AMD Ryzen R5 1600X & 1500X Review - TechPowerUp

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes it can do the max turbo without issues. Though the difference between 4.2 and 4.4 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)

my point was...you're not stuck because you buy a i5-7500 and a cheap H series motherboard...you can still upgrade...but cost for worthy upgrade CPU's in indeed higher than with AMD...i wouldn't buy an i5 at this point either...though.

 

Funny how the core i5 was the ''go to'' CPU for gaming rig a couple years ago, and now it's like...don't get an i5...you need more, and you can have more for about the same price or less.

[MyName13]

18 minutes ago, Commodus said:

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.

Since most gamers primarily game, the winner is obvious, either get i5 7400 or wait for r3.

 

8 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... 

 

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.

There are lots of people who buy these CPUs but don't have such powerful GPUs, rx 470, rx 480 and gtx 1060 for example, you will either buy a weak pentium or i5 7400, what do you think people with these GPUs will buy?

[Misanthrope]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

my point was...you're not stuck because you buy a i5-7500 and a cheap H series motherboard...you can still upgrade...but cost for worthy upgrade CPU's in indeed higher than with AMD...i wouldn't buy an i5 at this point either...though.

I agree. Plus upgrading to the 7700 non K still yields better gaming results than going from the 1600 to the 1700 for example since the clock differences are sizeable and impact more directly than 2 more cores and 4 more threads.

 

However productivity types or people thinking about productivity and such have a far better upgrade path on AMD so there's something to be said there: A gamer that wants to potentially try youtube for example will benefit a lot more by being able to drop in a 1700 or 1700x or future Ryzen 7 chips.

[ivan134]

23 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Since most gamers primarily game, the winner is obvious, either get i5 7400 or wait for r3.

 

There are lots of people who buy these CPUs but don't have such powerful GPUs, rx 470, rx 480 and gtx 1060 for example, you will either buy a weak pentium or i5 7400, what do you think people with these GPUs will buy?

They'll be better off with an R5. 4c4t is a fucking joke in CPU intensive games. I play overwatch on low which gives me 300 fps in some areas and 100 fps in other areas of the game. I tried streaming borderlands 2 the other day and that was a fucking joke, especially since I had music playing in the background. i5s are useless.

[Morgan MLGman]

31 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

Most of these tests are still on 1080s (non-Ti), we know that there are certain games (at 1080p) that peg any locked i5 @100% with a GTX 1070 at max settings, meaning that there will be more games that do it with a 1080 and probably all games with a 1080Ti... That's what I meant, I mean, if you can get a 1080Ti paired with an i7-5820K/6800K then you can get a 1080Ti with a 1600/1600X cause those chips perform similarly in most scenarios and are slower by a few % at best (while costing the same as an i5)

 

Also, another thing - when you get an i5-7500/7600 instead of an R5 1600, you're not only losing core count and CPU power, you're also sacrificing features such as overclocking, high-speed RAM, PCI lanes and much more that is available on B350 and isn't on boards normally paired with such CPUs. Of course you could get a Z270 but what's the point...

30 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?

Of course, that is what I meant, you can either get a faster CPU for LGA1151 or get a new platform (since I'm talking about the future here, X299 and Z270s successor will be here by then) - you probably wouldn't need that with an R5 1600... If I were to buy a PC right now, I'd get either an R5 1600 or an R7 1700

 

--------

This is exactly the same reason I've been more reluctant recommending i5s in recent few months, the end of quad-cores with no SMT/HT is near (for high-end gaming) and this is why I kept recommending getting a B150/H170 + i7-6700 over Z170 + 6600K and the same but updated when Kaby Lake launched...

 

I mean, I have a 6700K myself and I won't switch to Ryzen right now because there's no reason for me to as it's a great CPU for gaming & heavier tasks, especially when overclocked, but I admit that they're damn good in terms of value and I wouldn't recommend an i5 if an R5 build can be had for the same price...

[MyName13]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

They'll be better off with an R5. 4c4t is a fucking joke in CPU intensive games. I play overwatch on low which gives me 300 fps in some areas and 100 fps in other areas of the game. I tried streaming borderlands 2 the other day and that was a fucking joke, especially since I had music playing in the background. i5s are useless.

We're talking about gamers with 60-75 hz monitors who just game with mainstream GPUs (rx 470, 480, 1060), it's really funny how things changed in just 1 year, everyone recommended i5 and now it's not enough all of a sudden.

