Im planning on upgrading my 2200g in my gaming pc now that i have saved up a bit more but im not sure if i should get the 2600 or the 1700. From what ive found online they perform roughly the same in games but the 2600 seems to perform slightly better. Im wondering if the extra cores in the 1700 are worth it just in case i want to record gameplay (although i dont NEED to record gameplay). Im also using an rx580 if that makes any difference.
I'm also using an rx580 if that makes any difference.
I don't think the RX 580 does makes a difference on gaming, as no game does use 16 logical cores anyway.
So regardless if you have 12 or 16 logical cores, the boost clock plays a much greater role than the available cores.
And 12 logical cores are already more than enough for the most games.
According to the above, the Ryzen 2600 with a greater boost clock speed across all cores of 3.7GHz would be the better choice than a Ryzen 1700 with a speed of 3.2GHz across all cores.
However, there is a workaround for this. Get a Ryzen 1700 and overclock it to 4.0GHz.
Of course you can do the same with the Ryzen 2600 as well.
So at the end, a stock running 2600 would be the better option than a stock running 1700 as gaming concerns.
Performance difference between these two processor isn't much, and if you overclock both the performance should be almost the same.
On multi threaded applications the 1700 should be the faster processor.
Now, because both have almost the same price, you could opt for an 1700 instead of an 2600.
Day to day price fluctuations in the 1600/1700/2600/2600X could change the logical direction at any time.....
Assuming a vacuum where the 2600 and 1700 are the only option, and they are priced the same, the answer should probably be based on whether you are interested in overclocking or not. If not, go 2600, if so, go 1700.
With that said, if you're not interested in overclocking, spending the extra $20-50 (varies from day to day) on a 2600X is a good idea, as that actually makes a meaningful difference in clock speeds.
Scroll down to the "Precision Boost 2 And XFR2" section on that first page.
The 2600 isn't represented, but we can assume similar behavior to the 2700 (and in my experience with the 2600, that's a reasonable assumption).
The 2600X averages over 25% better clock speeds than a stock 1700, combine that with the IPC improvements and you can figure on the 2600X matching the 1700 in highly parallel workloads, and beating it in everything else. The 2600X also offers over a 15% clock speed advantage over the 2600, which is nothing to sneeze at for gaming performance.
I was interested in overclocking but I wanted to know if the extra cores on the 1700, overclocked to around 3.9-4 ghz, would make a difference when using something like obs while gaming [just to record and not to stream]. Also i wasnt interested in getting a 2600x or other 95w part.
but I wanted to know if the extra cores on the 1700, overclocked to around 3.9-4 ghz, would make a difference when using something like obs while gaming [just to record and not to stream].
Depends on the recording format and whether you use the H.264 software encoder or a GPU encoder or uncompressed recording.
For higher quality H.264 software encoding while gaming, the 1700 clocked high will work better than the 2600.
If you're recording "uncompressed" (or giving a lot of bandwidth to an H.264 stream, allowing the use of lower settings), or using the GPU encoder at max bitrate for recording, and then compressing/processing after the fact with an H.264/H.265 encoder, then CPU choice won't make a ton of difference while gaming here, but the 1700 will process your video clips faster than the 2600.
Also i wasnt interested in getting a 2600x or other 95w part.
FYI: A 1700@3.9-4.0GHZ (assuming you get a good sample) will require 150-200W at these clock speeds.
I could be interpreting your rationale incorrectly here. It sounds to me like you're avoiding 95W parts for some something to do with their higher power rating, but perhaps in reality you're avoiding the higher cost of "X" model parts, favoring overclocking a lower model chip.
Actually its cooling im concerned with but i imagine im going to upgrade my cooler eventually so i guess it doesnt matter now that you mention it. Thanks for the feedback as well. Also would a 500w psu be enough for an oc 1700 and an rx580?
Actually its cooling im concerned with but i imagine im going to upgrade my cooler eventually so i guess it doesnt matter now that you mention it.
The 2600X comes with a pretty good cooler, no need to upgrade it really.
Also would a 500w psu be enough for an oc 1700 and an rx580?
The only common/popular PSU's I know of rated specifically "500W" are not going to be suitable for that arrangement of parts.
An OC'ed 1700 + RX 580 + chipset/drives/ram/ethernet/sound/superio/etc could easily dance right near the 500W mark in stress testing.
I would use nothing less than a good quality 650W PSU for such a build.
Normally, there's a 650-750W PSU of very good quality on sale for ~$80.
I'm seeing the EVGA - SuperNOVA G1+ 650 W for $75 today, that's probably today's PSU deal for you.
Very often another $20 will bump you up to a 750-850W option.
Might be worth noting, that a 2600X running at "Stock" clocks (almost always runs above 4GHZ) will both provide better gaming performance and dissipate less power than an overclocked 1700. A 2600X (stockclocked) and an RX 580 build could technically be powered by a 500W PSU, so the implementation cost there could wind up being a wash. The compromise would be if using a CPU based H.264 encoder for recording. Use a different recording strategy with the 2600X to maximize game performance.
With that said, I would still advise avoiding most "500W" rated PSU's, not that there is something wrong with the concept of a 500W PSU, just that for whatever reason, with the exception of a few SFX PSU's, the 500W "size" doesn't have very many high quality members to choose from. (almost always, this is in reference to an old corsair CX series or an EVGA B series, both of which are typically functional for lower power builds but not very reliable when presented with frequent high power draw).
Thank you for your advice. I think ill just bite the bullet and spend 75~100 bucks on a good psu so i wont have to worry about any upgrades in the future and save up for a 2600x. lol
To simply put it simply. If the purpose of your build is strictly and exclusively targeted towards gaming then the 2600 is the better choice especially considering its better stock clock speeds. If you are into streaming or multimedia task requiring the use of the multi threads, then choose the 1700. The 2600 can also be overclocked at a higher rate as compared to the 1700 (I believe 4.2 GHZ to 4.0 GHZ). However the 1700 does include the better stock cooler; Wraith Spire when compared to the 2600 with the Wraith Stealth.
Agreed. I was just mentioning it if he is on a budget and is unable to, as of this moment, purchase an aftermarket cooler.
That's what I'm doing with my current build, I went a bit too much out of my range for my budget and ended up sacrificing an extra HDMI cable, a water cooler and a usb keyboard and mouse (just went with a ps/2 converter). Especially since I decided to get Windows 10 instead of just using a Linux distro.
CPU
CPU Cooler
Motherboard
Memory
Storage
Video Card
Power Supply
Case