i5 7600k or Ryzen 5 1600(x)?

I'm building a new PC and initially I had gone with the i5 7600k, but now I'm wondering if the Ryzen 5 1600 (or 1600x) would be better.

I'm not interested in benchmarks or overclocking, I don't do much in the way of 'multitasking' - at most I'll be running a game, firefox and maybe a music player simultaneously. I won't be doing much more than casual gaming (at high settings in 1080p and hopefully high FPS) and just general PC use.

In terms of actual, practical perfomance for my situation - Is it worth going for the Ryzen 5, or should I just stick with the 7600k?

(also, would an AMD graphics card work better with an AMD CPU, or no difference?)
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 7600k ryzen 1600
  1. The Ryzen 5 1600 would be the better value (and platform upgradability). This ~$200 CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, overclockable, low TDP (65W), and has a decent stock cooler already included.

    The Ryzen 5 1600X (slightly higher clock speeds than the 1600) also has 6C/12T, overclockable but higher TDP (95W), and doesn't come with a stock cooler. It costs ~$230 (excluding the cpu cooler that you need to buy).

    Both Ryzen CPUs are fitted on an AM4-socket AMD motherboard (a B350-chipset is a value choice that supports OC'ing). The B350 boards are relatively cheaper than Intel's OCable mobos. Such AM4 platform is just released this year and will continue to support future CPUs for a longer time.

    The i5-7600K is also overclockable and has the fastest clock speed but is only 4C/4T (no hyperthreading), has a high TDP (91W) and doesn't come with a stock cooler. It costs ~$240 (excluding the cpu cooler that you need to buy).

    Such 7th-gen i5 CPU is fitted on an LGA1151-socket Intel motherboard (a Z270-chipset is the logical choice - for OC) but costs relatively higher than the AMD's B350 mobos that are also OCable. Such LGA1151 platform was released 2 years ago and is already nearing its end-of-life in terms of CPU support (if I am not mistaken, the next-gen Intel CPUs may require a different socket). So, in terms of upgradability, you'd be stuck with the i7-7700K as the only choice to upgrade the i5-7600K in the future using such platform.

    As to the GPU-CPU pairing, there is no performance difference whether you use an AMD GPU with an Nvidia GPU, an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU, an Intel CPU with an Nvidia GPU, or an AMD CPU with an AMD GPU.
  2. The Ryzen Series Chips are made for multitasking and gaming. The Price per Preformance is better than a Intel i7 at multitasking and gaming. The Way Ryzen wins is by the cores and hyper threading
  3. If you don't have any intent to OC either platform, and don't multitask other than what you mention, I'd go with the i5 7600k. Without OCing either CPU, the 7600k is going to be faster in gaming. I'm using an i5 7600k(OC'd to 4.6Ghz)in my HTPC 1080P gaming setup on a TV. Works great for same thing as you. Casual gaming, firefox, watching SlingTV, ect.

    The Ryzen platform is more "future proof" as mentioned since 100 and 200 series Intel mainstream are about EOL with 8th Gen around the corner, but your usage scenario would not put those extra cores/threads to use with AMD. If you plan to encode, stream games, ect. then Ryzen will make more sense.
  4. No need to get either of those processors if you aren't going to benefit from them. Go a little cheaper and get the i5 7500. Or the ryzen 5 1500x. Will still be far more than you actually need according to what you are asking for.
  5. The R5- 1600 is a screaming deal, and should offer higher frame rates for news games 3 years from now while the current 4c/4t designs might be struggling, even if they offer 3-4 more fps currently.
  6. If you can't get a 7700k, then R5-1600 is the next logical choice....
  7. Best answer
    An overclocked 1600 is about as stout in gaming as a non-overclocked 6600k @ 1080p to put that in better perspective. It's difficult to realistically recommend Intel for anything other than 1080p gaming at the moment. The differences at 1440p will be rather negligible in comparison considering there aren't consumer graphics card capable of creating a cpu bottleneck @ 1440p on most mid-range cpus.

    As far as the (x) goes I'd ditch it entirely, I'd say that to everyone period; seeing as you have no concern of overclocking you're getting a far better deal purchasing the 1600 as it comes with a stock cooler itself, which is not bad.
    ^He puts a refreshing perspective on what the x is actually giving owners, or costing albeit.

    Wait for the eclipse to happen, intel will be "officially announcing" the coffee lake cpus then. The "7700k" looks like it now belongs in the i3 family believe it or not. From what I've seen, it's a meh refresh but the 6 cores are pretty cool, premium over Ryzen no doubt, but definitely will be more powerful. Does the increased power justify the cost? Subjective as fuck.
Ask a new question