gaming perf of Ryzen R5 1400

[Soonercoop]

Yep. Pretty disappointed, but to be expected. AMD needs a very good chip next gen to get me to go red and abandon all of the perks of the Intel platform.

[Valentyn]

5 minutes ago, Soonercoop21 said:

Yep. Pretty disappointed, but to be expected. AMD needs a very good chip next gen to get me to go red and abandon all of the perks of the Intel platform.

 

I'll be eyeing up X299 or Ryzen 2 for my next build. X99 is getting long in the tooth.

Currently AMD is looking great from a price to performance perspective for me. We'll see what Intel does for x299, and if Kaby-Lake -E will support the same socket at that time.

[MyName13]

So r3 will be worse than pentium g4560?

[Demonking]

I was expecting for them to OC higher too since having less cores sadly they don't. At least wanted 4.5ghz easy.

[WkdPaul]

14 minutes ago, zMeul said:

feel free to add them

OCig closes the gap but you should not be expected to OC the CPU to still don't have same out of the box perf with an non K i5 - want to compare? compare OC results with OCed i5s

Not because I'm a mod that I'm going to modify the OP because of my opinion  ... I would only do it if it was a genuine problem (formatting, link problems, etc), including more bench isn't (I just think it's biased, that's why I linked to the OC part of the article ).

 

Also, they (Pure PC) compared it to a non K i5, I didn't, I simply pointed out that they also had OC'd benches and that would be a bit more fair since the Ryzen chips are marketed as being unlocked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

BTW, not sure why you're surprised the 1400 is close to a 6100 in performances, if the R7s weren't up to par, so it was pretty much guarantied the R5s wouldn't be able to keep up with i5s, even less with unlocked i5s!

[zMeul]

Just now, wkdpaul said:

Also, they (Pure PC) compared it to a non K i5, I didn't, I simply pointed out that they also had OC'd benches and that would be a bit more fair since the Ryzen chips are marketed as being unlocked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

it's compared to the i5 7400 because it has quite similar price

[tom_w141]

My YT sub list right now lol. Not looking fantastic for the future of the i5

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

it's compared to the i5 7400 because it has quite similar price

Sucks for you. It's cheaper here, so no, i5s don't make sense anymore here. It's only going to get worse in the future when games are actually optimized for ryzen like we've seen from ashes of the singularity and total war Warhammer

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, jman629 said:

Not terrible though when you think about it. Still think it's amazing what AMD has accomplished with limited money and talent when compared to Intel. Those clock speeds I think are what is killing it. That and games being optimized for intel. They definitely have a good foundation to build upon. Hopefully Global Foundries can improve their technology by next gen. I think they are the biggest bottleneck to amd.

 

[Doobeedoo]

Definitely clock speeds hurt it, but they're ok and provide good core/thread count.

 

Many already released games that are up to year or couple older probably won't get special optimization for Ryzen. Devs probably won't bother with additional code update for old games of theirs, since considering they can run them fine, so I take they don't want to bother. Some will, which is nice.

But some games really show huge gap, which is very odd and doesn't make sense really. And that' can't be cause of hardware but simply game code, and game running on something that it pretty much doesn't know it exists. Sure not all are, but couple we're seen in numerous benchmarks show it. 

Also newer games will get initial optimization through development, just makes sense.

[TOMPPIX]

guys.... whats going on here? 

somethings wrong here.

[skyler_mertz]

Finding all the benches to suit your needs. We all know you have a vendetta against AMD. Anyone with a brain will see the value side of this and the "within-close-margins" performance of a similarly spec'd Intel chip. If I wasnt already satisfied with a 6700k, I bought a year prior, I would be all over the Ryzen series. 

[WereCat]

14 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

guys.... whats going on here? 

somethings wrong here.

From the CONCLUSION page of Anand article:

 

"Rocket League using an AMD CPU + AMD GPU actually provides more equal results with NVIDIA GPUs, however there's a performance drop using Ryzen + NVIDIA, which potentially correlates towards a driver bug but we're not 100% sure what is going on."

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

From the CONCLUSION page of Anand article:

 

"Rocket League using an AMD CPU + AMD GPU actually provides more equal results with NVIDIA GPUs, however there's a performance drop using Ryzen + NVIDIA, which potentially correlates towards a driver bug but we're not 100% sure what is going on."

