This is actually £220-221 including the shipping the OP forgot to mention. :smiley:
- Uncommon.Sense
Top comments
gpdl00355
15 Apr 174#4
If you game and do any sort of productivity/streaming, there's basically no reason to consider an i5 over these 6 cores.
Latest comments (19)
lloydy110
2 May 17#19
Any possible issues i should be aware of when buying stuff from Amazon France, shipping to the UK ?
Nate1492
18 Apr 17#18
You are not interpreting my post as intended. Ryzen is good when rendering with the CPU. But many\most rendering is done with GPU acceleration. CUDA for example.
So if the one major benefit is video rendering, but most rendering is done on the GPU, the benefit is not really seen.
Nate1492
18 Apr 17#17
You have made a claim about min fps now multiple times even after I presented a min frame comparison that shows Ryzen behind. You are just repeating this unproven claim.
Prove your min fps claim. On the vast majority of games. It may even be hard to find 3.
DaveDesire
15 Apr 17#16
Have these sold out?
The 1600 works out at GBP 211.79 through Amazon fr which isn't a great saving.
1600x is just pre-order and the price is a fair bit higher than stated in the OP
ShroomHeadToad
15 Apr 17#15
*1440p
mc_6ee
15 Apr 17#14
It's all about 4K nowadays
gowf
15 Apr 17#13
Video rendering is one of the most CPU intensive workloads you can do.
Sometimes even background workload or alt-tabbing or steam or Windows will require some CPU time. It just makes sense to have more cores for future proofing, especially if the performance difference is a couple of fps for most games at 1080p
hotsa
15 Apr 17#12
How? As I said on another Ryzen thread, as someone who has both - the Intel chip is going on eBay. Ryzen (with memory and updates) is there re max FPS (with reserves in the tank) and the min FPS is night and day. AMD all the way...
FloptimusPrime
15 Apr 17#11
Thing is, in most games released nowadays, the i5 is maxed out 100% on all cores. Where as a 1600 or 1600x is only using around 70%. Quad cores arent cutting it.
Uncommon.Sense
15 Apr 17#10
Whut, pretty much every single review shows that if you are considering a new system at this price point then the 1600X is the only sensible option, given it runs at 3.6GHz/4.0GHz boost even the single thread performance will still be within a few percent of the i5/i7 K series chip(s) all running stock.
Yes, buy an i5 now if you want to waste your money, on a 4c/4t CPU, that is fast becoming irrelevant. I am pretty sure that if someone offered a 6800K CPU at £220, then it would be scorching hot, but it's slower than an i5... ooo see what I did there?
gpdl00355
15 Apr 174#4
If you game and do any sort of productivity/streaming, there's basically no reason to consider an i5 over these 6 cores.
hotsa to gpdl00355
15 Apr 17#5
Nail. Head. :smiley:
Nate1492 to gpdl00355
15 Apr 17#9
When you say productivity, what do you refer to?
Photoshop, Excel, word?
Or rendering videos?
Heck even video rendering is mostly done with GPU acceleration...
But many productivity apps run better with faster cores rather than more cores.
If you mostly game and do the normal productivity, the i5 is superior. If you stream games, the ryzen pulls ahead... But what percent of gamers steam?
brendinho
15 Apr 17#8
excellent!! cheers!!
abdu98
15 Apr 171#7
I currently have 2666MHz RAM ready and am waiting for my 1600 to arrive,are the performance gaps between 2666 and 2933-3200 big enough to warrant returning the 2666 for a 2933-3200?
Save yourself a few quid and the cost of a cooler and just get the plain Ryzen 5 1600 for £199..
powerbrick
14 Apr 17#1
Is Ryzen still really picky about RAM?
ssimonian to powerbrick
14 Apr 171#2
Motherboard bios updates improving this quite rapidly, but currently still manufacturer dependent so worth researching motherboard before buying. However getting 2933-3200mhz support now as standard with more boards, and probably more to follow.
Opening post
This is actually £220-221 including the shipping the OP forgot to mention. :smiley:
- Uncommon.Sense
Top comments
Latest comments (19)
So if the one major benefit is video rendering, but most rendering is done on the GPU, the benefit is not really seen.
Prove your min fps claim. On the vast majority of games. It may even be hard to find 3.
The 1600 works out at GBP 211.79 through Amazon fr which isn't a great saving.
1600x is just pre-order and the price is a fair bit higher than stated in the OP
Sometimes even background workload or alt-tabbing or steam or Windows will require some CPU time. It just makes sense to have more cores for future proofing, especially if the performance difference is a couple of fps for most games at 1080p
Yes, buy an i5 now if you want to waste your money, on a 4c/4t CPU, that is fast becoming irrelevant. I am pretty sure that if someone offered a 6800K CPU at £220, then it would be scorching hot, but it's slower than an i5... ooo see what I did there?
Photoshop, Excel, word?
Or rendering videos?
Heck even video rendering is mostly done with GPU acceleration...
But many productivity apps run better with faster cores rather than more cores.
If you mostly game and do the normal productivity, the i5 is superior. If you stream games, the ryzen pulls ahead... But what percent of gamers steam?
This..
Save yourself a few quid and the cost of a cooler and just get the plain Ryzen 5 1600 for £199..