At that price I'd go for it over the 1600; sure you have to buy a cooler, but you get a much more capable overclocker.
Gormond to TehJumpingJawa
20 Sep 17#3
Not sure where you get "A much more capable overclocker" from, If you plan to OC I would save money and get the 1600 as both will likely max out at 4.0GHz - It's £23 cheaper and comes with a boxed cooler.
Oneday77 to TehJumpingJawa
20 Sep 17#4
The silicone lottery will play a part, yes. However both a 1600 and 1600X will likely max out to similar speeds. It's pretty fair to say the same can be said across the whole Ryzen range. The X models are clocked higher out the box but all seem to clock to a similar standard.
Alfresco to TehJumpingJawa
20 Sep 17#5
You're just paying extra for them to overclock a 1600 for you, which is why it doesn't come with the cooler.
GrumpyDaddy
19 Sep 17#2
Great offer thanks for posting. Heat added :raised_hand:
TehJumpingJawa
20 Sep 17#6
Do any of you own a 1600? I do. On the stock cooler it isn't stable past 3.7, and due to elevated vcore runs close to the thermal limit.
Don't believe all the hype; read the hardware forums for real world experiences of overclocking the 1600.
You'll find that on the stock cooler most don't go past 3.8 running sensible vcore/temps.
With an aftermarket cooler you can get more sensible temps, but you still have to push higher vcore to reach what the 1600x does out of the box. So what have you really saved?
alanbeenthere to TehJumpingJawa
20 Sep 17#7
I've got my 1600 at 3.8ghz at 1.275v. okay the stock cooler is not great but is quiet when gaming/normal use and only goes into helicopter mode during a burn/stabilty run.
30 idle and 45c gaming is better than my i5 2500k with a hyper212.
My advice is if you've got a cooler buy this. If your building a new box and just want it work within budget get the 1600 and put the few extra quid into some ram. Also - skip nvme unless you move a lot of files around.
Alfresco to TehJumpingJawa
21 Sep 17#8
I'm at 3.7 with only a minor voltage offset and the stock cooler. I haven't had time to try pushing it further, but I agree that going beyond that will likely require better cooling (as it must with the 1600x seeing as they don't include the cooler). With all the variables like RAM versions and RAM speeds effecting voltage requirements, it's hard to compare with other users. I'm just not sure there's much between the 1600 and 1600x, all things considered. Maybe £20 :wink:
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
For a review see: tomshardware.co.uk/amd…tml
8 comments
At that price I'd go for it over the 1600; sure you have to buy a cooler, but you get a much more capable overclocker.
It's pretty fair to say the same can be said across the whole Ryzen range. The X models are clocked higher out the box but all seem to clock to a similar standard.
I do. On the stock cooler it isn't stable past 3.7, and due to elevated vcore runs close to the thermal limit.
Don't believe all the hype; read the hardware forums for real world experiences of overclocking the 1600.
You'll find that on the stock cooler most don't go past 3.8 running sensible vcore/temps.
With an aftermarket cooler you can get more sensible temps, but you still have to push higher vcore to reach what the 1600x does out of the box. So what have you really saved?
30 idle and 45c gaming is better than my i5 2500k with a hyper212.
My advice is if you've got a cooler buy this.
If your building a new box and just want it work within budget get the 1600 and put the few extra quid into some ram.
Also - skip nvme unless you move a lot of files around.