Gadgetory

okay what do we have on the menu today then hmm you know looks like more rising content rising buying guide which processor should you buy just by whichever processor you can afford okay so you want to know what to buy fair enough I suppose we should probably work and happen thankfully I have done a bit of the groundwork already as last week we checked out the horizon 5 1400 quad core as well as the 1606 call in the end that comparison boiled down to just $50 and when comparing the two processor side-by-side that does say the 1600 price 30% higher however as noted towards the end of that video if we do look at the price comparison a little more realistically it's actually not nearly that much again the cheapest be 350 boards started around $70 us and just factoring that in means the 1600 is now just 20% more expensive throw in some memory and now the premium is even less in the end once you factor in the total system cost $50 could account for just a 5% price increase so looking at it that way the 1600 seems like the obvious choice however as noted in that video I will still get to account for the even more expensive 8 core verizon 7 1700 the 8 core monster cost 310 dollars u.s. right now and that makes around 40% more expensive in the 1600 that's obviously a more significant margin especially since you are only getting 33% more cores that said is it worth investing in the 8 core model and if you do what are the benefits well to answer that I have compared all three of the non x-rays and CPUs in a range of applications and games to see where they stand please note that once again I am using a GeForce GTX 980 TI graphics card for benchmarking this is done to try and remove the GPU as the performance limiting factor in my opinion high-end GPUs are a good indicator of future gaming performance that said though I often do create content that will feature lower end GPUs and typically they're intended to answer a specific question this though isn't one of those videos truth of the matter is if I was the test would say the RX 580 for example then for ninety percent of the games out there that would simply be little to no difference between the 1400 and 1700 so just be aware of that now if you want to know how these three CPUs will compare once games become more demanding and graphics cards grow more powerful then the gtx 1080 TI will tell us all we need to know with that let's jump into the benchmarks first up I checked out memory bandwidth performance and here we find that the 1700 is good for almost 38 gigabytes per second as was the case with the 1600 that's a very healthy memory bandwidth for a dual channel configuration Cinebench r15 shows us just how much faster the 1700 is than the 1600 assuming you can utilize those additional cause out of the box the 1700 is 25% faster while extend that lead to 30% once both CPUs are overclocked to 4 gigahertz clock for clock the 1700 also outscores the 1400 by an impressive 102 percent margin the excel results are quite interesting and it does seem like six cores is the optimal amount for this application we have seen excel scale well with up to 20 calls in the past but for some reason here the 1700 doesn't offer that much of a performance improvement over the 1600 overclock the 1700 was just 11% faster which is again a surprising find 7-zip on the other hand scales very well with extra cores here we see the 1600 is 50% faster than the 1400 which makes sense given it has 50% more cause that said though the 1700 was just 32% faster than the 1600 for the decompression test and just 12 percent faster for the compression test so while faster than the 1600 the 6 core model looks to deliver the best bang for your buck in this test premier Pro doesn't really take advantage of more than 6 cores that well whereas the 1600 was 36% faster than the 1400 there's 1700 just 13% faster than a 1600 when comparing all three CPUs clocked at 4 gigahertz so then even content creators like myself will get the most bang for their buck with the 1600 so measuring power consumption I have used premier Pro which in hindsight might not have been the best move given the application doesn't properly utilize the 8 or CPU that said we do still see an increasing consumption with the eight core CPU particularly once overclocked clock for clock consumption increased by 14 percent which is very close to the 13 percent boost in performance seeing we're moving from the 1600 to the 1700 okay so first up we have battlefield 1 and here's a 1700 and 1600 are virtually identical even with the gtx 1080i handling the rendering work although the 1600 was able to deliver 22% more frames than the 1400 the 1700 was able to improve upon that result the point 1 percent figure is a few frames better but certainly not anything to get overly excited about mafia 3 loves them cores and we see this once again clock for clock the 1700 was 9 percent faster when looking at not just the average but also the point 1 percent results not exactly a mind-blowing result will admit but at least the 8 core 1700 was able