When we newly updated our Best CPUs attribute, we noticed that accessibility to affordable first-gen Ryzen processors continues to be an attractive choice for many. The Ryzen 7 1700 is a standout option in specific as this 8-core/16-thread component is offering for $160, definition you can either buy the R7 1700 or the R5 2600. So this day we’ve gained a classic head to head CPU compariboy for you.

You are watching: Ryzen 5 2600x vs ryzen 7 1700

For those buying brand-new our best choice in this price selection is the Ryzen 5 2600X. It"s currently a mere $20 more than the non-X version and also comes through a better cooler and even more aggressive clock speeds out of package. In this scenario we feel the little price premium is worth it. However before, rather a few of you were wondering if the Ryzen 7 1700 was worth buying over the 2600X. Naturally you obtain 2 extra cores, yet the downside is that you miss out on out on those Zen+ optimizations and also they perform make the 2nd-gen parts a little even more responsive, a little snappier if you will certainly.

For productivity workloads that need many type of cores the R7 1700 is a much more apparent choice. The clock rate disadvantage and better memory latency are mostly get over by the 33% increase in cores. That said, if your workpack doesn’t require eight cores then the 2600X will certainly be much faster.

Then for those of you that prioritize gaming, which one is better? Based on our day-one coverage, you’d have to go through the 2600X, yet a year later on has actually anypoint changed? Are today’s games more demanding?

For all trial and error we provided the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti to assist minimize GPU bottlenecks, but before some of you frown about us making use of such a severe GPU, please note all experimentation takes area at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. So the 4K ultra results will be comparable to 1080p with a mid-variety graphics card for instance. In addition, those using reduced quality settings will certainly watch better structure rates via a lesser graphics card.

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

Both CPUs were tested on the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi through the conventional box coolers. We"re not looking into overclocking (we spanned that at release) and the focus is on gaming performance though we ended up experimentation some application worklots to paint a fuller photo at the finish.

Benchmarks

First up we have actually Vermintide 2 and also this is a great instance of a title that isn’t especially CPU extensive, at leastern not when comparing 6 and also 8-core processors. We’re seeing the same performance out of the 1700 and also 2600X despite being what looks to be CPU bound at 1080p via the RTX 2080 Ti. Not a lot to report below, so let’s relocate on to Assassin"s Creed: Odyssey.

*

The results below are a small even more exciting. The Ryzen 7 1700 is watched limiting performance at 1080p, fairly heavily in truth as soon as looking at the 1% low outcome. The 2600X readily available a 26% performance rise, keeping structure rates over 60 fps at all times.

Moving to 1440p and now we’re ending up being GPU bound yet also so the average frame rate was still 10% greater once using the 2600X. Once we hit 4K we’re mainly GPU restricted but even here the 2600X’s boosted latency and also support for faster memory accounted for a small distinction.

*

Although Fortnite isn’t particularly CPU demanding as soon as mentioning 12 and also 16-thcheck out processors, we view fairly a significant performance uplift via the 2600X. The clock rate benefit and also improved memory performance is playing an essential function right here.

The 2600X was as much as 20% much faster at 1080p and gave up to 17% more performance at 1440p. By the time we hit 4K the margin is lessened to nopoint and also by this suggest we are seeing the exact same performance regardmuch less of which CPU is offered.

*

Apex Legends sees approximately a 10% performance benefit going the way of the 2600X at 1080p. That margin is reduced to 7% at 1440p and then entirely eliminated at 4K. Given the non-GPU bound results are anywhere 140 fps, the difference doesn’t matter much here.

*


In Resident Evil 2 the 2600X eked out a few added frames at 1080p, giving around 9% even more performance. That margin was halved at 1440p and then completely eliminated at 4K. So depending on the quality establishing and resolution you could see as much as a 10% difference, but many most likely you"ll watch little to no distinction in this title.

*

Next off up we have Just Causage 4 and this time we watch as much as a 15% performance advantage with the 2600X. Even at 1440p the 2600X was 8% much faster. Not a enormous margin by any type of stretch of the creative thinking but still a decent performance increase at this GPU-demanding resolution.

*

Hitmale 2 is constantly a bit of an odd title, below we watch the R7 1700 creating a bottleneck at the three resolutions as it restricted the RTX 2080 Ti to 72 fps. However before we observed a continual drop in 1% low performance as the resolution was raised and the 4K result is rather unusual. The 2600X allowed for up to a 10% performance rise and also available more continual 1% low performance.

*

Project Cars 2 sees the 2600X moving approximately 10% more performance at 1080p and also 12% more at 1440p. The 2600X shows up to be GPU limited at 1080p and 1440p, while this is only true for the R7 1700 at 1080p. By the time we hit 4K both CPUs are greatly GPU restricted, so performance is much the very same.

