why does one cost so much then lmao
is it literally no difference other than base clock? do they not have some form of oc limit?
e: also, would a 1600 be alright for most use? ik it can run stuff that's modern, but i mean in the next 3 - 5 years do u think it'll last?
No different OC limit, it's the silicon lottery. The 1600 is probably fine, AMD don't adopt the same tactics as competitors and they wouldn't benefit much from locking off other CPUs for overclocking.
Generally speaking, when AMD or Intel decide to make a new CPU lineup, they produce a single chip design. Because manifucaturing is never perfect, some dies simply don't pass the testing requirements to fit into best model, so they disable the offending cores and drop them down in price. I don't see why Ryzen would be any different.
The reason why with Ryzen you won't really get much better OC with the better binned models (aka 1800x) is because most chips never go past 4GHz anyway. It takes too much voltage to break that barrier, which has something to do with the their focus on effeciency rather than clock speed. What's certain, is that if you buy a cheaper Ryzen, it would take you more voltage to reach a stable overclock than a more expensive one. That's just how CPU manufacturing works. Rarely do you get a golden chip that OC's like mad with little to no voltage bumps.
The main difference between the X and the non X, is XFR or e
xtended
frequency
range. This is a chip based automatic overclocking (not the garbage motherboard based solutions that we all know of) made by AMD to extend the clock speed beyond the turbo boost when the CPU receives an adequate load. The X chips get a 100MHz bump with XFR, while the non-X get a 50MHz bump.
As for your question, there's no point in going for the 1700+ if you only game. Get a 1600(X) and you'll be happy. If you don't plan to upgrade in the next 3-4 years, you can go with the i5 8600K when it stabilizes in price. The 8400 has a garbage stock clock and I don't recommend it.
