Marketplace
PASSWORD
This seems a great price and a great combination for a Ryzen 2600X and a GTX1080.
AMD B350 is fine for the majority of purposes and the 2600X is a great value for money CPU.
Gaming PC: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 4.2GHz | 8GB | 1TB HDD | GTX1080 8GB | NO OS | $1519.20 Delivered from PC Byte eBay
550
zzkazu on 22/05/2018 - 18:23 ebay.com.au (1465 clicks)
Last edited 22/05/2018 - 18:24 by 1 other user
Last edited 22/05/2018 - 18:24 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
When I bought a system off them a while ago I was able to upgrade to 3000mhz 16gb for $130 or something.
That would be a good choice.
Looks like you can upgrade from 8GB to 16GB 3000Mhz RAM for $136 with this link:
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PCByte-Computer-System-Memory-RA…
I use 2400mhz ram on my system and it runs like a dream. Is 2133mhz that much worse?
No, it's not.
I had a quick look on Google last night and apparently it was an issue at Ryzen launch but after a few BIOS updates the issue isn't so big anymore and you only see a difference of 3-5fps in games these days. Sounds like OP is basing off old information.
There is no firmware or BIOS update that can fix it, so you might want to check your sources again. Ryzen utilises Infinity Fabric, a communication technology inside Ryzen CPU that runs at 50% of the speed of the RAM, at 2133mhz it runs at 1066mhz, at 3200mhz it runs at 1600mhz, that is not a bug, but how it works.
What this does to the system really depends on the task. If your GPU is maxxed out in gaming it doesn't matter, otherwise the RAM speed will hold back the system a certain %.
For me I don't upgrade the majority of the system frequently, same CPU, motherboard, case, PSU and even RAM for years. I just modify storage, add additional RAM and replace the GPU. By holding back the CPU with slower RAM you'll get more hampered over the years, especially after you upgrade the GPU. I guess you can always swap out the RAM in the future, but better to have 3200mhz now and just add in 3200mhz in the future when you need more.
The Ryzen chip is still great and it will work well even with 2133mhz RAM, ideally you'd get faster RAM but then the cost to performance ratio might be off a good margin.
@Agret: Just to let you know, you can modify the RAM speeds.
There are two types of way of measuring RAM performance, its module speed (2400mhz) and its CAS latency (17). Typically with RAM, as its module speed increases so does the latency and the overall performance of the RAM is the same. No real benefit unless when bumping up the module speed you can prevent the latency increasing too, that is what the more expensive RAM is for.
However with Ryzen, if you do overclock the RAM speeds and increase the latency timings too, it would leave you with similar performing RAM but the Ryzen CPU will benefit as the Infinity Fabric can run faster. Some people can overclock 2400mhz RAM to 3200mhz RAM gaining a nice CPU boost without thrashing the RAM as the overall RAM performance is the same.
But for 1 to 10% performance, depending on the operation, it might not be worth it. I would try though.
Just a shade too steep comparing to building your own, at which point you'd swap the 2600x for a 1700 given they are selling for virtually the same price.
The ryzen 2600x is a better CPU over the 1700.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-AM…
Especially at Gaming.
In select titles, to the tune of 5% max.
+30% performance if you want to do anything else with your PC, including streaming encode if you want to make some money out of your gaming habits.
The individual cores are better in the 2600/2600x, but the 1700 has 2 more of them.
You're talking about trading 5% single/quad-core performance (i.e. some games) versus 30% superior multi-core performance (everything else). It's not even a question.
For gaming 2600X is clear winner. For higher multi-tasking apps 1700 may take the lead.
The individual cores are better in the 2600/2600x, but the 1700 has 2 more of them.
It's not just all about cores friend!
Maybe you could find a deal with the 1700X and instead of titling it "Gaming PC" you can title it "Everything else PC"
@Lorindor: no it's not, but the real world difference is something like 5 fps, versus all of your other computing needs, including streaming games.
@buckster: or maybe just put down the benchmark chart and ask the benchmarkers what they think, then curl up in the corner as you get the same answer.
@zzkazu: why the (profanity) would you buy a non X Ryzen and leave it at stock??
Don't engage me any further on this if your entire PC experience involves opening the box and plugging it in.
Also 2600x comes with its own cooler
They both do…
2600 > 1700
For gaming, which is why you pick a machine with a 1080.
Only if you have rocks in your head, or it's a question of mathematical logic.
@FabMan: For poorly programmed game engines that still rely on single through to quad core performance*
And those titles are going the way of the dinosaur. The actual difference here is 5 out of 120 fps, and you get 25+% better performance in all other use cases… I can't be any clearer!
'Poorly programmed' is a poor sweeping generalisation, there are many reasons why a game or application wouldn't utilise x number of cores, and that doesn't make it poor programming.
The 2600 would outperform the 1700 when utilising up to and including six cores, not just 1 to 4.
25%+ better performance in ALL other use cases? So writing documents or spreadsheets benefits from more than six cores? What about surfing the web? Maybe sending e-mails benefits from that 7th or 8th additional core? Watching Netflix needs that 8th core, you are right.
This is aimed at gamers, going by the 1080 and chip better suited to gaming, the 2600x. So it makes sense to use components that improve gaming.
You could actually be a lot clearer.
@FabMan: what are we talking about right now, if not performance under high load?
For anything else other than games that fail to utilise multi-threading properly, you'd definitely take the option of having 2 more cores when the performance difference for each core is 5-10%.
Literally every other use case you've provided still makes use of multi-threading, because the OS handles it.
No we weren't talking about that at all, you were writing that the difference in gaming is small but in ALL other cases more cores benefits, which isn't true. You insult people on this site and deride the work of 10's of thousands of programmers around the world who aren't utilising 7 or more cores.
You wrote the difference in games is about 5 in 120fps, try a much higher margin than that, 16fps at 110fps for Witcher 3 as example. Also environments like VR benefit from those faster cores too.
If you don't use Cinebench or other similar applications, you definitely don't have to choose more cores over faster cores.
"Literally every other use case you've provided still makes use of multi-threading, because the OS handles it." All of those other cases benefit 25%+ from having the 7th or 8th core, which you mentioned earlier? No they do not. Yes multi-threading is used, but not infinite threading, there is a limit to the benefit for the vast majority of actions.
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2018, very recent, is actually faster on the 2600x than the 1700, while Cinebench R15 wasn't even 10% faster, let alone 25%+.
@FabMan: I'm sorry, do you only run one application window at a time on your machine?
I'm not potting single-threaded applications, I'm potting people who think cores 1-4 are the only things that matter in a CPU purchase.
When we're talking about a single application, multi-threading only matters in high load applications. When we're talking about dozens of simple applications being run by an operating system, multi-threading still matters at the OS level.
If you want to make your case further, I'd suggest trying /r/intel or /r/gaming circa 2016. I'm trying to offer the best possible advice on a site built around being thrifty, and no one should be recommending a 2600 over a 1700 when they're at the same price.
Maybe you should actually look at the benchmarks, stop insulting people, stop making things up and stop trying to defend your purchase so strongly.
@FabMan: feel free to start a forum discussion and tag me in, maybe I'll get back to you with an endless supply of benchmarks for you to drown in.
I'm also not defending my purchase, I'm offering professional advice.
Now why can't we see a deal for $300 more which includes a 1080ti?
That was fun !!!
Looks like a great gaming PC but damn that RAM speed though. 2133mhz on a Ryzen system is lead around the neck.