread, but you have to look at the overall picture.
Most people here won't care about the integrated GPU. Indeed it just adds cruft to the motherboard. Boards for the AMD part seem fairly reasonably priced as well.
Ryzen 5, an obvious choice. It is the more powerful CPU, by a considerable amount. And sooner or later, games will be better optimised for more cores. It's just a matter of when.
Can you run a test with ECC ram when you do get a lower end one? Thinking that since Intel left the market - there is a space for small form factor servers , especially with Ryzen 3
Ryzen. The 1600 is plenty for gaming. Throw in my productivity workload and it is a no brainer.
New tech, vs established tech...
Not sure how I'd call it for a new build. Price & reliability, so probably the Ryzen; however, I do tend to be risk adverse.
amd rysen
If upgrading from a older pc than I have now I suppose it would be Ryzen although it still can be buggy with memory which tends to put me off. If upgrading from my 4790k then neither of them because they aren't a big enough improvement and Ryzen could have possibly worse single core performance than my 4790k. Single core performance is most important to me as I mainly play simulators such as TS2017 and FSX that are mainly single threaded and love a high clockspeed.
Ryzen 5 1600.
Intel has been resting on their laurels and charging at really high prices for far too long. The build quality of their latest offerings have been really iffy, and while I may get better performance on Intel CPUs, the fact that I have to purchase an expensive motherboard that can support the Intel CPU defeats the purpose. 4 cores and 4 threads are not going to last long so if I look at things in the long run, I'll get more mileage and save more money with the Ryzen 5 1600.
Many years back, I asked a gaming forum for recommendations for a budget gaming build. Most people recommended I get an i3 but one very respected user said that getting a Quad Core FX 4100 would be a better decision in the long run because more games would cap the minimum requirement at a Quad Core. His prediction was perfect and had I got that i3 like most people said, I would have ended up playing a lot less games than I do now.
Last but not the least, Intel still has that 1.2 billion dollar fine they haven't paid for unfair market practices. I greatly detest cheaters so AMD has my full support. Strong competition leads to better products, better prices and better deals for consumers. A market monopoly is the worst thing that can happen for us consumers.
Ryzen 5.
11 to 1, thus far. The CPU world is changing, I guess...
i bought the ryzen 5 1600. i did enough research to where i saw in most cases in what i do, the 1600 was a better choice. i could have gotta an i7 7700k for $90. i still wanted the 1600, can again in what i do, the 1600 beat the i7 7700k. As far as gaming most of the programs are written mostly using the intel dev kit and not the ryzen kit. also some of the programmers have admitted to it being too much work to go passed 4 cores. are they lazy? maybe, but i do know they have a time frame to finish their project.
Ryzen 5 - I've already put my money where my mouth is.
AMD have stepped up, so I decided to show some love.
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!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnt_Custard
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 ;)
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 Moogly
Intel have been milking us, but then they always have if you go back and look up the price of a high end 486.Quote:
Originally Posted by infraction
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnixI 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 Moogly
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
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.
Wot he ^^^^ said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
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
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 peterb
That was behind my post too. See, a positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
The Ryzen 5 1600 wins for me at least, 6 cores/12 threads for under £200, in fact I saw it going for £185 on Amazon a short time ago.
In this hypothetical it has to be the Ryzen. I have a yen for Zen, ye ken?
In practice the question is whether to get a ThreadRipper or an EPYC 1P. I look forward to reading reviews and calculating complete system prices. If Zen 2 isn't too far away then I might be able to wait for it.
I see what you did there! :clapping:Quote:
Originally Posted by devBunny
Already chose a 1700. The 1600 is a good deal. In terms of future use 1700 would be better.
It is pretty simple.. AMD offer the best product for the price currently.. am not a fan of either brand or want to defend them either, as a consumer I go for the best value for the coin spendt... though when I build it is the big CPU/GPU's though but even there AMD currently has won me over.
Intel all the way...
Nah, I'm just pulling your leg! Ryzen is a way better deal. Sure, single-threaded performance isn't quite up there, but Ryzen is more future-proof and AMD doesn't artificially segment the market like Intel by fusing off features.
As late as yesterday I recommended a friend to go with the R5 1600 over the i5-7600K. He's always been using Intel, but even he recognized the better deal when he saw it.
This thread has been sprayed with red love (giggity). It proves that AMD have shook the market eith Intels response and the competition is now in the right area. I would definitely go for a r5 1600, this is due to my AMD bias but also because all my suspicions that Intel have been artificially holding back because they've had no competition has really angered me. If Intel had continued doing their devarc rather than just doing a ticktocktocktocktocktocktock on us, AMD wouldn't have had a chance.
