AMD Ryzen R5 1600X & 1500X Review - TechPowerUp

[Gaming_Groove]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

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?

This is literally the decision I'm having to make in my new build, and I'm going with a Ryzen 5 1400. For my use case and budget (gaming at reasonable settings at 1080p and content creation) the G4560 is too weak and the i5 overly expensive for the low thread count. Why would I spend $30 more for an i5 when I can get reasonably good gaming performance and likely much better workstation performance on Ryzen 5? I'm by no means an AMD fanboy, I've built just as many Intel/Nvidia systems over the years... I just want the best performance for my situation. 

[TorqueS]

56 minutes ago, Gaming_Groove said:

This is literally the decision I'm having to make in my new build, and I'm going with a Ryzen 5 1400. For my use case and budget (gaming at reasonable settings at 1080p and content creation) the G4560 is too weak and the i5 overly expensive for the low thread count. Why would I spend $30 more for an i5 when I can get reasonably good gaming performance and likely much better workstation performance on Ryzen 5? I'm by no means an AMD fanboy, I've built just as many Intel/Nvidia systems over the years... I just want the best performance for my situation. 

If you just game and don't plan to OC, then i think you'd be better off with an i5 7500. You'll most likely be getting a midrange gpu, one that shouldn't kill an i5 in utilization % for at least 2 more years.

 

BUT, if you factor some workstation stuff, I'd say...shoot up for an R5 1600. The difference is massive on that field, and gaming will be the same if not better.

I believe it is worth saving a bit more for that.

[Soonercoop]

4 hours ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

?? How are they all over the place?  

 

Between games the mins on Ryzen and Intel vary drastically. Either side wins by lots (50 fps in cases).

[Gaming_Groove]

15 hours ago, TorqueS said:

If you just game and don't plan to OC, then i think you'd be better off with an i5 7500. You'll most likely be getting a midrange gpu, one that shouldn't kill an i5 in utilization % for at least 2 more years.

 

BUT, if you factor some workstation stuff, I'd say...shoot up for an R5 1600. The difference is massive on that field, and gaming will be the same if not better.

I believe it is worth saving a bit more for that.

Hm, the board I'm going with only supports 65w ryzen CPUs, so I'll probably stick with the 1400 with an upgrade path to the 1700 down the line if needed. But yes I do video editing for YouTube and other media intensive stuff, so an i5 just feels like a bad choice. 

 

Edit: I'm dumb, didn't realize the 1600 is also 65w, thought the 6 core parts were 95w. Eh, may go with a 1500x...anything above that is a bit out of my budget.

[Mr.Meerkat]

13 minutes ago, Soonercoop21 said:

Between games the mins on Ryzen and Intel vary drastically. Either side wins by lots (50 fps in cases).

What did you expect? Those are minimums for ye  

[Soonercoop]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

What did you expect? Those are minimums for ye  

I found it to be the most interesting thing in the post. It's the only thing that makes Ryzen 5 competetive with the i5 line really.

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 minutes ago, Soonercoop21 said:

I found it to be the most interesting thing in the post. It's the only thing that makes Ryzen 5 competetive with the i5 line really.

What are you exactly talking about? In TPU benchmarks, Ryzen 5 is able to beat the i7 7700K in 4 out of 8 games and overall beats the i7 at 4K  (yes, it's 0.2% but fack it...) sooooo....what are ye on? 

 

Also, are we talking pure gaming or can we include overall performance? 

[Techicolors]

4 hours 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'm planning to do the same. however it may be cost-effective to go with a 4790k and overclock it. devil's canyon still has some life in it

[Mr.Dingle]

5 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

i'm planning to do the same. however it may be cost-effective to go with a 4790k and overclock it. devil's canyon still has some life in it

Thing is .. if i sell the stuff i have now as a combo , it covers the costs for a R5 1600 / Fatality K4 / 16GB DDR4 . If i sold the CPU only , it wouldnt cover 2/3s of the cost of a new 4790k . + The 1600 on stock doesnt really need an aftermarket cooler , which i can just drop in later , and you get 4 extra threads . 

[Techicolors]

2 minutes ago, ColonelThunder said:

Thing is .. if i sell the stuff i have now as a combo , it covers the costs for a R5 1600 / Fatality K4 / 16GB DDR4 . If i sold the CPU only , it wouldnt cover 2/3s of the cost of a new 4790k . + The 1600 on stock doesnt really need an aftermarket cooler , which i can just drop in later , and you get 4 extra threads . 

i guess the 4790k is a bit more expensive in your region?

 

selling it as a combo sounds good. though interested buyers may ask for only component. 

seems to me the wraith spire cooler the 1600 comes with is just enough to do the turbo boost. the non-X cpus can still do auto-overclock, but not as high as the 1600X. but honestly i would invest in a nicer cooler if you're looking to overclock. 

[Morgan MLGman]

1 hour ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

What are you exactly talking about? In TPU benchmarks, Ryzen 5 is able to beat the i7 7700K in 4 out of 8 games and overall beats the i7 at 4K  (yes, it's 0.2% but fack it...) sooooo....what are ye on? 

 

Also, are we talking pure gaming or can we include overall performance? 

