• Last Updated:
  • Feb 9th, 2018 9:14 pm
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes

Ryzen R5 1600 prices?

How come there's no posts about how expensive Ryzens are nowadays? :)

One poster (you know who it is? :) ) was comparing Ryzen and Intel in a thread a while back and some of you were ganging up on him defending Ryzen and bashing Intel. :) I have to admit, I agreed with most of his argument. :) I do want to like the AMD chips, though, ironically. :) However, the benchmarks I have come across seems to favour the i5-8400 in most of them when comparing the Ryzen chip.

This was around November. :) Anyway, I probably would have went on impulse again and bought the Intel i5-8400 right about now as it's currently listed at $229 and the Ryzen R5 1600 is $244 (!!!) at Newegg and Amazon. I think that's way overpriced. The Intel chip is probably right around the price you'd expect (acceptable) but what's holding me back? Yep, the Spectre and Meltdown stuff. Also, with AMD coming out with Ryzen+ around April (is that right?), I guess I should wait anyway? But, if the prices are a similar pattern, then I think they will be too expensive. I don't want to wait until the next discount since I hope/plan to be in the market by the end of April or thereabouts. It already sucks that I am many generations behind (I have a Kentfield!).

The R7 1700 seems at a somewhat satisfactory price but the R5 1600 seems way overpriced for what you get and compared to the i5-8400 price, I don't see too many picking that over the Intel chip even with the security/patch problems.

What do you think of this? Do you agree? Or do you object to my reasoning? :) I am okay with disagreement. :) In fact, I welcome different arguments but some concession or agreement would be nice, too. :) The fact is, I would like to choose the AMD Ryzen build because it honestly most likely serves the purpose I would use it for. I would like to get into gaming but I haven't yet and I think it would take too much of my time. :) Maybe, a few games and some occasional playing but then I don't need to choose the Intel chip for that reason (e.g. gaming). But, in terms of price and affordability, I will go with what is a good deal (price/performance). The intangible here, though, is the Spectre/Meltdown factor so depending on how this is straightened out, that might be the ultimate determining factor. Some people say that Intel is coming out with new chips. When? Or do they mean they will come out with the same chips or a refresh with a 'fix?'

So, I am wondering if I should anticipate a number of people saying to wait until the Ryzen refresh and see how Intel does with their continuing 'fixes?' The Intel chips supposedly don't have much of a hit in performance after patches with a very small percentage of performance loss that is not really noticeable for normal/ordinary computer users and typical use?

I'm comparing the i5-8400 vs R5 1600, btw, because I think it would be between these two chips. I think I would like to budget about $200 - $250 for the processor. But, I would like it to be a 'good deal/buy.' I already have a discrete graphics card but it's nothing special. I'm not upgrading it with these prices unless I decide to go with one of the cheaper AMD cards.

Comments?
18 replies
Deal Addict
Aug 31, 2005
1495 posts
1036 upvotes
Richmond
New revision of Ryzen is coming in about 2 months. Regardless of the current price, you should wait.
Member
Apr 27, 2014
371 posts
123 upvotes
Mississauga, ON
You're getting worked up over a $15 difference for parts that will have very similar performance and neither will give you much performance boost for gaming without upgrading the gpu. Keep in mind there's always something new just around the corner so at some point you need to pull the trigger if upgrading is what you want to do.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
expatflame wrote: You're getting worked up over a $15 difference for parts that will have very similar performance and neither will give you much performance boost for gaming without upgrading the gpu. Keep in mind there's always something new just around the corner so at some point you need to pull the trigger if upgrading is what you want to do.
It's over the suggested price and Americans are paying only $180 - $195 for the same part.
Deal Addict
Jan 10, 2017
1320 posts
643 upvotes
GTA
teleguitar wrote: It's over the suggested price and Americans are paying only $180 - $195 for the same part.
Convert $180 USD to Canadian is $225. Would you look at that!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 25, 2003
9179 posts
295 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: It's over the suggested price and Americans are paying only $180 - $195 for the same part.
$170 USD and $30 off mobo if you buy at the same time at microcenter :)
it's me ramin.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
B0000rt wrote: $170 USD and $30 off mobo if you buy at the same time at microcenter :)
Exactly. AMD sucks. They are stiffing Canadians and RFDers are in denial. Keep it up with the dumb replies, guys (not you, B0000rt) :) I don't even know why you are defending AMD. You can't ALL be working for them! Geez.