*

The 2600X was as much as 15% quicker in Rainbow Six Siege and also also at 1440p offered slightly more performance, though via both CPUs capable of over 120 fps at all times you have to wonder exactly how much that margin matters.

*

We have to say we were surprised to view the 2600X delivering approximately 20% more frames in Battlefield V, even at 1080p. Basically the Ryzen 7 1700 was limiting the RTX 2080 Ti to about 100 fps in our test, creating a bottleneck at 1080p that resulted in comparable performance seen at 1440p. At 1440p we are still primarily GPU restricted and also this is of course becomes even more true at 4K.

*


World of Tanks can much better make use of Ryzen CPUs this particular day, but it’s still not specifically CPU intensive. The 2600X edged slightly ahead at 1080p and 1440p by an inconsiderable margin and also then as usual we were GPU limited at 4K resolution.

*

Metro Exodus is an additional title that’s not specifically CPU demanding, at leastern for a modern processor and also again while the 2600X was quicker at 1080p and also 1440p, the R7 1700 was still providing strong framework prices.

*

Ryzen CPUs have always been a small stvariety in the Far Cry series, the Primal results were constantly extremely odd. The game seems quite sensitive to memory latency and despite being what looks CPU limited at 1080p, even via the 2600X, the Ryzen 5 processor was 12% faster at that resolutio and also at 1440p.

The faster memory and lower latency of the 2600X hregarding be accountable for this distinction. What’s really starray here is that we ongoing to watch the R7 1700 loss amethod at the 4K resolution, we must be completely GPU bound at that suggest however that was not the instance via the Ryzen 7 processor.

*

Moving on we check out the precise same issue when trial and error via Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Here the Ryzen 7 1700 is watched limiting performance to 83 fps at 1080p and also 1440p. At the same time, the 2600X limited performance to roughly 87 fps so it was approximately 5% quicker.

*

Frame prices as soon as trial and error via Monster Hunter: World were a lot the very same. The R5 2600X available a small rise however as a whole the endure was not different making use of either CPU.

*


Stselection Brigade is not CPU demanding at all and it’s an excellent example of just how points will certainly look in a typical gaming title, or once GPU bound.

*

Star Wars Battlefront II 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 much less of an concern. Both CPUs perdeveloped similarly in this game.

*

Finally we have actually The Division 2 and we check out comparable performance making use of either CPU...

*

Wrap Up: Evenly Matched

It’s fair to say that in its entirety the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 1700 are very similar in terms of gaming performance. When we witnessed a difference, the 2600X was leading the way in every single circumstances, though normally the delta was restricted to a 5 to 10% margin. We feel for a lot of gamers that difference won"t be realized.

Still if you just intfinish to play games then the 2600X is the better CPU. You’ll benefit more from the reduced latency and better clocked memory now, whereas the additional cores of the R7 1700 may never prove beneficial for the life of the CPU. However, as we mentioned previously, if you can put those 2 added cores to job-related on efficiency apps, then the Ryzen 7 1700 can prove more attractive... How much more attractive? It’s not massively quicker and will need some tinkering to really pull noticeably ahead of a stock 2600X.

For those of you not interested in overclocking, the Ryzen 7 1700 is just 4% faster out of package in Blender. So for content creators the 2600X could actually prove to be a much better choice as its clock rate benefit and reduced latency memory will certainly make it much better for editing and enhancing. Even as soon as taking on rendering work the R7 1700 was simply 6% much faster, as seen in Corona, so it’s not prefer the 2600X is getting blvery own out of the water, despite having actually just six cores.

If you call for better proof right here are some Cinebench R15 outcomes. The 1700 is only 3% quicker when comparing multi-threaded performance. However before it’s essential to note that for single-threaded or even lightly threaded worklots the 1700 will certainly be approximately 15% slower, and also this was seen in our gaming benchmarks.

You probably noticed the Ryzen 7 1800X outcomes in the previous few application graphs and it was approximately 20% much faster than the 2600X. That is achievable through the R7 1700 through overclocking. The Ryzen 7 1700 has rather a bit of overclocking headroom unless you obtain a dud chip, but based on our purchases -- and we have bought quite a couple of of these -- your possibilities of obtaining a dud are slim.

If you’re not interested in overclocking and also you have actually your option of either CPU at the very same price, we’d gain the Ryzen 5 2600X eexceptionally time. The Zen+ refinements were not game-changing but the latency improvements are tbelow and also in its entirety the 2600X is the slightly faster CPU. Frankly though, you won’t go wrong either method when the alternate is getting an 8-core 16-thcheck out CPU for $160.

See more: Which Of The Following Terms Is The Greek Word For &Quot;Measure&Quot;?

With Zen 2 simply about the corner it’s a challenging alternative for those wanting to upgrade now. Do you hold out a small much longer or snap up a dirt cheap initially or second-gen Ryzen processor now? We leave that decision as much as you.