Samething seen in some other games. Like in Tomb Raider where an R9 2950X2 beats the Titan X Pascal on Ryzen.
Or where the RX 470 in the Division beats the GTX 1060 on Ryzen.

 

Hell, even in Anantech's review the R9 Fury is beating the GTX 1080 when on Ryzen. Something up with the NVIDIA drivers when on Ryzen it seems.

 

 

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Samething seen in some other games. Like in Tomb Raider where an R9 2950X2 beats the Titan X Pascal on Ryzen.
Or where the RX 470 in the Division beats the GTX 1060 on Ryzen.

 

Hell, even in Anantech's review the R9 Fury is beating the GTX 1080 when on Ryzen. Something up with the NVIDIA drivers when on Ryzen it seems.

 

 

Civ 6 just likes Fury more. FPS went up consistently on all tested CPUs with Fury. Not just on Ryzen.

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

Civ 6 just likes Fury more. FPS went up consistently on all tested CPUs with Fury. Not just on Ryzen.

Same can be said for the RX 480, even Intel's performance increased on Project Cars.

Yet the Fury still beat the 1080, which should not be happening really; and doesn't explain the other examples of NV cards running meh on Ryzen systems,

[Belgarathian]

Something doesn't seem right about those benchmarks. It seems something else is at play here... Particularly when it's beaten by the FX-6300 in a few tests. 

 

Only ~17 FPS difference (worst case, excluding render), and ~5 FPS on Tomb Raider and Gears of War between i7-7700k and Ryzen 5 1400. 

 

[WereCat]

2 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Same can be said for the RX 480, even Intel's performance increased on Project Cars.

Yet the Fury still beat the 1080, which should not be happening really; and doesn't explain the other examples of NV cards running meh on Ryzen systems,

I can only speculate now. It is hard for me to go trough all these graphs on phone.

The extreme example of Rocket League is really weird though.

[Droidbot]

10 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You should upgrade to a 4790K, they cost less than $250 on ebay right now 

considering the games I play don't take advantage of HT (CSGO) and that im in Australia where 2600ks are still $150

[Yoinkerman]

The 1400 is about $80 cheaper than the 7600  and $20 cheaper than 7400 so cool I guess

 

The results look weird though tbh

[Phate.exe]

12 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

The 1400 is about $80 cheaper than the 7600  and $20 cheaper than 7400 so cool I guess

 

The results look weird though tbh

Also for some people, 4 threads is not enough.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 hours ago, tlink said:

Jesus that benchmark where they run worse than the FX series is devastating, i would almost say there is something going wrong optimization wise there because that is dreadful.

Devastating... for the reviewers. It's like the 7700K doing worse than the 7500 in a couple games in the other thread (Tech Powerup review, I think). When you spot something like that, you know someone messed up the tests (r everyone messed up the FX tests back when  But I'd rather believe one overworked crew did a sloppy job in the race to claim "First!")

2 hours ago, TOMPPIX said:

somethings wrong here.

Nvidia?  

Same thing has been found to happen with Tomb Raider in Ryzen 7 tests, and apparently other games as well in their article.

[Okjoek]

The R5 1600 is the real king of R5 if you ask me. For the price of an i5 you seem to be getting a lot more.

[Taf the Ghost]

From the original linked article, the thing I found most interesting is how un-far Intel has come since the i7-5775C. That was one dang good chip.

 

I'm also starting to become of the opinion that much of the bad gaming launch for the Ryzen 7 is due to Vega not being out.  All of this CPU testing has shown that Nvidia's drivers need some work. (Though that does explain some of the real oddities we run into with API bottlenecks. )

[jasonc_01]

12 hours ago, Valentyn said:

Techpowerup for the 1500X, all the CPUs comapared at stock.

AMD really needed a clockspeed bump on the R5 series; but it seems GloFo's 14nm LPP is holding it back sadly.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/19.html
 

This is a super interesting point regarding Glofo's 14nm fab. Would be interesting to see Ryzen on Samsungs 14nm fab, and it is a possibility to see with amd's chip supply deal.