Edit: I guess some people here will blame the retailers? Okay....whatever. The point is there is a pretty big discrepancy and when there was a report there was a large discount, it didn't make it here.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6179 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: Exactly. AMD sucks. They are stiffing Canadians and RFDers are in denial. Keep it up with the dumb replies, guys (not you, B0000rt) :) I don't even know why you are defending AMD. You can't ALL be working for them! Geez.

Edit: I guess some people here will blame the retailers? Okay....whatever. The point is there is a pretty big discrepancy and when there was a report there was a large discount, it didn't make it here.
I have pointed out the problem with AMD shills on this forum for some time. They're not hard to point out. They all upvote each other, it's clear as day who they are. My advice is to know who they are, and ignore them. Correct the misinformation and the nonsense that they spew out if you dare. But really it seems that they are a problem that we just have to live with and deal with on here, unfortunately. You should see some other forums, it is way worse.

Anyhow, in terms of your purchase, if you need something now, just buy what you need. Ryzen and Coffee Lake are both great chips with different strengths and weaknesses. What I like about Ryzen is that it runs cool with great efficiency and great multithreaded performance. However Coffee Lake will offer significantly better single threaded performance once you overclock it, at which point it comes very close to Ryzen in terms of multithreaded performance also. However power efficiency and heat output go out the window with Coffee Lake once you overclock it. You will need good cooling. Also of note is that Meltdown affects Intel and not AMD, so perhaps factor in a 5% performance penalty for Intel, or so. Both sides are affected by Spectre so that's a wash.

It looks like the new Ryzen chips are about 200mhz faster. It's honestly a bad time to buy Ryzen right now because they will be clearing the chips out soon, and the new chips will obviously be better than what's available now.

Actually I have seen some really amazing deals on Coffee Lake. The 8700K chips have been selling for $325USD brand new on Ebay, and I believe they ship to Canada, so maybe keep an eye out for a deal. I'm just not sure how badly you need something now, and you need to determine your needs.

I will tell you that so long as you can get either CPU to 3.7ghz it will be absolutely fine for gaming, unless you game at lower resolutions with high refresh rates. In that case Intel would be better and you will need to overclock.

I hope that helps!
I am a Zoomer customer.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 9, 2010
2773 posts
928 upvotes
Windsor
teleguitar wrote: How come there's no posts about how expensive Ryzens are nowadays? :)
Because they're not expensive? There's a bit of retailer ripoff going on, which is unfortunate, but the chips you're looking at SHOULD cost the same.

In the case of lower end offerings (like you're looking at), the price/value is basically on-par for AMD now that Intel was forced to add some cores to their offerings. The reason those Intel chips are priced so competitively is BECAUSE Ryzen is there; you can be sure that a 6 core i5 would not be this cheap had AMD not finally started selling something worth buying.

Basically, Ryzen came out, and it pointed out some glaring holes in Intel's offerings, and some extreme pricing anomalies. At launch, the Ryzen 7s were a fantastic deal, even with their garbage memory capabilites at first. The R5 chips (6 core) were a pretty good deal too, given the i5 8xxx chips didn't yet exist. The R3s were always not really great (neither are the i3s, to be fair), especially given no onboard video. Then the 8xxx chips came out, which were largely nothing exciting vs their 7xxx brethren (more clock speeds, mainly), except for the i5 8400/8600k where Intel threw some cores at the problem, didn't charge you for it, and came to the 6 core party "on the cheap".

As for an opinion:
If you're deciding on a 6-ish core chip, and hyper-threading doesn't matter, then the Intel is currently the better chip per $$$, and you get onboard video. Note that the Zen+ chip benchmarks will be coming out soon (I saw some news of the benchmarking kits showing up), but I personally don't expect a ton more performance vs the 1600. Having said that, it might be worth waiting a few weeks to see if AMD performs a miracle (they're adjusting how XFR works, and a new chipset, so there might be some "behind the scenes" performance to be milked). Pricing will probably largely be the differentiating factor anyhow (and I can't see them dropping prices much). You could potentially have some considerable savings if you have an Amerifriend with AMD; I got my 1700x + motherboard for $150 off USD retail @ launch @ Microcenter (I live about 15 minutes from one) ... maybe they'll do something like that again, which might tip the scales.

Excluding chips you can't buy (and that have no prices set), your reasoning seems pretty sound for picking the 8400. Realise that Meltdown and Spectre will likely not impact you in any significant way; the workloads that the impact is evident are workloads that us mortals generally never see, and the leaking data between VMs is moot if you're not virtualizing your PC and selling those instances to random people.
One who is offended by truth, has no place among those who seek wisdom.
Deal Guru
Apr 8, 2013
10205 posts
736 upvotes
This is my first AMD CPU. Always bought intel.

