Personal opinion:
For the dollar, the Ryzen 1600 has brutal value and future-proofness. This is a 6-core/12-thread CPU that you can buy for close to $200 and overclock up to 4GHz is some ease, when paired to a real cheap ~$100 B150 motherboard.
If you overclock, the value proposition goes out the window with Ryzen 1600 vs Ryzen 1600x.
Ryzen 1600x will boost to 4.0 GHz. OC'ing the 1600 to 4.0 GHz means you've now massively increased power consumption for an equivalent gaming experience.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_1600_review,23.html
That's only an OC to 3.9 GHz. If you can get it stable at 4.0 GHz, the wattage used will go up further. Also, the 1600x they got actually uses less power at load than their 1600 (non-OC) which would lead to 42 more watts being used to OC a 1600 to 3.9 GHz versus a 1600x boosting to 4.0 GHz.
Depending on how much electricity costs where a person lives and how much gaming (or other CPU stressing useage) they do per day, it's entirely possible for Ryzen 1600x to end up cheaper after a couple of years or at the very least it'll end up pretty close due to the very small price differential between those 2 chips. There's a 30 USD MSRP price difference but if I take a quick look at Newegg, the price difference is only 25 USD, and that's with the 1600 currently on sale.
I initially was thinking of going for the 1600 due to how well it overclocks. However, after seeing the small price differential to the 1600x and seeing the power consumption of the 1600 when OC'd to 1600x levels, for me the 1600x ends up being the cheaper CPU if I keep it for 2 years. My CPU is generally loaded for 9 or more hours per day (some gaming, but mostly other stuff), which means in less than 2 years the 1600x is cheaper for the same performance.
For light CPU use, an OC'd 1600 might still be slightly cheaper though. But that's hard to say as their 1600 OC'd was using 10-15 watts more at idle than when it was at stock clocks.
Regards,
SB