General & specific re: Ryzen 1600, 1600X
An expert thinks for me (want to game better, a little programming and video encoding) the 1600 is the only chip to buy. But I can get the performance of a 2700 for a lot less, so I'm looking at the 1600X. To optimize any OC you focus on VRM and heatsink and ideally 'better' phases. A more robust mobo will help a future possible 8 core as well, even at stock. If I'm ever unhappy with the cooler I'm in a better position if I'm closer to a "mid-grade" mobo.
PBO apparently only improves IPC 3-4% from what I've seen on 3000 series cpu's in the last week. But PBO or static, I should be better off with an 'X' chip.
At this point will I get better quality from a B450 vs. an X470, if spending less than $150 (not many but flash sales could help)? I only need B450 features (some can even use PCIe 4.0, not that I'll prob need it this round). If a deal on an X470 drops AIUI I'd be getting better traces, VRMs & heatsinks, generally.
I figure a 2000 series focused mobo would a) work with a 1600/1600X and if it already has an upgraded bios can work with Zen 2 as well. I think I'll have to wait for MSI, while they push out the MAX boards. GB is the only maker that doesn't block a PCI slot on mATX's but bios and VRM etc. sound sucky. I like bios and features like Q-LED on Asus but the Strix B450-E (a fav) is too $$ and the F variant could have much better VRM. Prime X470-Pro is gimped. Would like to be able to use a future Ryzen but that may be asking too much; 550 could be a long wait, and likely won't be a better buy even when they come out. I should say I want to use Linux so that's another point for Asus.
But you would agree that a 1600X is the cheapest, highest AMD IPC I can get w/o buying a used system, correct?