Its great. Im definitely a believer now. About to build a new rig for a friend. Im going with R3 this time.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
26938 posts
3663 upvotes
Montreal
Times have changed. I built my ryzen rig back in April 2017. At that time an Intel 7700k was not competitively priced. It was a no brainer for me as my main useage scenario is not gaming. I went with. 1700x.

Intel coffee lake is much more aggressively priced. I wonder why?
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote: This is my first AMD CPU. Always bought intel.

Its great. Im definitely a believer now. About to build a new rig for a friend. Im going with R3 this time.
Better watch out, SickBeast is goinna say, 'Hi.' :)

It would be interesting if you elaborated or kept on topic by mentioning the price(s). Sigh. :-/

I never said that the Ryzen chips were bad or that they were somehow trailing Intel in a bad way. In fact, I previously stated that they actually are a good fit for what I want (I'm not a die-hard gamer) but the big positive about them, supposedly, were the list/retail prices. I am arguing that this is not true and that it's even over the suggested price from those various lists that the tech sites keep using. It might not be very much more than those prices but the comparative i5-8400 (which I think should be compared to the R5 1600) is a much better deal right now, imho. Even with less threads and no hyperthreading, it can still do a lot of multitasking and does beat the Ryzen chip on a number of tasks/benchmarks. It is also very competitive when it comes to power and temp efficiency.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
mr_raider wrote: Times have changed. I built my ryzen rig back in April 2017. At that time an Intel 7700k was not competitively priced. It was a no brainer for me as my main useage scenario is not gaming. I went with. 1700x.

Intel coffee lake is much more aggressively priced. I wonder why?
My main usage is not gaming either. But, the i5-8400 seems to be a better chip than the i7-7700k in many ways and runs cooler. I think the i7-8700k is at a decent deal at the moment and some people speak of delidding - I wonder whether that's worth it. Anyway, the CL chips are competitive but I thought the Ryzen chips were supposed to target the Intel prices - but, I don't see that right now. However, in saying that, the current R7 1700 seems to be a good deal (i.e. current price) so I concede that it is competitive with CL chips. But, is it a better deal than the i7-8700 which is only a little bit more $$? I doubt it. The only negative I can see from the i7 CL Intel chip is maybe shoddy power efficiency but there might be ways around that?

You seem to imply that 'we' should go with AMD Ryzen no matter what because it is bringing down the prices of Intel CL chips? I would buy Ryzen if it's the (better/best) deal that convinces me but not (just) because it is encouraging Intel to lower their prices. Some people seem to think there is a 'good vs bad/evil' thing going on between AMD and Intel and I don't see that. I don't think one is more 'innocent' than the other. I know that Intel has inflated prices and have had some bad business practices but at the end of the day, most of us are just ordinary computer users and we will use our dollars to buy what we think suits us best or what we think is the best deal (or the better product). I doubt many of use try to use some 'principled' reason in reaching our decisions but if that's what you do, then great. Do what you think is best. I want a good deal and the product to work how it's supposed to. I am not a gamer so I don't need the superior IPC or single core, necessarily, that breaks the records. But, if one is a better deal and I think any top level chip will easily do what I need it to do. But, I am not yet in the market and then Spectre/Meltdown would/will probably make me hesitate for a bit longer anyway. In saying all that, however, if I was buying today, I would have a hard time not choosing the i5-8400 as it seems like a better deal than the R5 1600 right now.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 25, 2003
9179 posts
295 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: Exactly. AMD sucks. They are stiffing Canadians and RFDers are in denial. Keep it up with the dumb replies, guys (not you, B0000rt) :) I don't even know why you are defending AMD. You can't ALL be working for them! Geez.

Edit: I guess some people here will blame the retailers? Okay....whatever. The point is there is a pretty big discrepancy and when there was a report there was a large discount, it didn't make it here.
Yeah sucks for Canadians. I built a 1600 for my daughter with a b350 itx Mobo inside a Silverstone FZ01, can't believe that thing accepts a full atx psu!
it's me ramin.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
B0000rt wrote: Yeah sucks for Canadians. I built a 1600 for my daughter with a b350 itx Mobo inside a Silverstone FZ01, can't believe that thing accepts a full atx psu!
Your'e being serious? Did you use Microcenter, perhaps?

I think your build sounds intriguing. I was really interested in building an itx (SFF) system a while back but I just thought the limited choices were too demoralizing. I eventually gave up. I subsequently started looking at mATX and ATX builds for more choices but I still think an ITX system is so ideal.