I'm still not sure which way I'll jump on this, part of me says follow the crowd and go with the AMD with the next PC I plan to build soon'ish. But my current PC is an i5-2500k which I've been running about six years and it's still going well, would I have been as happy with a six year old AMD, and will the AMD have the headroom to still be going strong in a few years time?
I know I wouldn't go for the non-K version of the Intel, the extra cost spread over the four-five year lifespan isn't a worry.
The two options in the question are comparing a 6 month old chip with a brand new one. I'm going to wait and see what Intel do with Coffee Lake later in the year before making a decision, so my answer to the question above at the moment is neither, I would wait a few more months to see how things settle. If AMD start taking market share Intel will have to react in some way, perhaps with more competitive prices.
If I was spending that much it'd be the 1600 without question.
In fact the 1600 was second place in my CPU list, it only lost out to the G4560 because the extra £150 brought much better results when spent elsewhere.
Intel are re-packaging and re-branding existing Xeon products from an old roadmap. There is nothing new here other than an overclock of existing parts and some price adjustments. Yes the case for 6 cores is now so overwhelming that it looked like Intel were finally going to buckle anyway at least that far, but please don't confuse packaging with innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza365
Intel are primarily a manufacturing company, historically their CPU design has always lagged others. Even now when they are pretty much the only player, if I wanted a really high end server I would be looking at an IBM Power based machine. Then there is the way that Intel have been laptop focussed for some years now as they didn't think the desktop was a worthwhile market.
It takes several years to design a new core. Just to do a new layout with a given core/cache/gpu split takes about 6 months. Intel haven't reacted yet other than marketing tweaks. They have always been good at that, but that is to their advantage bleeding us for maximum profit not to our advantage.
I stick by my earlier comment, the Intel cores are as good as they can manage. The products are well balanced for maximum Intel profit. I can't see any holding back here, apart from they could have optimised for desktop rather than laptop. But then people seem to like the reduced TDP, so perhaps they were spot on there too.
The difference between intel and AMD 6 years ago was not what it is now. If you can afford to pay the ~£300 for a 6-core coffee lake there'll be nothing wrong with it, but looking at value a 12 core ryzen processor will wipe the floor with a 4 core intel processor in 6 years time.Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon861
I'll be one of the odd ones out and say I'd still go for the Intel chip. Because:
1.I like per-core performance (in my day to day work/play, 4 high-IPC cores are somewhat more useful than 6 mid/high-IPC cores).
2.Intel's platforms/chipsets are still a bit more solid than AMDs (as long as they're not rushing them out, *cough*X299*cough*). Was burned back in the Athlon x2 days and have just never really been convinced by AMDs platforms.
3. I like power efficiency and quiet-ish operation of my PC, while also enjoying some mild overclocking. Intel seem to care more about efficiency and cool running than AMD do (except with their TIM choices, but that's a minor grumble). Often feels like AMD chips are already well on the way to their thermal/power limits even running at stock.
4. I don't replace my core components often enough for an extra £100 here or there to be a massive decider, since a CPU/mobo platform will generally last me at least 4 years - plus we all know how relatively pointless it is trying to future proof a PC, anyway :)
Just my 0.02p
1. I bet the per-core performance difference won't be noticeable or an issue to most of users, including you. You didn't used yet a Ryzen 1600 and a 7600 side by side to make a grounded statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Menty
2. I had a nForce platform in Athlon X2 days and never had an issue really.
3. This is just an old stereotype. AMD is much better nowadays with thermals/acoustics and Ryzen is comparable/even better compared to what Intel has.
4. Yes, I have to agree with that, but now the market has an inflexion point - like in the single core to multi core days - when suddenly AMD came to life and gave people the chance to move away from only 4 cores, which Intel kept as long as they could.
So, all in all, I suggest you try first an AMD Ryzen powered system and after a few days of use, give us your opinion.
Ryzen seems like an easy and obvious answer.
Where it gets interesting is when you're not building a gaming PC. The Ryzen line aren't APUs, whereas all the Intel ones are up to the HPET chips. I was looking at a Ryzen 5 1400 for a low-end rig for somebody who doesn't game, and the Intel offering is actually cheaper because of this. I was quite surprised.
It would definitely have to be the Ryzen out of the two.
Partly as AMD usually tend to be better value, but mostly for the fact that I trust there to be more of an upgrade path with AMD, whereas Intel love to change sockets much more frequently.
