Marketplace
COLLECTING
Static ice
$12 cheaper than the next cheapest.
Ryzen 5 1600 $276 @ Shopping-Express-Clearance eBay
460
Related Stores
closed Comments
Not unless you to stream, record and game at the same time. Intel is great for gaming however Ryzen is great for everything else.
Ryzen's also great for gaming, the difference between 140 frames per second on Ryzen and 150 frames per second on Kaby Lakes is not usually all that noticeable.
Oh i seemed a little bias? I'm rocking on Ryzen 1700. I just gotta keep the conversation balanced as I'll get downvoted by AMD haters and Intel lovers.
I have freesync screen 144 fps and yeah.. cant do much at the moment with it however should be fine once Vega comes out considering AMD is releasing patches to address the problem over time which has helped bump up the fps.
@repair-pro: No not at all, my comment was meant to be an addendum not a correction. Sorry if it came off that way!
I wouldn't think so, not unless you are more into graphics and content creating, something you could put the Ryzen to good use for other than gaming and general use and even then if it's only light stuff still not worth the jump. On top of that you'd also need to upgrade your Motherboard and RAM, and it starts adding up!!
You could give your 4690 a bump to 4.4 - 4.5 easily and squeeze a bit more life out of it.
I wish I could OC my 4690k to 4.4GHz+ but It seems like I'm one of those unlucky people who did badly in the silicon lottery :(.
Yeah I realize I would have to upgrade my motherboard and RAM; I only have 8GB of RAM (which has surprisingly fitted my needs well) and buying an extra stick of 1600-DD3 RAM doesn't make much sense. Upgrading sure is tempting.
Nushy, take solace in knowing that each of your 4 Intel cores are pumping out instructions %25 faster than those Ryzen cores, therefore Gaming/Lightroom/Photoshop/Productivity apps and most 'everything else' that isn't heavily multithreaded is going to be faster on the rig you already have. I just went from an i7 2600 to a Ryzen 1700 OC to 3.8 on air and .. err.. yeah, I guess Cinebench looks good. I guess unzipping is faster kinda. But otherwise NVMe + Graphics card is money better spent.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+1600&id…
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4690K…agree to his comment. I was thinking of upgrading to 1800 from my 4.6ghz 4790k, but other than multiple excel loading (for work), it actually has slightly lower perf on game. if you are not multitasking then keep your i5
each of your 4 Intel cores are pumping out instructions %25 faster than those Ryzen cores
That's not really fair to say in this context: Ryzen IPC is proughly equivalent to Haswell/Broadwell which is what OP indicates they have. See single thread Cinebench runs: https://techreport.com/review/31979/amd-ryzen-5-cpus-reviewe…
Even within the context for games, similar IPC but vastly more threads nets a performance win for both the 1500X (similar clocks to 1600) and 1600X over Haswell parts, particular i5s (since the i7 4790K at stock has a .5GHz clock speed advantage over any Haswell i5 at stock speeds), even in 99th percentile frame metrics instead of FPS averages: https://techreport.com/review/31724/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-and-ry…
I feel your statement is quite misleading to those less familiar with the actual performance provided here. Does it make sense to upgrade from Haswell to Ryzen just for games (and no heavily-threaded workloads)? Yeah, probably not. But that's not because the Haswell cores are running "%25" faster than Ryzen cores lol.
Glad I decided to just stay with my 4790k at 4.7Ghz then. Benchmarks are one thing but actual use is what to go by, so if it's just for gaming there is $0 reason to upgrade from a Haswell era system right now if you're already rocking a upper level i5/i7.
@MHLoppy:
Intel overclocks substantially higher than Ryzen.. that factor alone makes 15-20% difference per-core.It's not misleading in any way. Look at the passmark links. The single threaded core performance on the Intel blitzes the Ryzen. And go look at Lightroom and even Adobe Premiere (threaded) comparisons; Intel sweeps the floor. Not to mention the Ryzen heavily drops away even more if you buy affordable 2400mhz RAM or buy 3200mhz RAM not compatible with your motherboard (as I did the first time I paired Corsair Vengeance 3200 with my GB AB350 Gaming mobo and couldn't get it to boot over 2666 even with the f7 bios), or that the PCIe lanes are heavily limited if you want to run a decent graphics card and even 2 NVMe drives and yet it's so hard to find out what configuration turns your x16 slot into an x8 without delving into nondescript manuals… And on and on.
Ryzen is excellent for tinkerers. It gave me lots of joy to put something together that required a bit of work and reminded me of the Slot A Celeron 300 days, but it's disingenuous to say things like 'Intel for gaming, Ryzen for everything else' when everything else seems to be not much at all.
