Ryzen 1600 AF or 3600?

[awebz]

For now through Shadowlands. Playing WoW only. 1080p. With a 1660 super/ti.

[Sorshen]

Depends on your budget? 1600AF is great for a budget build.

[awebz]

Depends on your budget? 1600AF is great for a budget build.

Right, what I'm asking then is for wow specifically is the extra money for 3600 worth what you get

[Dilbon]

The best value for WoW would probably be 3500X if it could be found anywhere.

[Vash The Stampede]

The Ryzen 1600 AF is a response from people like me who are buying Ryzen 1000's and 2000's instead of the 3000's because as great as the 3000's are, the price per performance is not as good as the older Ryzen's. That being said, the 1600 AF is a mix of Ryzen 2000 and 3000, but yet called a 1000... Yea, AMD's marketing is stupid. I would go for the Ryzen 2600 as those perform better than the 1600 AF and even overclocks better. You can find them for $115 while the 1600 AF is going to be $85.

[Bryntrollian]

The Ryzen 1600 AF is a response from people like me who are buying Ryzen 1000's and 2000's instead of the 3000's because as great as the 3000's are, the price per performance is not as good as the older Ryzen's. That being said, the 1600 AF is a mix of Ryzen 2000 and 3000, but yet called a 1000... Yea, AMD's marketing is stupid. I would go for the Ryzen 2600 as those perform better than the 1600 AF and even overclocks better. You can find them for $115 while the 1600 AF is going to be $85.

The 2600 is most certainly not worth that much more than the 1600 AF

[Biernot]

The Ryzen 1600 AF is a response from people like me who are buying Ryzen 1000's and 2000's instead of the 3000's because as great as the 3000's are, the price per performance is not as good as the older Ryzen's. That being said, the 1600 AF is a mix of Ryzen 2000 and 3000, but yet called a 1000... Yea, AMD's marketing is stupid. I would go for the Ryzen 2600 as those perform better than the 1600 AF and even overclocks better. You can find them for $115 while the 1600 AF is going to be $85.

The 1600AF is first gen design (Zen) on a second gen (Zen+) manufacturing node. First gen was 14nm, second gen is 12nm.
Because the performance increases of the 2600 over the 1600 were mostly due to increased clock speeds of the better manufacturing node, the 1600AF is nearly as fast as the 2600. So unless the 2600 is only marginally more expensive (like 10-20 bucks), the 1600AF would be the clear choice for a budget build.

The 3600 is about 20% faster than those, but at this moment is about $80 more. ($115 for 2600, $195 for 3600).

Gamers Nexus Benchmark/Review Ryzen 1600AF

So for a low budget build, the 1600AF (when it is available at the projected $85) is probably the best choice (or a used 2600). If you want better performance and willing to pay >$100 more, then the 3600 is your choice.

[Dellboi]

For the content you want it for I'd go Ryzen

[Thunderball]

Dont buy anything that's not on Zen2 for WoW. Ryzen 1600 AF is not on Zen2.

[Vash The Stampede]

The 1600AF is first gen design (Zen) on a second gen (Zen+) manufacturing node. First gen was 14nm, second gen is 12nm.
Because the performance increases of the 2600 over the 1600 were mostly due to increased clock speeds of the better manufacturing node, the 1600AF is nearly as fast as the 2600. So unless the 2600 is only marginally more expensive (like 10-20 bucks), the 1600AF would be the clear choice for a budget build.

Seems like an odd choice to continue to make Zen1 on a Zen+ manufacturing node when they could have just made more 2600's. I'm guessing that AMD has a contract to continue to make 12nm chips, and this is how they felt would make the quota?

The 3600 is about 20% faster than those, but at this moment is about $80 more. ($115 for 2600, $195 for 3600).

Gamers Nexus Benchmark/Review Ryzen 1600AF

So for a low budget build, the 1600AF (when it is available at the projected $85) is probably the best choice (or a used 2600). If you want better performance and willing to pay >$100 more, then the 3600 is your choice.