What I really wonder about with current itx builds is 'how are the temps?' :) I guess it's not so much the power consumption either but being able to cool the hardware. Current ryzen builds also need a discrete graphics card so doesn't mean that it's likely to increase power/temps, also?

R5 1600 and even R7 1700s are pretty efficient, though and the benchmarks that show power and temps (everyone is always looking at the gaming data! :) )indicate it's not too bad. But, in an itx system, how does that change things?

I think a CL build in an itx would be challenging but not if it's with an i5-8400 chip - that is made for any type of build, imho.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6179 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: Better watch out, SickBeast is goinna say, 'Hi.' :)
So hang on, you come on here complaining about the AMD trolls and then you say something facetious when I say something about it? What gives? You might be fine with AMD shills ruining any type of meaningful discussion on here but I'm not. And if you have a problem with that, too bad.
I am a Zoomer customer.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2261 posts
110 upvotes
SickBeast wrote: So hang on, you come on here complaining about the AMD trolls and then you say something facetious when I say something about it? What gives? You might be fine with AMD shills ruining any type of meaningful discussion on here but I'm not. And if you have a problem with that, too bad.
Hey, I didn't mean anything by that. I was wondering if you would consider those two regarding what you were saying. :) I am just neutral but I agree with you, that no one needs any shills or fan boys ruining any meaningful discussion because no one benefits or obtains any useful info if the bias is that extreme.

I even questioned their posts as they didn't mention anything about my original critique which was about the price. However, I don't think a flame war achieves anything either - I don't have a problem either way as I am only after objective and meaningful information and advice.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6179 upvotes
teleguitar wrote: Hey, I didn't mean anything by that. I was wondering if you would consider those two regarding what you were saying. :) I am just neutral but I agree with you, that no one needs any shills or fan boys ruining any meaningful discussion because no one benefits or obtains any useful info if the bias is that extreme.

I even questioned their posts as they didn't mention anything about my original critique which was about the price. However, I don't think a flame war achieves anything either - I don't have a problem either way as I am only after objective and meaningful information and advice.
Thanks. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one on here noticing this and having a problem with it. If you want to know more please feel free to send me a PM.
I am a Zoomer customer.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
26938 posts
3663 upvotes
Montreal
teleguitar wrote: My main usage is not gaming either. But, the i5-8400 seems to be a better chip than the i7-7700k in many ways and runs cooler. I think the i7-8700k is at a decent deal at the moment and some people speak of delidding - I wonder whether that's worth it. Anyway, the CL chips are competitive but I thought the Ryzen chips were supposed to target the Intel prices - but, I don't see that right now. However, in saying that, the current R7 1700 seems to be a good deal (i.e. current price) so I concede that it is competitive with CL chips. But, is it a better deal than the i7-8700 which is only a little bit more $$? I doubt it. The only negative I can see from the i7 CL Intel chip is maybe shoddy power efficiency but there might be ways around that?

You seem to imply that 'we' should go with AMD Ryzen no matter what because it is bringing down the prices of Intel CL chips? I would buy Ryzen if it's the (better/best) deal that convinces me but not (just) because it is encouraging Intel to lower their prices. Some people seem to think there is a 'good vs bad/evil' thing going on between AMD and Intel and I don't see that. I don't think one is more 'innocent' than the other. I know that Intel has inflated prices and have had some bad business practices but at the end of the day, most of us are just ordinary computer users and we will use our dollars to buy what we think suits us best or what we think is the best deal (or the better product). I doubt many of use try to use some 'principled' reason in reaching our decisions but if that's what you do, then great. Do what you think is best. I want a good deal and the product to work how it's supposed to. I am not a gamer so I don't need the superior IPC or single core, necessarily, that breaks the records. But, if one is a better deal and I think any top level chip will easily do what I need it to do. But, I am not yet in the market and then Spectre/Meltdown would/will probably make me hesitate for a bit longer anyway. In saying all that, however, if I was buying today, I would have a hard time not choosing the i5-8400 as it seems like a better deal than the R5 1600 right now.
I'm just saying that in the world of computing, prices are a moving target. What's was a good deal yesterday may not be today. You need to analyze what's being offered carefully.

I'm guessing ryzen 2 will shake up prices again. At this stage though GPU and RAM are much more expensive than when i built last year.

Just to point out, for coffee lake desktop:


i3= 4c/4t

i5= 6c/6t

i7 = 6c/12t

For the first time ever, intel is giving you more than 4 cores on their mainstream line up. And 4 cores on an i3? That's quite the revolution. If amd was so uncompetitive, why the sudden change in cores per cpu? Did Intel just discover the tech to stuff six cores on to one die?

Top