For overclockers, yeah that can certainly make some difference. I've seen it suggested (but haven't doubled checked this) that the lower clocked Ryzen 5 chips overclock decently in their own right and that most Ryzen (5? maybe others too) chips seem to hit a similar ceiling regardless of being X or non-X, so it might be fairer to say ~10% higher clocks on average, when both Intel/Ryzen are overclocked (~0.4GHz).
I took a look at the single-threaded Passmark scores as you suggested - I see Haswell i5s with a small lead of around 10% compared to Ryzen 5 chips. A lead in that benchmark for sure, but not a blitz. It's important to note that there's no contention about Ryzen having Kaby Lake levels of IPC - just Haswell/Broadwell levels (so 2-3 generations older).
As for other single-threaded uses, I looked at a few here (the first is for the 1600X because they didn't review a 1600): http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs…
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600-cpu,507…And that reinforces what I already knew from data previously: Ryzen has IPC similar to Haswell/Broadwell, which is obviously less than what a current-gen Kaby Lake CPU provides.
4.4? increasing voltage doesnt help? or re apply paste
I'll try upping to 4.4, but last time I did it my computer crashed multiple times doing a benchmark. I just chalked it up to being a bad chip, which is one of the reasons I want to upgrade.
Very surprising you can not get 4.4 on a 4690K.
One of my systems is running a i5-2500K and its been on 4.4 @ 1.3v since 2012, and hasn't missed a beat.
Ah, those Sandybridge CPU's… they don't make em like they use to :)
yer, because they stopped using solder =(
Still, 4.4-4.5 on 4690k should be very doable.
Be nice if there was some decent ITX boards in this country for this thing :/
Check Newegg. They've got Biostar/Asrock/Gigabyte (in various levels of stock) and ship to Australia. Good prices, but unfortunately about ~30$ shipping.
$30 AUD or $30 US?
I will likely wait for coffee lake, I don't like the Ryzen (to be honest) but I mean if they drop that 1600 lower, I'll considerHow's the importing from Newegg (Australia) coming along? I know they "kinda" have an Aussie store now..
Orders are great. Amazingly quick with FedEx (only like an extra $2 for express). I imagine shipping would cost around $30-40 AUD. Haven't had to deal with refund/exchange/RMA so can't comment, but everything else has been great. I will definitely be looking at doing more orders with Newegg, but the shipping is a bit expensive.
Totally.my issue! I see the boards mentioned below but that postage is a laugh.
Never mind, it's still over $100 AUD to purchase a quiet yet modern and "cheap" video card.
Gone are the days of the slimline, super low end models being $55
Nope nope and nope.
If anyone is interested in the Ryzen 5 1600x and don't mind importing from USA, if you buy from Amazon you can get it for around $289 AUD plus delivery.
This is what I bought yesterday (total around $374 in aussie dollars after adding in postage costs) (edit: also used my $5 amazon referral credit)
https://i.imgur.com/mHy0dbF.png
If you are buying the 1600x take note you won't get any CPU cooler included.
I highly recommend buying the Thermaltake Contact 12 as it suits the AM4 socket natively and doesn't require any brackets to get the job done.Good Info!
MSY and PLE have it locally for $345. Low stock in some branches though.
Unless you want to have some fun buying from amazon… whats the point?Least I won't have to line up at MSY. More fun to sit at home and browse ozbargain all day and wait for my package to come.
Also had to use my $5 credit before it expires (I am referring to the Amazon App $5 referral program).
Pay $29 more to spend $5 credit. Such a deal :)
Those days are gone of lining up. Haven't had to line up at MSY in years.
Seems its been quite a while since you've been to an MSY store?
there's sometimes a small line at MSY Auburn, but yeah lines are very short nowadays thanks to the prevalence of online shopping and ebay deals.
ryzen 5 1600x $316 delivered with COLLECTING code (20% off) from shopping express ebay…
del.
Worth upgrading over the legend that is the 2500k?
Maybe.
I'm upgrading from Ivy Bridge Core i5. The extra cores will make a huge difference in a lot of CPU intensive tasks. Mostly Handbrake video encoding for me as Handbrake is all about CPU cores.Depends what you're using it for and is it overclocked?
If you've got it running a decent clock and just using it for gaming it's probably not with the cost of new cpu/ram/mobo at the moment. Put it towards a GPU/SSD or something.
But if for productivity then yes it might be worth it.
I agree, I've got a GTX 970 with my 2500K and it I feel any upgrade will be towards a GPU, bumping it up to maybe a GTX 980 or an AMD R9-390X. Both are about the same for price second hand.
As a totally new buyer this ryzen thing is confusing the heck out of me.. I mean I like to multi task a lot even sometimes in gaming but generally I don't see myself streaming maybe recording but definitely not streaming not with these upload rates (sub 100kb/s).
Would going with a ryzen help with maybe stuff like fraps or game recording.. I am going the nvidia way either GTX 1060 or above so most likely 1080p for now unless I wait for a 1070 deal or higher.