I personally don't see much value in the Ryzen 3000 series when the price for performance is just not there. The 1600AF sounds good for $85 but that'll likely drive down the price of used 2600's. There is also the concern of the 1600AF being supported on X570 motherboards. I know nobody is going to buy an $85 CPU to run it on a ~$150+ motherboard but any future updated AM4 chipsets may also be incompatible with first gen Ryzen CPU's, like a B550 if AMD makes one. I would rather buy a used 2600 personally.

[Linkedblade]

The Ryzen 1600 AF is a response from people like me who are buying Ryzen 1000's and 2000's instead of the 3000's because as great as the 3000's are, the price per performance is not as good as the older Ryzen's. That being said, the 1600 AF is a mix of Ryzen 2000 and 3000, but yet called a 1000... Yea, AMD's marketing is stupid. I would go for the Ryzen 2600 as those perform better than the 1600 AF and even overclocks better. You can find them for $115 while the 1600 AF is going to be $85.

No, it's ryzen 1000 architecture on a 12nm wafer. So it gets the performance and efficiency uplifts of being on a smaller node. So it's a mix of zen and zen+. And it competes well with the 2600. They allegedly did this because they ran out of 14 nm wafers.

If you have the extra cash get the 3600 so you have a future proof cpu and can upgrade other parts later. Otherwise pick what's in your budget.

1600 (Technically 1600 AE, Zen, 14nm) < 1600AF (Zen, 12 nm) < 2600 (Zen+, 12 nm) < 3600 (Zen 2, 7nm)

[Kagthul]

No, it's ryzen 1000 architecture on a 12nm wafer. So it gets the performance and efficiency uplifts of being on a smaller node. So it's a mix of zen and zen+. And it competes well with the 2600. They allegedly did this because they ran out of 14 nm wafers.

If you have the extra cash get the 3600 so you have a future proof cpu and can upgrade other parts later. Otherwise pick what's in your budget.

1600 (Technically 1600 AE, Zen, 14nm) < 1600AF (Zen, 12 nm) < 2600 (Zen+, 12 nm) < 3600 (Zen 2, 7nm)

Did you even watch the GN video?

'cause thats not what it is.

The 1600 AF, if you can get it for the price it is supposed to be (~90$) is by far the better choice for a budget build.

Its a 2600 in all but name, for even cheaper than the 2600.

The price/performance on that thing as a sub-90$ CPU is insane.

[Thunderball]

Did you even watch the GN video?

'cause thats not what it is.

The 1600 AF, if you can get it for the price it is supposed to be (~90$) is by far the better choice for a budget build.

Its a 2600 in all but name, for even cheaper than the 2600.

The price/performance on that thing as a sub-90$ CPU is insane.

GN video assumes it's a Zen+ because it's on 12nm. It's not a Zen+ CPU.

[Temp name]

GN video assumes it's a Zen+ because it's on 12nm. It's not a Zen+ CPU.

They literally got a response from AMD though.
not to mention the difference between Zen 1 and Zen+ is 14nm v 12nm

[marceltrido]

There is also the concern of the 1600AF being supported on X570 motherboards.

[lockblock]

There is also the concern of the 1600AF being supported on X570 motherboards.

Not really, because there is no reason to waste money on x570 with such a low tier chip.

[Bryntrollian]

There is also the concern of the 1600AF being supported on X570 motherboards.

Even the 3900X and 3950X can be comfortably ran with a B450 Tomahawk Max, there isn't any reason to buy X570 with lower tier hardware.

[Kagthul]

They literally got a response from AMD though.
not to mention the difference between Zen 1 and Zen+ is 14nm v 12nm

Better IMC as well. But the actual difference in the cores themselves, yes, is just the lithography.

[valky94]

There is also the concern of the 1600AF being supported on X570 motherboards.

why buy a mobo that is 2x the price of your cpu??

[Vash The Stampede]

Not really, because there is no reason to waste money on x570 with such a low tier chip.

The concern would be if AMD does make a B550 chipset and those can't work with Ryzen 1000's as well. I have no idea why first gen Ryzen's can't work on a x570.