Currently parting up an itx ryzen system running off an HDplex 160 + 330w dell brick. I was wondering if the 1600x runs cooler or is less power hungry than the 1600 at the same clocks (or stock)
Are binned chips better? Ryzen 5 1600 vs 1600x
- Thread starter Marcus Hughan
- Start date
It's possible, but unlikely.
Chips are binned based on the highest stable clock at stock voltages, and oftentimes, higher binned chips are set at the lower speed when they have too many to sell at the higher price-point. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, places like the Silicon lottery don't test for efficiency either, so you're not likely to be able to find a more efficient chip. Even if you could, though, it won't be a very large difference anyways, so I wouldn't worry about it.
You are better off focusing your search on getting a more efficient GPU, and the ITX versions sometimes ARE binned for lower power use.
Chips are binned based on the highest stable clock at stock voltages, and oftentimes, higher binned chips are set at the lower speed when they have too many to sell at the higher price-point. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, places like the Silicon lottery don't test for efficiency either, so you're not likely to be able to find a more efficient chip. Even if you could, though, it won't be a very large difference anyways, so I wouldn't worry about it.
You are better off focusing your search on getting a more efficient GPU, and the ITX versions sometimes ARE binned for lower power use.
Here's the binning statistics for Ryzen 7 from Silicon Lottery. I would presume the Ryzen 5 chips would be somewhat similar in distribution of overclocks:
Ryzen 7 1700
93% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.376V
70% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.440V
Ryzen 7 1700X
100% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.360V
77% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.392V
33% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.424V
Ryzen 7 1800X
100% reach 3.8GHz (assumed)
97% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.376V
67% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.1GHz @ 1.440V
As you can see the higher end chips have a higher chance to reach 4.0 GHz overclock (20% vs 33% vs 67%) and in all cases do so at a lower voltage than the higher end chip. If I am not mistaken, this would also have a direct effect on heat produced (1800X should produce ~5W less heat at 4.0 GHz) which isn't an insignificant consideration if you're planning an SFF build. I think the real issue here is do you want to roll the dice on a chip having a lower potential overclock and likely having greater power inefficiency for the measly 25 USD difference between the 1600 and 1600X?
Ryzen 7 1700
93% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.376V
70% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.440V
Ryzen 7 1700X
100% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.360V
77% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.392V
33% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.424V
Ryzen 7 1800X
100% reach 3.8GHz (assumed)
97% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.376V
67% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.1GHz @ 1.440V
As you can see the higher end chips have a higher chance to reach 4.0 GHz overclock (20% vs 33% vs 67%) and in all cases do so at a lower voltage than the higher end chip. If I am not mistaken, this would also have a direct effect on heat produced (1800X should produce ~5W less heat at 4.0 GHz) which isn't an insignificant consideration if you're planning an SFF build. I think the real issue here is do you want to roll the dice on a chip having a lower potential overclock and likely having greater power inefficiency for the measly 25 USD difference between the 1600 and 1600X?
Yea I have a 3gb mini itx 1060 from EVGA but the motherboard I have is not compatible with the HDplex160 so I am upgrading for the compatibility, just a thought.
I'd still lean for the R5 1600 (non-X) and use the $25 for a better cooler, but if space is a concern and PSU as Kmpkt mentioned, then yeah the 1600x at least give you some more assurance.
asus z170 maximus VIII impact, because the 8pin CPU is literally right next to the 24pin so when u plug in the HDplex u cant plug in the 8pin CPU... must be one of the only mobos in existence which is incompatible
Similar threads
