Thursday deals: a Ryzen 5 1600 for $145 and more

Greetings, good fellows. 'Tis a calm and relatively quiet day at the TR HQ, but there's brewing going on. Jeff's just ordered some fancy espresso cups to use as props for taking good shots with the Intel Core i9-9900K for our upcoming review. You gotta love a man's devotion to his coffee craft. In the meantime, I've come up with today's selection of hardware deals. Today's selection hits that mid-range spot just fine.

  • Contrary to popular belief, you don't need the latest-and-greatest hardware to make a competent build. The Ryzen 5 1600 may be over a year old now, but its six Zen cores ticking away at up to 3.6 GHz still give any comparable modern CPU a run for its money. There's a quite-competent Wraith Spire cooler in the box, too. Grab this chip for $144.99 from Newegg with the promo code EMCEPEE22.

  • Around the same amount, you can get your hands on the Western Digital Blue 3D NAND 1-TB solid-state drive. This builder-approved M.2 SATA stick can push 560 MB/s for sequential reads and 530 MB/s for writes, and WD says it can have around 500 terabytes written to it before it'll even think of bothering you. The asking price is $139.99 with the promo code EMCEPEE56 at Newegg.

  • Need a good home for the CPU above? Try the Asus ROG Strix B350F. This board has metal-reinforced PCIe slots, onboard RGB LED lighting, and an Intel-powered Ethernet controller, and it'll set you back $89.99 at Newegg with the promo code EMCEPEE57.

  • Cheap spinning storage is making a comeback, and the model on the catwalk today is the Western Digital MyBook 6-TB hard drive. This spinner comes with hardware encryption and backup software. Pick it up for $119.99 from Newegg with the promo code EMCEPEE77.

  • All the talk is usually about fast processors and speedy graphics cards, but what about monitors? The AOpen 27HC1R is a 27" curved VA display with a resolution of 1920×1080. This monitor should be right at home when gaming thanks to its 144-Hz refresh rate and FreeSync support. Grab it from Newegg for just $219.99 with the promo code EMCEPEE39.

  • If 27" isn't quite enough for you, how about 30"? That's the size of the Acer Predator Z1 (Z301C Tbmiphzx) display. This ultra-wide, curvy unit has a VA panel with a resolution of 2560×1080 and a 144-Hz refresh rate that Acer claims can go as fast as 200 Hz with some overclocking. There's G-Sync support on tap as well as built-in eye-tracking tech courtesy of Tobii. Put this monitor on your desk for $399.99 with the promo code EMCEPEE42.

That's all for today, folks! There's a chance you're looking for something we haven't covered. If that's the case, you can help The Tech Report by using the following referral links when you're out shopping: not only do we have a partnership with Newegg and Amazon, but we also work with Best Buy, Adorama, RakutenWalmart, and Sam's Club. For more specific needs, you can also shop with our links at Das Keyboard's shop.

Comments closed
    • meerkt
    • 10 months ago

    AOpen?! I insist my monitors be ABit!

    • elites2012
    • 10 months ago

    at this price, buyers are still going for the ryzen 5 2600. i dont get it. the ryzen 5 spanks the i7 4 cores in A LOT of stuff, all but gaming. intel has convinced the gaming companies that it will be too hard and costly to program passed 4 cores. how sad.

      • Airmantharp
      • 10 months ago

      “intel has convinced the gaming companies that it will be too hard and costly to program passed 4 cores. how sad.”

      Proof?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 months ago

      [quote<]intel has convinced the gaming companies that it will be too hard and costly to program passed 4 cores[/quote<] Yes, that's why they released a 6-core mainstream desktop CPU last year and just announced an 8-core variant.

      • auxy
      • 10 months ago

      ;つД`)

      This is probably a waste of my time, but–

      There is a thing called [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law<]Amdahl's Law[/url<]. In its simplest form, it says that parallelization can only give as much speedup to an application as it can be parallelized. In other words, MOAR COARS isn't helpful if your task can't meaningfully be spread out across those cores. Video games are simulations, by nature. Simulations are serial. (You can't simulate the effects of events B and C at the same time if event C relies on the results of event B, and you can't do either one without doing event A first.) Serial tasks do not parallelize easily. Obviously. You can add work that makes use of available parallel processing, like physics effects or complex character AI, but in so doing you are increasing the CPU requirements of your game and usually not getting a lot back for it. See: the "Very High" setting in Crysis 3, which performs rudimentary physical simulation on individual leaves and blades of grass. Because of the insane computational requirements of this almost-impossible-to-notice effect, the AMD FX series of CPUs seemed to do very well in this game relative to other games, as compared to their contemporaries from Intel. However, turning the game to "High" settings had basically no visual impact and dramatically improved performance on the other machines, while performance didn't change much on the AMD FX rigs. Do you see the problem here? People with a few fast cores can run any game very fast. People with many slow cores can match that performance in some games, but in most games will be left behind. This isn't some developer conspiracy, this is because of the nature of video games as applications. This is the incontrovertible reality of games programming. The [b<]TL;DR[/b<] here is that games don't use more cores because games mostly can't use more cores. Adding more cores simply doesn't (and crucially, [b<]can't[/b<]) help.

        • jensend
        • 10 months ago

        I don’t know whether it was wasting your time, but it’s wrong.

        The temporal ordering of events in a game isn’t the bottleneck! Yes, simulating a Turing machine is strongly suspected to be nonparallelizable (NC=P seems just as unlikely as P=NP). So adding more cores couldn’t help your simulated machine exceed the frequency of a single core of your machine. But, in rough terms, the frequency of your CPU cores is tens of millions of times higher than the temporal resolution of a game. The question is whether all the millions of instructions your CPU needs to do in a single simulation tick/frame are nonparallelizable. And I see no clear reason to think any P-complete problem could be reduced to the things a game engine does in a single frame.

