AMD Ryzen R5 1600X & 1500X Review - TechPowerUp

[ivryk]

1 minute ago, Castdeath97 said:

Remove the images and videos from the qoute or just don't qoute the OP, he is following the thread so he gets the notification anyway.

 

You are killing people with shitty internet and mobile phones (think of the scrolling!).

My apologies!, done did it.

[Gaming_Groove]

6 minutes ago, ColonelThunder said:

Hmm .. is it worth selling a 4690k ( and mobo + ram ) , for a 1600/X / 1700/X + motherboard ( and ram ) ? Gaming primary , but could use them extra threads .. 

 

 

I probably wouldn't unless you plan to get into heavier content creation. That's a ton of money to spend for a marginal change. Edit, misread, if you can get a good deal on the sale it might be worth it. 

[MyName13]

12 minutes ago, Gaming_Groove said:

The price is the same for a 16GB kit of corsair lpx 2400 and 3000 on Amazon US. 3200 is about $15 more. Compared to the cost of a board that can support those memory speeds on the Intel side, the price difference is negligible. The ability to support higher speed memory on lower cost boards is an advantage of the platform that should be factored in to reviews. 

In my country there's a 30€ difference which means that i5 7400, which works the same with any MB and ram, is cheaper.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Castdeath97 said:

Okay one thread says they are terrible another says they are good. I'm getting confused....

It actually varies from review to review. Bottom line is that I think on average, a 7700 non K is a better idea than getting a 1600, an 370 motherboard, a good cooling solution and really good speed ram, thinkering a lot with updated bios and ram speeds and timings, getting lucky to get an overclock to 3.9 or 4.0ghz stable with 3200mhz 14 or better ram speed and even then you'll be a little worst or equal on most games with few cases a bit better than the 7700 non K

 

I get AMD enthusiasts will dismiss all of these steps and just say it's really easy to achieve some of the numbers shown here but it's just not. The potential is there but if you're not rendering with CPU it's hardly worth the trouble.

 

Even with game streaming Joker (notoriously accused of AMD bias) was able to get better results with a 7700k than with a 1600x. The 7700k was taxed a lot more but still delivered greater in game performance without really dropping off in encoding on the fly.

 

Ryzen 5 are decent choices if you're really willing to overclock and thinker with it a lot but overall, meh.

[Castdeath97]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ryzen 5 are decent choices if you're really willing to overclock and thinker with it a lot but overall, meh.

The R5 1500X/R5 1400 see promising however, CPU and RAM overclocking with cheap boards plus better productivity performance. Stock they don't seem far off intel offerings (except with DOOM and GTA V for some reason), but with overclocking they offer a good deal versus their locked i5 counterparts.

 

Haven't watched enough reviews however so I'm still reserving full judgement.

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It actually varies from review to review. Bottom line is that I think on average, a 7700 non K is a better idea than getting a 1600, an 370 motherboard, a good cooling solution and really good speed ram, thinkering a lot with updated bios and ram speeds and timings, getting lucky to get an overclock to 3.9 or 4.0ghz stable with 3200mhz 14 or better ram speed and even then you'll be a little worst or equal on most games with few cases a bit better than the 7700 non K

 

I get AMD enthusiasts will dismiss all of these steps and just say it's really easy to achieve some of the numbers shown here but it's just not. The potential is there but if you're not rendering with CPU it's hardly worth the trouble.

 

Even with game streaming Joker (notoriously accused of AMD bias) was able to get better results with a 7700k than with a 1600x. The 7700k was taxed a lot more but still delivered greater in game performance without really dropping off in encoding on the fly.

 

Ryzen 5 are decent choices if you're really willing to overclock and thinker with it a lot but overall, meh.

From the way you characterize it, it sounds like you'd still get a good value out of a Ryzen 5 1600X if you stuck to the 350 mainboard, low-cost cooling and generally didn't go overboard with it.  It's when you try to max it out that you start to wonder whether you're spending your money wisely.  It seems aimed more at the mainstream gaming crowd, the people who may care about performance but not so much so that they overclock and fret over whether or not they'll get dual-GPU support.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Win7? 

yes...at the office we are still using windows 7 for software compatibility

 

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

The R5 1500X/R5 1400 see promising however, CPU and RAM overclocking with cheap boards plus better productivity performance. Stock they don't seem far off intel offerings (except with DOOM and GTA V for some reason), but with overclocking they offer a good deal versus their locked i5 counterparts.

 

Haven't watched enough reviews however so I'm still reserving full judgement.

Here's an interesting one that I'm just watching: Clock for clock at 720 the Ryzen 1600x crushes the 6600k

 

This means that AMD actually has comparable IPC to Skylake and it's behind Kaby (or thereabouts depends on games of course) and intel just wins because anything above 4 core 4 threads really likes higher IPC better than more cores so the Kaby chips clocking much higher matter a hell of a lot more than AMD providing more cores (in gaming of course)

 

So actually it will be difficult for AMD to overcome the stigma of basically "Wait for future improvements" Mantra of old: It's just not on par today and depends on whenever or not we'll see better multithreaded games in the future and when.