 

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Also, another thing - when you get an i5-7500/7600 instead of an R5 1600, you're not only losing core count and CPU power, you're also sacrificing features such as overclocking, high-speed RAM, PCI lanes and much more that is available on B350 and isn't on boards normally paired with such CPUs.

Again, most people who buy i5 6/7 400/500 use h110/b150 motherboards, money doesn't grow on trees btw.

[ivan134]

9 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

We're talking about gamers with 60-75 hz monitors who just game with mainstream GPUs (rx 470, 480, 1060), it's really funny how things changed in just 1 year, everyone recommended i5 and now it's not enough all of a sudden

 

144 Hz monitors are dirt cheap. 60 - 75 Hz doesn't make sense unless that person really prefers IPS over anything else. It's not all of a sudden. Games are becoming more multithreaded. The reason an i5 was still being recommended was because there was no other option. Now an option exists. i5s are now useless.

[Valentyn]

Some odd findings over at Anandtech! 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

 

Civ 6 R9 Fury is faster than GTX 1080

Rocket Lead with RX 480 more than 50% compared to with GTX 1060.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

We're talking about gamers with 60-75 hz monitors who just game with mainstream GPUs (rx 470, 480, 1060), it's really funny how things changed in just 1 year, everyone recommended i5 and now it's not enough all of a sudden.

It's not "all of a sudden" - we all knew it was coming, sooner or later. GPUs have been getting more and more powerful each year while CPUs were a joke in that regard.

See Kaby Lake? What the actual fuck was that? No IPC improvements and a 200-300MHz clock speed bump at a bit higher prices. So two generations of almost exactly the same performance. Same was with Haswell/Broadwell, same was with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge.

 

In the meanwhile, Nvidia released a 780Ti which got beaten by a mid-ranged 970 just next generation, then they released a 980Ti which gets beaten by a (arguably) mid-ranged card, a GTX 1070 (at least at stock) AGAIN, in a single generation. And nothing indicates that the trend will stop, especially that they just released the Titan Xp.

6 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Again, people who buy i5 6/7 400/500 use h110/b150 motherboards, money doesn't grow on trees btw.

People who buy i3s and Pentiums buy H110 boards cause they're VERY limited in features and they're lowest-end.

People buying locked i5s aim towards B150/B250 and H170/H270. RAM prices are weird and you can VERY often get a 3000MHz+ kit for the same, or almost the same price as a 2133/2400MHz one so even the fact that such memory is ALLOWED on cheaper Ryzen boards is an advantage on its own.

[MyName13]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

144 Hz monitors are dirt cheap. 60 - 75 Hz doesn't make sense unless that person really prefers IPS over anything else. It's not all of a sudden. Games are becoming more multithreaded. The reason an i5 was still being recommended was there was no other option. Now an option exists. i5s are now useless.

Jesus  f****** spaghetti monster allahu akbar buddha christ, are you joking?What else should i expect from this community, have you lost touch with the reality?Even if you forget the fact that 144hz monitors, which have TN panel btw (and you all recommend ips anyway, wtf), cost at least 100 euros more, you can't forget the fact that most people use gtx 1050ti,rx 470, rx 480 and gtx 1060 (last 2 might be used for 100+ fps if you turn the settings down), why buy something you won't use when you can buy 75 hz monitor with ips panel and freesync anyway?

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Some odd findings over at Anandtech! 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

 

Civ 6 R9 Fury is faster than GTX 1080

Rocket Lead with RX 480 more than 50% compared to with GTX 1060.

 

The Civilization 6 is understandable (although still a bit absurd because of the typical performance diff between a 1080 and a Fury) since AdoredTV 1st discovered that Nvidia's drivers had issues with RyZen in dx 12. The Rocket League one though, I can't explain. That's just strange. I can't wait till Vega launches so we get a more complete story about what's going on.

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

People who buy i3s and Pentiums buy H110 boards cause they're VERY limited in features and they're lowest-end.

People buying locked i5s aim towards B150/B250 and H170/H270. RAM prices are weird and you can VERY often get a 3000MHz+ kit for the same, or almost the same price as a 2133/2400MHz one so even the fact that such memory is ALLOWED on cheaper Ryzen boards is an advantage on its own.