        If the temporal order of the simulation was the bottleneck, then physics would be a fabulous example of a nonparallelizable aspect of the game engine. But, as you admit, physics is very parallelizable.

        The basic problem isn’t that “simulations are serial.” The basic problem is that parallel programming is extremely hard and game programmer time is extremely limited.

        “People with a few fast cores can run any game very fast” fails to remain true as developers overcome the hurdles and create games designed to take advantage of more cores. You aren’t going to get a good gaming experience out of a single-core machine today. As available parallel resources expand and parallel programming advances, game engines will do more parallel work in each frame. From the long term developer perspective it’s more like Gustavson’s law than Amdahl’s i.e. fixed time rather than fixed problem size: “I will never need my frame to take less than 5ms, so as parallel hardware improves, even if there’s a nonparallelizable part I can tackle larger problems to solve in each frame.”

          • auxy
          • 10 months ago

          [quote<]I don't know whether it was wasting your time, but it's wrong.[/quote<]No it isn't. You effectively just said the same thing I said with different words. You came to the same conclusion: parallel processing doesn't practically apply to games beyond a few cores. You say "parallel programming is extremely hard" but that is not nearly strong enough language (even accounting for an appropriately, uh, extreme defintion of "extreme") to represent the difficulty of proper parallel programming in the context of something like a modern game. These days, developers are REDUCING the number of threads their applications use because single-core performance on the average machine is good enough that they are actually LOSING performance by trying to split things out into multiple threads and keep everything deterministic. My statement re: "a few fast cores" is still true for a reasonable number of fast cores. Talking about a single-core CPU is reductionist if I'm being nice and an absolute exemplar for intellectual dishonesty if I'm not. It infuriates me that you would make an argument like that. Nobody is using a single-core CPU in 2018. Even if they were, a sufficiently-high-clocked single-core would completely suffice. It's simply that CPUs don't clock that high. And I didn't say anything about single-core CPUs in the first place. I hate people who argue like you. The fact remains that you're going to get a better gaming experience out of a Core i7-7700K than a Ryzen 7 2700, and that's always going to be true.

            • jensend
            • 10 months ago

            [quote<]You effectively just said the same thing I said with different words.[/quote<]Not in the slightest. Again, you claimed that temporal order is the reason a game is difficult to parallelize and that it's impossible for more cores to help, due to 'nature' and 'incontrovertible reality.' But temporal order is not the problem -- again, physics is a good example here -- and we have zero indication that the tasks game developers would like to compute during a frame interval are inherently completely nonparallelizable. There's a tremendous difference between 'these tasks are P-complete and therefore cannot be parallelized (unless NC=P), even with infinite developer effort' and 'these tasks involve enough headache-inducing synchronization and communication issues that if we tell our developers we expect linear scaling past four cores we won't make our ship date.' I pointed out that your statement that 'a few fast cores can run any game very fast' was hyperbole. When you add the qualification 'for a reasonable number of fast cores,' you have to admit that what counts as a 'reasonable number' has changed dramatically in the past and will continue to change in the future. This is not about the 'nature' and 'incontrovertible reality' of 'any game.' Instead it's about the [i<]present industry[/i<] realities, which will continue to evolve and scale, just not as fast as a fanboy like elites2012 would prefer. In time, languages and tools, education and industry practices, and engines and libraries will all shift to better utilize available computing resources and do work that would have been infeasible with four threads, in concord with Gustafson's law. If you hate people who poke holes in sloppy logic and careless overgeneralizations, that's your loss; I'm not troubled by that in the slightest. Good day.

            • Pancake
            • 10 months ago

            You’re not so much arguing against sloppy logic and careless overgeneralizations. More uneducated and uninformed ignorance. But that’s the nature of web forums – any person and their dog has an equal vote regardless of how completely unqualified and worthless their opinion is. “I play gamez so I know how gamez programming workz”. Not.

            • auxy
            • 10 months ago

            [i<](I made this post in anger and it was rude and RAGEPRO made me delete it.)[/i<]

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 10 months ago

            Thumbs up to Ragepro. [i<]Ad hominem[/i<] responses don't promote rational debate.

            • jdevers
            • 10 months ago

            “The fact remains that you’re going to get a better gaming experience out of a Core i7-7700K than a Ryzen 7 2700, and that’s always going to be true.”

            Yea if you run at 1080p 144hz, if you run at 4K or even 1440p the difference is nearly imperceptible.

    • gigafinger
    • 10 months ago

    I just bought the WD M.2 stick! Thanks!

      • morphine
      • 10 months ago

      Cool to hear, thanks!

        • auxy
        • 10 months ago

        [quote=”Donald Ferreira”<]Thank you [s<]Kanye[/s<] gigafinger, very cool![/quote<] ( *´艸`)

    • wingless
    • 10 months ago

    You can build a pretty dope gaming rig for these prices! I’m impressed at the value on AMD’s side.

    • Anovoca
    • 10 months ago

    Pascal Price watch:

    [url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LZ5J28B/?tag=pcpapi-20&th=1<]GTX 1070 - $349.99[/url<] [url=https://www.outletpc.com/oz1995.html?utm_source=oz1995&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=pcpartpicker&utm_content=EVGA%2B-%2BVideo%20Cards&sscid=a1k2_b7i4m<]GTX 1070 ti - $389.89 [/url<] (after mail-in-rebate) [url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MEEAE9J/?tag=pcpapi-20<]GTX 1080 - $439.99[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This