On that front there is of course the 1700(x)/1800(x) as an upgrade anyway but AMD don't tend to change socket with each new processor like intel seem to be doing these days which as you say is also an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Output
Would appreciate some views and comments on pre-built, customizeable systems available - which companies would people recommend? Interested in a R5 1600, SSD + 1or 2 gb HD, 1080p gaming rig. Hopefully in the £1k region. Should I maybe wait until Vega and see if that pushes down costs on 570s or 1060s??
Yeah, but the question was about R5 1600 vs i5 7600.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashers
I understand your point but the APUs are coming later, and will likely be priced just as aggressively.
Maybe the 1600 is good value (personally I like the 1600X) however I have to point out you mistakes in this comment and the others. People yapping without knowledge, just angers me. You try compare a 7600k when we are talking non-k. A B Series MB is comparable to an Intel MB that IS NOT a Z. Only a X AMD MB compares to a Z INTEL. The cooler is crap. And a 7600 BEATS a 1600 in single core speed, making it making for gaming. The 1600 is better in multi tasking due to more cores. It is not more powerful. You lot lack experience. Bigging up you know nothing about. Noobs of tech shud STFU. 7600K vs 1600X = 1600X wins in terms of value and performance. 7600 vs 1600 = 7600 for gaming, 1600 for general. All jumping on the AMD train. Facts are such, dont go round making up BS to suit what you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Wow, that was a roller coaster of "Lulz".Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
I think you're being a bit obtuse with how close the two processors are to each other, this is the difference of two very large quantities. Sure you lose a few FPS with AMD but that doesn't make "STFU YO, Intel am bestest and all youse can shaddup".
But the funny thing is, you've pretty much agreed with everyone here is that the AMD side using the 1600(X) would be the better choice, but sadly you are so wrong in A) your world view that everyone else is stupid and you're the God and B) making big swathing judgments in a less than 10% scenario.
I think you should work for Intel Marketing
Some of use have been around for building PCs for over a decade and have seen how things have changed. You know before Sandy Bridge you could actually overclock ALL Intel CPUs even on a £60 motherboard??Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
You don't even seem to get that, if you want to overclock an Intel CPU YOU NEED AN Z270 motherboard. Intel has on purpose made sure the H and B series motherboards are locked out.
With an AMD CPU you don't need the Z270 equivalent which is the X370 - there are even £65 motherboards with 9 phase VRMs.
What you don't seem to get is that the K series CPUs lack a cooler,so are ignoring the fact the Core i5 7600K still NEEDS a cooler to overclock even 100mhz or run at stock clockspeeds.
Most review sites have tested the AMD coolers,and the Wraith Spire is actually close to £20 to £25 coolers like the 212 Evo,which is quite decent for a stock cooler.
You have no clue about stock coolers too - the old Intel ones all had copper cores and large heatsink mass,which meant they were far better than the tiny ones we have today.
I also have loads of mates who are enthusiasts,and know people with both Ryzen and modern Intel builds,and I have made some direct criticisms of areas where it was lacking. There are also quite a few here who actually have Ryzen rigs and newish Intel rigs too,and the same goes over on OcUK.
People like Saracen,who agreed with me, have worked in the tech industry actually reviewing hardware,and a number have been enthusiasts even longer than me,and I am sure if that is not enough for you,you might want to talk to some of the people with orange,red and blue sigs! ;)
To be honest I'm encouraged this kind of debate is happening again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
The contradiction and irony is just too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I suspect the poster hasn't quite got the hang of the way we discuss things round here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
yet. :)
Im sure a swift swing of Peters hammer should rectify any confusion :DQuote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Suggest you post this in one of the dedicated forums for such things rather than comments here. Lots of people will have lots of opinions. Personally I have nothing but positive things to say about OCUK, and other people like PCSpecialist a lot. As to GPUs, right now the entire mid-high end stack is low on stock for both AMD and NVidia AFAIK. Prices likely to be a little higher than value. I don't know if Vega will make that any better though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric F
That's an impressive quantity of ignorance and arrogance in one paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by alchemist83
Having owned and 6700K with a z series board (two actually) and a Ryzen 5 1600, I can confidently state you don't have a clue. The cooler is crap? Seriously? Have you tried overclocking with an intel stock cooler?
Corresponding intel CPUs do have an advantage in single core performance, something which is becoming less and less important - why else are Intel running scared? If you care to look at a bunch of gaming benchmarks, you'll see how wrong you are.
This whole intel for gaming amd for general crap is laughable - most people want the best single all round PC the can afford - right now, that means Ryzen.
Ryzen 5 1600 - 6 cores and 12 threads is more future proof than 4 cores with 4 threads
has anyone downclocked the i5 7600 down to the ryzen 5 160 clock speed in ANY REVIEW?? intel is going back to clock speed does matter and not work per clock.