to offer some kind of a performance advantage here that said though the step from the 1400 to the 1600 did notice an extra 18 percent performance which was much more significant ashes of the singularity escalation is another cool Hungary game and yet once again we see the 1700 offering a little advantage over the 1600 with just a few frames in at the 8-core processor certainly isn't worth the premium over the 6 core model when gaming that said though I am King the retest DirectX 12 titles such as ashes once bagra arrives next up we have hitman and it's another hit job on the 8 core 1700 granted the 1700 doesn't require any overclocking to get the most out of the gtx 980ti but still once match o'clock 4 o'clock with the 1600 there's nothing in it unsurprisingly Deus Ex mankind divided isn't able to provide the 1700 with an advantage over the 1600 both CPUs allow the GTX 1080 to I to churn out the exact same numbers not much more needs to be said or really can be said on this one we have a dead heat here finally total war Warhammer and damn it another time between the 1700 and 1600 again not a lot can be said here both to 1,700 1,600 averaged 136 fps once overclocked interestingly out of the box the 1600 was actually faster than the 1700 clearly it's managing the hit higher operating frequencies anyway that wraps up testing okay so this little comparison actually sums up Rison really well in my opinion and it illustrates exactly what I have been saying since the risin v series was first released for me there isin five release was much more impressive than horizon seven though that isn't to say there's anything wrong with the risin seven series the problem rather been there are a few mainstream applications that really take advantage of an eight core sixteen thread cpu and really those that do are incredibly fast on a six core or even four core processor anyway there's definitely a need and demand for eight core CPUs and those with even more cores but that demand isn't coming from the mainstream market because as I said most software simply doesn't take advantage of that many cores it's no secret that hardware box is primarily a gaming focused channel and right now games simply don't require eight cores and this likely will be the case for some time to come nonetheless the eight core isin 7 1700 is an incredible buy just 310 dollars u.s. particularly given the alternative which is the crucially overpriced core i7 6900 K at 1050 dollars u.s. the only issue being what do you do with all those cause if occupying eight cores is beyond you right now then I suggest turning to the golden ship of the horizon line up the r5 1600 all gamers will right now find the 1600 to deliver the maximum bang for their buck and let's take a closer look at what I mean be aware that I'm comparing the minimum frame rate data here and that figure is used to divide against the CPUs total cost to give us the cost per frame here we think that in terms of value from a gamers perspective the 1,400 and 1,600 are very evenly matched bang for your buck they are much the same the 1600 just allows for a little extra performance and will likely serve you better down the track comparing the 1600 and 1700 we find the eight core model costs almost 40% more while it delivered virtually the same performance this isn't to say the horizon 7 series is poor value or the 1700 isn't as good as the 1600 they are the same physical chip after all the 1700 simply has all the cores enabled and for that year stag are 40 percent premium for those building a new system from scratch the horizon 5 1600 is the way to go in my opinion realistically I would say consumers are looking at spending around 600 to 700 dollars us on a new rig - the CPU that allows for a decent motherboard 256 gigabyte SSD 16 gigabytes of memory and mid-range graphics card and all the other essentials throw in the risin 5 1,400 and the total bill comes out at around $800 whereas if you use the 1600 it comes in at about 850 dollars and that's just 6% more and that in my opinion makes the 1600 an obvious choice and a worthwhile upgrade to step up to the 1700 we'll add around another 10% to the cost of the total build which takes the price to 950 dollars which honestly is still very reasonable that's it the game is you are throwing another 100 dollars us at a component that let's be honest isn't really going to net you any extra performance at least right now and probably for the foreseeable if you took that money and reinvest it into a GPU that would indeed deliver a noticeable performance improvement for gamers of course another option would be to grab an nvme SSD that might not be gaming performance but it will make the system on a hole that little bit snappier anyway I'm going to recommend the rise in 5 1600 as a CPU to get especially if you are a gamer but of course I would like to know what you guys think so let me know in the comment section below I'm always kini here or rather read your thoughts yes I can read thoughts now so be careful I'm your host Steve see again soon guys you