AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

[Amalaric]

Is it really wise to pay $30 more for 300 extra Megahertz over the AMD Ryzen 5 1400?

[Thunderball]

Anything below R5 1600 is generally not worth it.

[Amalaric]

Anything below R5 1600 is generally not worth it.

What? Please explain your thoughts on the matter.

[Thunderball]

What? Please explain your thoughts on the matter.

Ryzen is far behind in performance per core in gaming, but has options with more cores, so not taking advantage of extra cores you can have makes it far less appealing. Unless it's some kind of very specific usecase, for example you desperately need those cores (for whatever reason) but cant afford anything else.

[Amalaric]

Ryzen is far behind in performance per core in gaming, but has options with more cores, so not taking advantage of extra cores you can have makes it far less appealing. Unless it's some kind of very specific usecase, for example you desperately need those cores (for whatever reason) but cant afford anything else.

But does even the latest computer games support more than four cores?

[Thunderball]

But does even the latest computer games support more than four cores?

Some of them do, but that's not why people would generally look into buying AMD.

[mrgreenthump]

But does even the latest computer games support more than four cores?

Modern games are well multithreaded, so they in a way support any number of cores as long as the scheduling is there. As to if they need more than 4 cores depends pretty much on the game. Some games still use terrible engines which tend to favor high clock speed and don't see much benefit past 4 cores.

But a general rule for now is, machine for new titles go for 12+ thread CPU. For old titles, go for highest IPC and clock speed.

[potis]

What? Please explain your thoughts on the matter.

I would push that and say R5 1600X to ignore any sort of overclocking also.

R5 1600X is the sweet spot for anyone that wants to do multi-gaming and play everything since it has nothing to fear against Intel in its general usage, its ahead in some, its behind in some others, overall its a very good choice.

Whether its future investment or older games, the R5 1600X cause of its 4.0Ghz and only that compared to the 3.2-->3.6 of the plain 1600 is a proper choice.

[Amalaric]

Modern games are well multithreaded, so they in a way support any number of cores as long as the scheduling is there. As to if they need more than 4 cores depends pretty much on the game. Some games still use terrible engines which tend to favor high clock speed and don't see much benefit past 4 cores.

But a general rule for now is, machine for new titles go for 12+ thread CPU. For old titles, go for highest IPC and clock speed.

Ah, I see.

[mrgreenthump]

Ah, I see.

That's not to say 1500x is bad or worthless, just if you can afford it, a 1600 or 1600x is a better buy in general.

[Amalaric]

I would push that and say R5 1600X to ignore any sort of overclocking also.

R5 1600X is the sweet spot for anyone that wants to do multi-gaming and play everything since it has nothing to fear against Intel in its general usage, its ahead in some, its behind in some others, overall its a very good choice.

Whether its future investment or older games, the R5 1600X cause of its 4.0Ghz and only that compared to the 3.2-->3.6 of the plain 1600 is a proper choice.

Ok I understand but this thread is about two quad core CPUs.

[potis]

Ok I understand but this thread is about two 4-core CPUs.

Irrelevant, it doesnt work that way.

The only thing that counters i7 7700K in performance and value for money for -everything- is the R5 1600X and R5 1600 if clocked higher which makes it pointless, since you can just buy the 1600X.

Whether its single-thread or multi-thread.

[Amalaric]

Irrelevant, it doesnt work that way.

The only thing that counters i7 7700K in performance and value for money for -everything- is the R5 1600X and R5 1600 if clocked higher which makes it pointless, since you can just buy the 1600X.

Whether its single-thread or multi-thread.

No really... this thread is about two quad core CPUs and not hexa, octa or deca CPUs.

[potis]

No really... this thread is about two quad core CPUs and not hexa, octa or deca CPUs.

It is not my problem if you dont understand

[Amalaric]

It is not my problem if you dont understand

Do you understand the title of this thread? It is not about hexa, octa or deca CPUs.

[Denpepe]

remember, it's 300 mhz per core more which should be worth the difference in price if you can use all the threads.

[Amalaric]

remember, it's 300 mhz per core more which should be worth the difference in price if you can use all the threads.

Sadly it doesn't work like that or my 4.2GHz 3770K would be like 16.8GHz.

[Denpepe]

Sadly it doesn't work like that or my 4.2GHz 3770K would be like 16.8GHz.

It works like I said, if you game on the CPU in something like wow which uses mostly 1 core you basically gain 300 mhz, if you run something on all cores that runs them at 100% you gain 300 mhz per core + some boost to the weaker hyperthreading or whatever it's called by AMD.

[Deleted]

Sadly it doesn't work like that or my 4.2GHz 3770K would be like 16.8GHz.

Actually it is, for programs utilizing all cores fully - for some even higher, since the logical cores can be used as well.

However most games do not scale that well with cores. Yes, modern games are usually better than say WoW where even a second core isn't utilized fully and any further core isn't used at all, but games that scale more or less linear with cores beyond 4 or even 8 are quite rare.
Then there's also the GPU limit where more CPU power isn't going to help much either.

Some other workloads however scale just fine even beyond 32 cores.

[Lillpapps]

Sadly it doesn't work like that or my 4.2GHz 3770K would be like 16.8GHz.

Why are you looking into "upgrading" a 3770k to a 1500X? an overclocked 3770k already outperforms the 1500X.