 

Even on Battlefield 1 the IPC difference from the higher clocks is so pronounced it still loses the battle:

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

So...i watched 5 or 6 reviews so far...and...right of the bat i can tell that the techpowerup review posted in the main post...is...embelished A LOT...as per usual with them...they probably fine tuned to the R5 platform to get ALL the juice possible out of it, and tested against a ''gimped'' version of the intel core i5.

 

Other reviews seem to place (IN GAMING) the i5-7600 about on par with the R5 1500X and the overclocked R5 1600X is better than a stock 7600K, but not as good as a slightly overclocked i7-7600K (IN GAMES) but fall way short to anything else...BUT the AMD offerings are priced VERY COMPETITIVELY and honestly, building a new gaming PC right now, i would lean toward a Ryzen R5 1600 (NON-X...X is crap, not worth the extra $$$) but the 6c/12t R5 1600 will last a long while, perform similar to an i7-5820K for much less money...which is good..

 

For productivity.,..budget workstation...honestly...INTEL is DONE...at least with the current price...they now have NOTHING worth recommending...ryzen is better multi-threaded performer at ALL price point...bottom to top-end...cheaper, better. end of the story.

 

Gaming :

 

i7-7700K > R7 1700 = R5 1600 > I5-7600K --> anything bellow that, it's 2017, save more money.

 

Workstation:

 

Just get the Ryzen chip you can afford that does not has an X at the end of the name, and a cheap or more expensive B350 board depending on your budget.

 

That's my take on Ryzen for now...it's EPIC...it probably mean that next gen intel CHips will be MUCH faster now, they will also have to be CHEAPER ...a lot cheaper...and also probably have more cores/threads...which is ALL GOOD...

i want a 6c/12t i7-8700K for 269$

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Here's an interesting one that I'm just watching: Clock for clock at 720 the Ryzen 1600x crushes the 6600k

 

 

 

joker is always the one wierdo to get such results though.

[MyName13]

Tldr if you can't afford 3000mhz ram, stick with Intel's i5 7400.

[Tellos]

AMD didint blow intel away but it has given us a competitive market which is great.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

From the way you characterize it, it sounds like you'd still get a good value out of a Ryzen 5 1600X if you stuck to the 350 mainboard, low-cost cooling and generally didn't go overboard with it.  It's when you try to max it out that you start to wonder whether you're spending your money wisely.  It seems aimed more at the mainstream gaming crowd, the people who may care about performance but not so much so that they overclock and fret over whether or not they'll get dual-GPU support.

Well it's not a bad value per se, but the 7500 with a cheap motherboard and ram it's a better value: I'll repost the image above

 

Spoiler

Notice how the 7500 (meaning a really cheap h170 or h270 board) beats the 1600x overclocked with a mid to high frequency ram kit. This is not true for all games some others react better to the extra cores but it's just not at all enough to make up for the higher clock (and higher IPC) differences. Games just don't really take advantage of 6 physical cores at this point and it's unlikely to change soon or midterm even you're looking at well at least a couple of years before games catch up if they ever do at all.

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Well it's not a bad value per se, but the 7500 with a cheap motherboard and ram it's a better value: I'll repost the image above

 

This guy gets...it.Intels CPUs work with absolute garbage MB and ram, ryzen, even with very fast ram, can't match it sometimes (or even most of the time).

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

joker is always the one wierdo to get such results though.

Well he basically puts a handbrake on the 6600k and operates it at 6500 speeds (He should have just used one of those chips but he probably doesn't has one to test, he's kinda weird and never gets enough hardware i.e. still never tests 1070 cause he sold it just does 1060 and 1080 now 1080ti)

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well he basically puts a handbrake on the 6600k and operates it at 6500 speeds (He should have just used one of those chips but he probably doesn't has one to test, he's kinda weird and never gets enough hardware i.e. still never tests 1070 cause he sold it just does 1060 and 1080 now 1080ti)

he's still pretty small though...and i really like his content...but...it is what it is...all the reviews i've seen put the i5-7500/7600 and R5-1500X/1600X about the same level in games: trade a few frames up and down here and there...in his video the 1600X stomp the intel CPU, which is not the case in the other 7 reputable outlet reviews i've watched so far...so...something is wrong. or BS.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, MyName13 said:

This guy gets...it.Intels CPUs work with absolute garbage MB and ram, ryzen, even with very fast ram, can't match it sometimes (or even most of the time).

Right I mean for people on this forums many will actually have fun tinkering with Ryzen 5, more power to you all. But if you're talking to a newbie putting together his first system, he'll have a much easier time with a 7500 with it's stock cooler and cheap mobo, ram and such for very similar and sometimes slightly better performance. 