Wait what?B150 is pretty much H110 with 2 additional ram slots, most gamers don't even need H170 features (multi graphics card configurations, PCIE slots), didn't AMD say that ~90% gamers use sub 200$ graphics cards (at the polaris event)?

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Most of these tests are still on 1080s (non-Ti), we know that there are certain games (at 1080p) that peg any locked i5 @100% with a GTX 1070 at max settings, meaning that there will be more games that do it with a 1080 and probably all games with a 1080Ti... That's what I meant, I mean, if you can get a 1080Ti paired with an i7-5820K/6800K then you can get a 1080Ti with a 1600/1600X cause those chips perform similarly in most scenarios and are slower by a few % at best (while costing the same as an i5)

 

Also, another thing - when you get an i5-7500/7600 instead of an R5 1600, you're not only losing core count and CPU power, you're also sacrificing features such as overclocking, high-speed RAM, PCI lanes and much more that is available on B350 and isn't on boards normally paired with such CPUs. Of course you could get a Z270 but what's the point...

Of course, that is what I meant, you can either get a faster CPU for LGA1151 or get a new platform (since I'm talking about the future here, X299 and Z270s successor will be here by then) - you probably wouldn't need that with an R5 1600... If I were to buy a PC right now, I'd get either an R5 1600 or an R7 1700

1) I never seen those scenarios for games that drop below 50 to 60 minimum. I understand your point better now (or I think) but for those scenarios of very high FPS gaming nothing AMD has comes close to the overclocked 7700k which is kinda needed to maintain above 100 FPS and such. So in sort: nobody buying a locked i5 should be gaming at high refresh rate I agree with that I suppose, but the Ryzens do not seem to be that much better for high refresh gaming with both chips being significantly worst than the 7700k enough that it doesn't really matters. So yeah probably the R5 is better than the i5 but both are a good chunk than the i7 K anyway

 

2) On your second point I actually agree, the only thing is that I can see that as both a positive and a negative. If you want to overclock, getting higher speed ram, etc. then the R5 is far more robust paired with the X370 chipset. But if actually you do not want to deal with what it's effectively a higher level of complexity for a newbie or more hands off user, then the i5 and locked i7 are better choices precisely because you can get simpler motherboards, stock cooling and crappier ram and still get at or thereabouts performance of the 1600x with all of it's overclock and fancier ram.

 

There is one thing that I've noticed however: Ironically enough I am having an easier time to find cheap SLI motherboards for Ryzen than for Kaby. That might affect my personal upgrade decision since ultimately I don't feel like selling my 1070 then getting a 1080ti, etc. I rather just do SLI even if some games are troublesome or not supported at all.

[Fonzie92]

42 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Since most gamers primarily game, the winner is obvious, either get i5 7400 or wait for r3.

 

There are lots of people who buy these CPUs but don't have such powerful GPUs, rx 470, rx 480 and gtx 1060 for example, you will either buy a weak pentium or i5 7400, what do you think people with these GPUs will buy?

You hurt my feelings calling the rx 480 weak. I do 1080p gaming and get 60fps in mostly everything mate that's not fair

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Fonzie92 said:

You hurt my feelings calling the rx 480 weak. I do 1080p gaming and get 60fps in mostly everything mate that's not fair

Such powerful as not powerful enough when compared to gtx 1080 ti, which all benchmarking configurations use.

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Jesus  f****** spaghetti monster allahu akbar buddha christ, are you joking?What else should i expect from this community, have you lost touch with the reality?Even if you forget the fact that 144hz monitors, which have TN panel btw (and you all recommend ips anyway, wtf), cost at least 100 euros more, you can't forget the fact that most people use gtx 1050ti,rx 470, rx 480 and gtx 1060 (last 2 might be used for 100+ fps if you turn the settings down), why buy something you won't use when you can buy 75 hz monitor with ips panel and freesync anyway?

You keep making up a bunch of ridiculous and arbitrary parameters. Tech forums =/= typical gamers.

 

1st of all, I'm talking about U.S. prices. The cheapest 75 Hz monitor here is only $20 cheaper than the cheapest 144 Hz monitor. 2nd, not everyone here automatically recommends an IPS monitor, so that is a ridiculous and false generalization. 3rd, 1050 ti is marketed as an esports GPU (CSGO, League of Legends, Dota 2, Overwatch etc). Those games are best played with 144 Hz monitors, so no, it's not uncommon to see someone with a 1050 ti and a 144 Hz monitor.

