• Log In
  • Register

AMD 2600X or 2700X

Forum Search


  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed


Rrrrry123 2 months ago

Hey, guys. I was planning on upgrading my CPU. I upgraded my GPU from a 1050 Ti to a 1070, and now I'd like to upgrade my CPU to match. Currently, I have a AMD Ryzen 1300X, which has served me well, but isn't perfect, especially when paired with my new card.

As far as what I'm looking for, I game quite a lot, edit and render videos, compile code, and occasionally stream. From that, I've determined I need something with multiple cores and a good base clock. I do not plan on overclocking. Currently, I've narrowed my search down to the 2600(x) and the 2700(x), but I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on either without an outside opinion.

A few things to consider, the first of which being the fact that I still have a B350 motherboard and would seriously like to avoid upgrading, I have read online that you don't have to as long as you update the BIOS. Like I said earlier, I don't plan on overclocking. Currently, my cooling situation is okay. I have the stock color that came with my CPU, which works very well with it, and 2 case fans, one in and one out.

I was wondering which of the four CPUs I should buy, the 2600 or the 2700 or one of their x variants? Looking at the reviews of the 2600X, it seems like it can handle pretty much anything, but it also seems like I should get a better CPU cooler than the one it comes with. It's also about $200. The 2700X was of course the top of the line, but it was about $100 more, and from the benchmarks I saw, only about 15% better in most categories. I did read that the stock cooler it comes with works well for the CPU. I don't know if it's the same one that comes with the 2600 though. I thought it was odd that people were saying the cooler for the 2700 works better than the one for the 2600.

So, I was wondering if you guys could help me out. I've done some research, but I just can't pull the trigger. Money isn't too big of an issue for me, but I don't want to be taken for a ride either. I'll paste my system down below, and I'm really just looking for the CPU that will mesh best with what I have and one that will give me my best performance for my dollar. However, if I need a CPU fan for one and not the other, I think that should be factored into that price as well. Any advice you could give would be greatly appreciated. And of course, I'm not just looking between these CPUs. If you have suggestions for another one, like maybe a 1700X, let me know what you think about that as well. Thank you very much.

My system: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 3 1300X 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor $126.02 @ Amazon
Motherboard MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ARCTIC ATX AM4 Motherboard -
Memory G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2400 Memory -
Storage *Kingston - A400 240 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive $29.99 @ Amazon
Storage *Seagate - Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $42.10 @ Amazon
Video Card Asus - GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB Dual Series Video Card -
Case Deepcool - DUKASE WHV2 ATX Mid Tower Case $55.60 @ Amazon
Power Supply SeaSonic - FOCUS Gold 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply $74.96 @ Amazon
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total $328.67
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-02-18 15:46 EST-0500

Comments Sorted by:

Chillsabre 2 Builds 2 points 2 months ago

I would actually suggest a Ryzen 7 1700. Its pretty much on par with the 2700 model and it is much cheaper right now ($169 USD vs $250 USD) it just isnt as efficient as its 2700 counterpart.

The X models usually indicate a higher binned silicon chip usually allowing the CPU to run at slightly higher core clocks when your overclock for slightly less voltage but the different are often minimal.

Rrrrry123 submitter 1 point 2 months ago

See, and that's why I don't understand the X models. I've read a lot of things saying that there's only a minimal difference, but the listed clock speeds are higher. For example, the 1700 has 3.2 GHz (which is slower than my current CPU at 3.5 GHz) and the 1700X has 3.4 GHz listed speed. I don't know if it is, but that seems like a noticeable difference to me, at least in gaming. Like I said, I don't know though, I'm kind of confused with that.

kschendel 1 Build 2 points 2 months ago

The X models support "XFR" clock boosting, which is a fancier boost algorithm that can work the chip limits a little closer. They also will typically have a higher base clock than the non-X models.

You do have to be a little careful with clock speeds, they are really only directly comparable across CPU's of the same model generation, and even then there can be other differences that matter more. Instructions per clock on a Ryzen 1st gen isn't quite the same as Ryzen 2, and neither are the same as any of the Intel chips. Likewise, a 2200G looks like it's clocked higher than a 1200, but it has half the L3 cache which depending on load might make it actually run a little worse.

Rrrrry123 submitter 1 point 2 months ago

I remember from my Analysis of Computer Systems class that Instructions per clock was much more important than the clock speed, but I can never seem to find that statistic listed anywhere, at least not on this site. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough. But it's pretty difficult to have to go and compare the Cache, the clock, the generation, and everything else to determine how well it will actually preform. I mean, there's always benchmark sites, I just wish they were a little more clear about the actual speed. And I understand that the speed depends on what you're doing. Clearly instructions per clock will be more useful for determining game performance, as I assume core count doesn't affect this statistic, and so wouldn't be very telling for streaming or rendering.

kschendel 1 Build 1 point 2 months ago

Core count might affect game performance if the game engine runs a lot of threads, and that's becoming more and more common.

I suspect that the reason you don't find an IPC number is that it's not a constant, but an average which depends on the instruction mix and even the sequence in which they occur. Nothing is simple. :-)

kschendel 1 Build 2 points 2 months ago

I'm guessing here, but if you really are running short of cores, a half-measure isn't worth the effort; go for 8 cores. (And if you're running very short on clock speed as well, that pretty much pins down the 2700X.)

So that means a 1700, 1700X, 1800X, 2700, 2700X, and the improvements up the line are small and incremental. At current pricing I see no point in a 1700X or 1800X since you can get the 2700 at the same price. Value is tough to pin down, but if it were me, I'd be looking at either the 1700 and hope to overclock it to a good speed, or go all in with the 2700X.

Whatever you choose, I'd update the motherboard BIOS now while you have a known working CPU. Even if you decide to stick with Ryzen gen 1, the update can't hurt and may well help. (In fact you might be able to push the memory a little higher too, which will help.)

Rrrrry123 submitter 1 point 2 months ago

Thank you very much for your input. A lot of what you're saying is what I have been thinking. And I certainly will update the BIOS, I've only done that once since I got the board.