[Castdeath97]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well it's not a bad value per se, but the 7500 with a cheap motherboard and ram it's a better value: I'll repost the image above

 

  Hide contents

Notice how the 7500 (meaning a really cheap h170 or h270 board) beats the 1600x overclocked with a mid to high frequency ram kit. This is not true for all games some others react better to the extra cores but it's just not at all enough to make up for the higher clock (and higher IPC) differences. Games just don't really take advantage of 6 physical cores at this point and it's unlikely to change soon or midterm even you're looking at well at least a couple of years before games catch up if they ever do at all.

Look at the minimums however, the R5 is clearly better by a good margin.

[Commodus]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well it's not a bad value per se, but the 7500 with a cheap motherboard and ram it's a better value: I'll repost the image above

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Notice how the 7500 (meaning a really cheap h170 or h270 board) beats the 1600x overclocked with a mid to high frequency ram kit. This is not true for all games some others react better to the extra cores but it's just not at all enough to make up for the higher clock (and higher IPC) differences. Games just don't really take advantage of 6 physical cores at this point and it's unlikely to change soon or midterm even you're looking at well at least a couple of years before games catch up if they ever do at all.

Fair enough, although the equation definitely changes if you're livestreaming, or video editing, or otherwise doing tasks that clearly benefit from more cores.  Get the Core i5 if you're primarily gaming, the Ryzen 5 if you know you'll be doing a lot more.

[Fonzie92]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Right I mean for people on this forums many will actually have fun tinkering with Ryzen 5, more power to you all. But if you're talking to a newbie putting together his first system, he'll have a much easier time with a 7500 with it's stock cooler and cheap mobo, ram and such for very similar and sometimes slightly better performance. 

After looking at this:

I feel weird saying this but Intel is now the budget gaming king 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

Look at the minimums however, the R5 is clearly better by a good margin.

Both are above 60 though. But yes I can see that if you're willing to get a decent cooling solution, decent ram, go through some BIOS updates you'll be rewarded with better minimums. But the overall point still stands: AMD really needs better clocks or rather, they're unable to touch Intel and their fabs which are just flatout better.

 

They're a nice alternative but eh, it's though for them to recover all of the ground they've lost over the past 5 years by just being a viable alternative.

[Morgan MLGman]

32 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Both are above 60 though. But yes I can see that if you're willing to get a decent cooling solution, decent ram, go through some BIOS updates you'll be rewarded with better minimums. But the overall point still stands: AMD really needs better clocks or rather, they're unable to touch Intel and their fabs which are just flatout better.

 

They're a nice alternative but eh, it's though for them to recover all of the ground they've lost over the past 5 years by just being a viable alternative.

You're right in most points here but you're forgetting a crucial thing from a consumer's point of view: if you get an i5-7500 and pair it with a GTX 1070, you'll pretty much have to upgrade the CPU or the entire platform to benefit from a faster GPU, meaning that when the 1070 becomes not good-enough for you, you can't just switch the GPU and enjoy more performance in this scenario... 

 

Now this isn't the case with a Ryzen chip that's capable of bigger workloads and it should be able to handle faster GPUs without major bottlenecks than a locked i5. 

 

I'm always looking at things like that from a potential customer's point of view and just this point, singlehandedly would make me not buy the i5-7500/7400. If Ryzen's performance was still too low for me, I'd still skip those chips and gather money for something better.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

You're right in most points here but you're forgetting a crucial thing from a consumer's point of view: if you get an i5-7500 and pair it with a GTX 1070, you'll pretty much have to upgrade the CPU and/or the entire platform to benefit from a faster GPU, meaning that when the 1070 becomes not good-enough for you, you can't just switch the GPU and enjoy more performance in this scenario... 

 

Now this isn't the case with a Ryzen chip that's capable of bigger workloads and it should be able to handle faster GPUs without major bottlenecks than a locked i5. 

 

I'm always looking at things like that from a potential customer's point of view and just this point, singlehandedly would make me not buy the i5-7500/7400. If Ryzen's performance was still too low for me, I'd still skip those chips and gather money for something better.

I'm....not seeing this. Most of these tests are done with a 1080ti I believe. I could see some of that apply for Crossfire/SLI sure but it just doesn't seems to be the case.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

You're right in most points here but you're forgetting a crucial thing from a consumer's point of view: if you get an i5-7500 and pair it with a GTX 1070, you'll pretty much have to upgrade the CPU and/or the entire platform to benefit from a faster GPU, meaning that when the 1070 becomes not good-enough for you, you can't just switch the GPU and enjoy more performance in this scenario...

...?! you can get an i7-7700K that run at 4.4ghz boost and lock it to all threads on a H270 board?

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...?! you can get an i7-7700K that run at 4.4ghz boost and lock it to all threads on a H270 board?

Yes it can do the max turbo without issues. Though the difference between 4.2 and 4.5 might not be worth it that much so a 7700 non K would be the better choice for virtually the same performance (that is, no overclocking)