[Valentyn]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The Civilization 6 is understandable (although still a bit absurd because of the typical performance diff between a 1080 and a Fury) since AdoredTV 1st discovered that Nvidia's drivers had issues with RyZen in dx 12. The Rocket League one though, I can't explain. That's just strange. I can't wait till Vega launches so we get a more complete story about what's going on.

Aye, I can see the Fury gaining, but not That much!

Rocket League is just a mess, even the Intel CPUs are performing better with the RX 480 compared to the GTX 1060.

Should be really interesting to see what happens with Vega's launch; that is if AMD doesn't botch the launch day drivers.

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Aye, I can see the Fury gaining, but not That much!

Rocket League is just a mess, even the Intel CPUs are performing better with the RX 480 compared to the GTX 1060.

Should be really interesting to see what happens with Vega's launch; that is if AMD doesn't botch the launch day drivers.

Hell would really freeze over if AMD launched Vega with proper drivers (why the hell does hell have to be fiery hot anyway, extreme cold is just as dangerous; too bad they didn't have good science when they were making up their myths)

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

Wait what?B150 is pretty much H110 with 2 additional ram slots

More USB ports overall and more 3.0 ones, more SATA ports overall and more SATA 3 ones, better VRMs... There's more to it than just RAM slots.

6 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

most gamers don't even need H170 features (multi graphics card configurations, PCIE slots), didn't AMD say that ~90% gamers use sub 200$ graphics cards (at the polaris event)?

Just because you don't need H170 features, doesn't mean I don't. I want to be able to overclock. I might go for SLI/Crossfire, that's why I specifically paid extra for a Z170 board that supports SLI in particular (although I could get a cheaper one with basically the same features besides SLI and even though I'm using an AMD GPU I still wanted that option for the future). I also wanted an M.2 slot and proper NVMe drive support. I wanted overclocking and I wanted good onboard audio since I won't buy a dedicated sound card. I wanted as many USB 3.0 slots as possible cause I use a lot of USB devices. - Those are only a few examples of what I'm personally looking in a board, if you need them then buying a locked i5 makes no sense cause you can get all of them with an i7 and Z270 or get a Ryzen chip.

[Valentyn]

5 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Hell would really freeze over if AMD launched Vega with proper drivers (why the hell does hell have to be fiery hot anyway, extreme cold is just as dangerous; too bad they didn't have good science when they were making up their myths)

 

Fingers crossed for them. They stated some time back they have most of their driver team working on Vega. Who knows, maybe that along with Ryzen is what they really need. 

Getting that synergy to squeeze out every drop of performance on launch.

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

Fingers crossed for them. They stated some time back they have most of their driver team working on Vega. Who knows, maybe that along with Ryzen is what they really need. 

Getting that synergy to squeeze out every drop of performance on launch.

May is too far away.

[MyName13]

12 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

You keep making up a bunch of ridiculous and arbitrary parameters. Tech forums =/= typical gamers.

 

1st of all, I'm talking about U.S. prices. The cheapest 75 Hz monitor here is only $20 cheaper than the cheapest 144 Hz monitor. 2nd, not everyone here automatically recommends an IPS monitor, so that is a ridiculous and false generalization. 3rd, 1050 ti is marketed as an esports GPU (CSGO, League of Legends, Dota 2, Overwatch etc). Those games are best played with 144 Hz monitors, so no, it's not uncommon to see someone with a 1050 ti and a 144 Hz monitor.

US != the entire world.

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

US != the entire world.

And prices are not the same in every EU country. Great argument. i5s are useless.

[Valentyn]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

May is too far away.

It really does feel like it. Although hopefully I can pick up big Vega for my spawning day to play around with.

It's going to be interesting seeing Vega on Intel vs Ryzen systems!

[ArcThanatos]

10 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Hell would really freeze over if AMD launched Vega with proper drivers (why the hell does hell have to be fiery hot anyway, extreme cold is just as dangerous; too bad they didn't have good science when they were making up their myths)

as much as i love AMD, their initial launches for a product line is... well less then stellar, so yeah hell will still be toasty warm.
also where the myths and legends came from... probably didn't see much in the way of ice or snow as they did hot sun, sand, fires and branding irons