add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Ryzen 7 1700 vs Ryzen 5 2600

12345nidal

7 months ago

Which of these CPUs would be the better bang for ur back, specifically for games such as AC, 2K, Overwatch, along with occasional video editing?

Comments

  • 7 months ago
  • 5 points

If you just want the best out-of-the-box performance, the 2600 will have a slight edge in most gaming workloads, and video editing will probably be a wash depending on the program and specific situation. Keep in mind, the 2600X is only $10 more than the 2600 ($15 more than 1700) and will probably beat the 1700 in any workload compared stock vs stock, especially in workloads like gaming where the gap can be pretty significant due to both major clock speed advantages (~25%) combined with a slight IPC advantage.

If you're planning to overclock, the 1700 probably offers the most value, as it comes with the same heatsink as the 2600X and has some useful headroom on that heatsink. 3.7-3.8GHZ all-core overclock is common on these. At these speeds, it will be very close to the 2600X in most games, and have headroom from additional cores for workloads like streaming while gaming.

[edit in]... reading response to another post. No plans to overclock... The 2600X should be at the top of your menu.

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

If I were you I would wait untill 3rd gen ryzen arrives, one of the new might suit your needs better and if not, prices on zen, zen+ will probably drop

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

As long as you overclock its hard to pass up the 1700.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh, I forgot to mention that I am not overclocking anytime soon.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Then I would recommend the 2600, 2600X or wait roughly 2 more months for Ryzen 3000 to be released.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

It's likely to be longer then two months. At their earnings call AMD only listed EPYC and Navi launching in Q3 and have already removed Threadripper 2 from the roadmap.

TSMC shut down much of their 7nm DUV production to ramp up 7nm+ and 6nm EUV causing some issues for many chip manufacturers who were planning on using the first generation process.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Well that stinks.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Yes and No. It means that Zen 2 Second Gen/Zen 3 which was supposed to launch on a 7nm+ is likely to launch earlier then anticipated which would invalidate Zen 2 anyway.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

They are pretty evenly matched.

2600X overall has a 5-10% advantage for gaming when both are at stock speeds and the 2600X has faster RAM.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1825-ryzen-2600x-vs-1700/

I would go 1700 over the 2600 as the extra cores still help in workloads that can scale into them.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube