Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Ryzen 7 1700

When nosotros recently updated our Best CPUs feature, nosotros noticed that admission to affordable starting time-gen Ryzen processors remains an bonny option for many. The Ryzen 7 1700 is a standout option in particular every bit this 8-cadre/16-thread part is selling for $160, significant you can either purchase the R7 1700 or the R5 2600. So today we've got a archetype caput to head CPU comparison for you.

For those buying new our best selection in this toll range is the Ryzen five 2600X. Information technology's currently a mere $twenty more than the non-X model and comes with a amend cooler and more ambitious clock speeds out of the box. In this scenario nosotros feel the pocket-size price premium is worth it. However, quite a few of you were wondering if the Ryzen vii 1700 was worth ownership over the 2600X. Naturally y'all get ii extra cores, simply the downside is that you lot miss out on those Zen+ optimizations and they do make the 2nd-gen parts a footling more than responsive, a bit snappier if you will.

For productivity workloads that crave many cores the R7 1700 is a more obvious choice. The clock speed disadvantage and higher retentivity latency are mostly overcome by the 33% increase in cores. That said, if your workload doesn't require 8 cores then the 2600X will be faster.

Then for those of you who prioritize gaming, which one is better? Based on our day-one coverage, you'd take to go with the 2600X, but a twelvemonth later on has anything changed? Are today's games more demanding?

For all testing we used the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti to assistance minimize GPU bottlenecks, merely before some of y'all pout about us using such an extreme GPU, please note all testing takes identify at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. So the 4K ultra results will be comparable to 1080p with a mid-range graphics menu for example. Moreover, those using lower quality settings will run into higher frame rates with a lesser graphics card.

Since the integrated memory controller of the 2nd-gen Ryzen processors is much improved, we didn't hamper the 2600X when it came to retentiveness. Instead nosotros paired it with a 16GB DDR4-3400 CL16 kit. The R7 1700 was limited to 16GB DDR4-2933 memory with CL15 timings.

Both CPUs were tested on the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi with the standard box coolers. We're not looking into overclocking (nosotros covered that at release) and the focus is on gaming functioning though we ended up testing some application workloads to paint a fuller picture at the finish.

Benchmarks

Offset upwardly we have Vermintide 2 and this is a good example of a title that isn't especially CPU intensive, at least non when comparing 6 and 8-core processors. We're seeing identical performance out of the 1700 and 2600X despite being what looks to be CPU bound at 1080p with the RTX 2080 Ti. Non much to report here, and then permit's move on to Assassin'due south Creed: Odyssey.

The results here are a little more interesting. The Ryzen seven 1700 is seen limiting performance at 1080p, quite heavily in fact when looking at the 1% depression result. The 2600X offered a 26% performance heave, keeping frame rates above sixty fps at all times.

Moving to 1440p and now nosotros're becoming GPU bound just even so the boilerplate frame rate was still 10% greater when using the 2600X. One time we striking 4K we're mostly GPU express but even here the 2600X's improved latency and support for faster retentiveness accounted for a small deviation.

Although Fortnite isn't particularly CPU enervating when discussing 12 and 16-thread processors, nosotros come across quite a pregnant performance uplift with the 2600X. The clock speed advantage and improved retentivity performance is playing a fundamental office here.

The 2600X was upwards to 20% faster at 1080p and provided upwards to 17% more than performance at 1440p. By the time nosotros hitting 4K the margin is reduced to nix and by this indicate we are seeing the same performance regardless of which CPU is used.

Apex Legends sees up to a x% operation reward going the way of the 2600X at 1080p. That margin is reduced to 7% at 1440p and then completely eliminated at 4K. Given the non-GPU spring results are all over 140 fps, the difference doesn't matter much here.

In Resident Evil ii the 2600X eked out a few extra frames at 1080p, offering around 9% more than performance. That margin was halved at 1440p and then completely eliminated at 4K. So depending on the quality setting and resolution you might encounter upwardly to a 10% difference, but most probable you'll encounter little to no departure in this title.

Next up we have But Crusade iv and this time we see up to a 15% functioning advantage with the 2600X. Even at 1440p the 2600X was 8% faster. Non a massive margin by any stretch of the imagination but still a decent performance boost at this GPU-demanding resolution.

Hitman ii is ever a chip of an odd title, hither we encounter the R7 1700 creating a clogging at the iii resolutions equally it limited the RTX 2080 Ti to 72 fps. Notwithstanding we saw a consistent drop in 1% depression performance as the resolution was increased and the 4K effect is quite unusual. The 2600X allowed for up to a 10% performance heave and offered more consistent 1% depression performance.

Projection Cars 2 sees the 2600X delivering upwards to x% more than performance at 1080p and 12% more at 1440p. The 2600X appears to be GPU express at 1080p and 1440p, while this is simply true for the R7 1700 at 1080p. Past the time we hit 4K both CPUs are heavily GPU limited, so performance is much the same.