Would running steam discord etc in the background be affected by a ryzen or would Intel still crush these things because whenever I hear multitasking I think extra background programs running at full speed not clogging up the cpu waves.
If you've just got steam/discord/teamspeak running in the background it's not going to make a difference as there's really not much overhead required for those at all.
If you're streaming or got a million youtube/porn tabs open running on a second monitor or truly multitasking or something then yes it'll make a difference.
For gaming a 7700k will still perform better from everything I've seen, but for multi-threaded supported apps or heavy multitasking then a Ryzen might be beneficial.
Would it somehow help just recording games for editing not streaming or using stuff like fraps.. I want to stream but my upload speed is like 1mbps.
Don't record myself so honestly not sure but will depend on what you're using to record. From what I understand if you have an Nvidia GPU and use shadowplay it sues the GPU to record and performance difference is negligible, but if using other software more cores might help.
It will help for recording. Definitely. You should notice a big difference.
@bunnybash: now I just have to determine whether the editing bonus outweighs the gaming loss.. I can wait fit some video editing to finish but in real time gameplay those games count but then there is the frame time argument.. gah decisions desudions
To elaborate on what bunnybash mentioned: if you're using your CPU to encode (such as if you're using OBS with the x264 encoder (not NVENC or Quick Sync - x264 is the default so if you're not sure then you're probably using it)), then it will usually make a large difference, although this depends on what CPU you already have. NVENC (which Shadowplay uses) utilises specialist hardware on your GPU (if you had the right Nvidia GPU), which makes the overhead very low compared to using "generalist" CPU resources. Quick Sync is similar but the specialist hardware is on the CPU (if you have the right Intel CPU).
(the downside of each is that they have lower quality than "normal" CPU encoding when using the same bitrate/file size)
From what you're saying so far, I would push you slightly towards the 1600. The 7600 does beat out the 1600 in games by a little (as already mentioned), but the 1600 beats the 7600 by more than that margin when you're doing multi-threaded work (such as CPU encoding). The 1600 can also likely be given a small (let's say 0.2 - 0.4 GHz) overclock for a no-dollars-spent performance boost if that's something you're comfortable with doing*, but the 7600 has no such option.
If you're looking at getting something with the power of "only" a GTX 1060 or so, then that also shifts much of the resource bottleneck away from the CPU and onto the GPU within the context of games. That would lessen the relative advantage of the 7600 in games with little to no effect on the 1600's advantage in CPU-bound tasks.
One other consideration is the motherboard and RAM you'll be using. A basic Ryzen-compatible motherboard tends to be cheaper than the equivalent Intel motherboard, but the Intel board likely has more features (e.g. RAID 5 support, a couple more SATA ports that are 6Gb instead of 3Gb), but the average user is probably unlikely to place much value on these few differences. Ryzen's memory controller is widely thought to be weaker than Intel's modern memory controllers, which can make Ryzen chips fussier with which RAM you pick, although this has improved over time since launch (flashing your motherboard BIOS for a newly-purchased should usually improve memory performance/compatibility).
Honestly though, you'd probably be happy with either CPU combined with its respective platform. All the best with your new build!
* I suggest keeping an overclock tame here because you'll be using the stock cooler
@MHLoppy: I think either way I am going to be regretting not going the other way haha lol.. both options seem so good.. I mean I love multi tasking and having good performance in all of my computer activities but at the same time a game performance hit would be major to a gaming computer. But if it means having more responsive tabs and apps in my pc then maybe ryzen is for me hmm I dunno I will have to check more benchmarks to fully decide because gaming will be a big part of the purpose of the machine as well as small minor stuff like video editing music editing 3D modelling etc hobby game dev.
As for motherboards I really only need 2 ports for hdds and maybe 2 more for ssds that should suffice for my needs unless I start storing more movies and tv shows on it then another slot for another HDD might suffice.
I currently have an i7 3770 and was thinking of changing over to Ryzen but the more I'm reading the 3770 is actually still pretty decent, anyone have any thoughts about if changing to a Ryzen 1600 would make much of a difference?
For games, only a small upgrade - unlikely to be worth the cost. For CPU-bound tasks (e.g. video encoding/transcoding) the difference would be moderate (for a multi-threaded workload, around 1.5x faster depending on the specific task). You'd also have to spend extra on a new motherboard and new RAM though, so that extra cost may make it less worth your while. It really depends on what you're doing and how much you value performance in those areas.
The Code doesn't work with that ebay store.
Whoops, accidentally searched every store on eBay.Edit: Code PLAYER works for this store, bringing it down to $270 delivered.
Nice find
Post it as a deal mine ends at midnight.
I got an overclocked i5 4690k at 4.2GHz paired with a GTX 970. Would upgrading to this make much difference?