The 2600X was upward to 15% faster in Rainbow Half dozen Siege and even at 1440p offered slightly more functioning, though with both CPUs capable of over 120 fps at all times you have to wonder how much that margin matters.

Nosotros accept to say nosotros were surprised to encounter the 2600X delivering up to xx% more frames in Battlefield V, even at 1080p. Basically the Ryzen seven 1700 was limiting the RTX 2080 Ti to around 100 fps in our examination, creating a bottleneck at 1080p that resulted in similar performance seen at 1440p. At 1440p we are still primarily GPU limited and this is of course becomes even more true at 4K.

World of Tanks might better utilize Ryzen CPUs today, simply it'south notwithstanding not exactly CPU intensive. The 2600X edged slightly ahead at 1080p and 1440p past an insignificant margin and so as usual we were GPU express at 4K resolution.

Metro Exodus is some other title that's non peculiarly CPU enervating, at least for a modern processor and over again while the 2600X was faster at 1080p and 1440p, the R7 1700 was notwithstanding providing potent frame rates.

Ryzen CPUs have always been a footling strange in the Far Cry series, the Primal results were e'er very odd. The game seems quite sensitive to retentiveness latency and despite being what looks CPU limited at 1080p, even with the 2600X, the Ryzen v processor was 12% faster at that resolutio and at 1440p.

The faster retentivity and lower latency of the 2600X has to be accountable for this difference. What's actually strange here is that we continued to see the R7 1700 autumn away at the 4K resolution, we should be entirely GPU spring at that point but that was not the case with the Ryzen 7 processor.

Moving on we run across the exact same issue when testing with Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Here the Ryzen 7 1700 is seen limiting performance to 83 fps at 1080p and 1440p. Meanwhile, the 2600X limited operation to around 87 fps so information technology was roughly 5% faster.

Frame rates when testing with Monster Hunter: World were much the same. The R5 2600X offered a pocket-size boost only overall the experience was non unlike using either CPU.

Strange Brigade is not CPU demanding at all and it's a good example of how things will wait in a typical gaming title, or when GPU bound.

Star Wars Battlefront Two is both demanding on the CPU and GPU, but when you've got 12 or more threads to play with the CPU side of things, it's less of an issue. Both CPUs performed similarly in this game.

Finally we have The Division 2 and we see similar operation using either CPU...

Wrap Up: Evenly Matched

It's fair to say that overall the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 1700 are very similar in terms of gaming performance. When we saw a difference, the 2600X was leading the mode in every single instance, though usually the delta was limited to a 5 to ten% margin. Nosotros feel for most gamers that difference won't be realized.

Still if you only intend to play games then the 2600X is the amend CPU. You'll do good more from the lower latency and higher clocked retention now, whereas the actress cores of the R7 1700 may never prove useful for the life of the CPU. However, as nosotros mentioned earlier, if yous tin put those two extra cores to work on productivity apps, then the Ryzen 7 1700 could prove more attractive... How much more bonny? It's not massively faster and will require some tinkering to really pull noticeably alee of a stock 2600X.

For those of you not interested in overclocking, the Ryzen 7 1700 is just iv% faster out of the box in Blender. So for content creators the 2600X might actually prove to exist a improve choice as its clock speed advantage and lower latency memory will make information technology better for editing. Fifty-fifty when taking on rendering tasks the R7 1700 was just six% faster, equally seen in Corona, and then it'southward non like the 2600X is getting blown out of the h2o, despite having only six cores.

If y'all crave further proof here are some Cinebench R15 results. The 1700 is only 3% faster when comparing multi-threaded performance. However information technology'due south important to note that for single-threaded or even lightly threaded workloads the 1700 will be around xv% slower, and this was seen in our gaming benchmarks.

You probably noticed the Ryzen 7 1800X results in the previous few application graphs and it was up to 20% faster than the 2600X. That is achievable with the R7 1700 through overclocking. The Ryzen seven 1700 has quite a bit of overclocking headroom unless you get a dud chip, simply based on our purchases -- and nosotros have bought quite a few of these -- your chances of getting a dud are slim.

If y'all're non interested in overclocking and you have your choice of either CPU at the same price, we'd get the Ryzen v 2600X every time. The Zen+ refinements were not game-changing but the latency improvements are at that place and overall the 2600X is the slightly faster CPU. Bluntly though, you won't go wrong either style when the culling is getting an 8-core xvi-thread CPU for $160.

With Zen 2 merely around the corner it's a difficult choice for those wanting to upgrade now. Practice you hold out a piddling longer or snap up a dirt cheap outset or second-gen Ryzen processor now? Nosotros leave that decision upwards to you.