Well, technically you pretty much get an i7-5820K or i7-6800/6850K for the price of an i5

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, technically you pretty much get an i7-5820K or i7-6800/6850K for the price of an i5

But X99 motherboards are generally more expensive than both Intel consumer boards and Ryzen boards  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 hours ago, Urishima said:

According to Tomshardware, the 1600x makes the 1700 more or less 'obsolete'.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014.html

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. The 1700 has 2 full cores more, and per-core OC potential is similar across Ryzen CPUs. So, you either need the extra cores or you don't, unless they mean stock performance vs stock performance only, in which case 1) you still get 2 full cores more on the 1700, and 2) it's them who are obsolete in that case

I can understand the 1700 making the 1700x and 1800 pointless, but the 1600x can't magically replace the Ryzen 7s in multi-threaded workloads.

Unless, of course, they're reducing PCs to glorified consoles once again.

5 hours ago, ivryk said:

Glad there's competition but this ( Techpower up's ) review of the R5 lineup seems a bit shady to me, just look at Linuses review, the i7 beats all the Ryzen chips and all of the sudden here, the i7 gets smoked? same goes for the minimums just check Gamer Nexus, he shows the lows and are NO way near the numbers showed here.

Actually, forget about Ryzen: why is the 7700K sometimes the worst CPU of the lot? I mean, in an Intel vs Intel comparison, the 7700K comes behind the locked i5 in some of their graphs...

[Exotath]

This is a good wake up call for Intel.

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, ColonelThunder said:

Thing is .. if i sell the stuff i have now as a combo , it covers the costs for a R5 1600 / Fatality K4 / 16GB DDR4 . If i sold the CPU only , it wouldnt cover 2/3s of the cost of a new 4790k . + The 1600 on stock doesnt really need an aftermarket cooler , which i can just drop in later , and you get 4 extra threads . 

 

Not worth upgrading to a new pc with your existing one. Did you look for a used 4790k at ebay or whatever? There is no need to buy it new as cpus hold forever. 

[ivryk]

19 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That doesn't make any sense. The 1700 has 2 full cores more, and per-core OC potential is similar across Ryzen CPUs. So, you either need the extra cores or you don't, unless they mean stock performance vs stock performance only, in which case 1) you still get 2 full cores more on the 1700, and 2) it's them who are obsolete in that case

I can understand the 1700 making the 1700x and 1800 pointless, but the 1600x can't magically replace the Ryzen 7s in multi-threaded workloads.

Unless, of course, they're reducing PCs to glorified consoles once again.

Actually, forget about Ryzen: why is the 7700K sometimes the worst CPU of the lot? I mean, in an Intel vs Intel comparison, the 7700K comes behind the locked i5 in some of their graphs...

Ikr, I dont really like to throw shade at people but that review seemed bias, like if AMD provided the skus and wanted dodgy graphs, in AMD's defense, i wouldn't be surprise if Intel does the same. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, ivryk said:

Ikr, I dont really like to throw shade at people but that review seemed bias, like if AMD provided the skus and wanted dodgy graphs, in AMD's defense, i wouldn't be surprise if Intel does the same. 

I don't know, they provide many review samples; in fact, all contradicting reports at launch date come from manufacturer supplied samples.

 

I don't think it's an issue of brand bias, that's why I even leave Ryzen completely out: just take Intel CPUs, why is the 7700K sometimes worse than all the others? Do they provide a rationale for it, or do they just spit out numbers without checking them? 

[Morgan MLGman]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't know, they provide many review samples; in fact, all contradicting reports at launch date come from manufacturer supplied samples.

 

I don't think it's an issue of brand bias, that's why I even leave Ryzen completely out: just take Intel CPUs, why is the 7700K sometimes worse than all the others? Do they provide a rationale for it, or do they just spit out numbers without checking them? 

That is precisely why there are links of other reviews in the original post. I was updating and posting them as they released when the NDA ended.

 

I posted TechPowerUp's review as the main part of the thread because it seemed thorough and consistent with expected performance of the R5 lineup.

[Doobeedoo]

Some games really have large gap, would be great if they receive optimization update, but yeah...

But those minimums that's very interesting!

[Biggerisbetter]

The pc market grew for the first time in 5 years year over year Q1 2017. I think ryzen will continue this for another few quarters. Now we need to get pass 1080p. 1440p should be the new "Standard".  

[Tellos]

@Biggerisbetter Won't occur until prices drop for such monitors. Atm a good one is still expensive as hell. Ryzen has helped by making the CPU market once again not a one company thing which is wonderful.  Now intel can't sit on their ass and AMD has something worth while to offer to consumers.

[Morgan MLGman]

18 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@Biggerisbetter Won't occur until prices drop for such monitors. Atm a good one is still expensive as hell. Ryzen has helped by making the CPU market once again not a one company thing which is wonderful.  Now intel can't sit on their ass and AMD has something worth while to offer to consumers.

Intel is forced to either lower prices or release an actually improved architecture at similar price points, Kaby Lake is a joke to me in terms of improvement over Skylake which is 0% IPC-wise... Even Broadwell had a bit improved IPC over Haswell.

[Tellos]

@Morgan MLGman They have focused on lower power usage which has been where the money is. But now for gaming they may have to not rely on single core performance. Which has been rising only; by like I think 5 to 10% per gen since ivy bridge. Which isint a lot per generation. While this has meant lower energy needs and thats good the lack of competition has left intel sort of a window to do whatever it wants without fear. Ryzen means intel no longer can do that without some cost to it's market share.

[Qwerty2323]

Intels push for gpu market backfired finally.

Abusing high end users with included gpu that never gets used.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

2 hours ago, Tellos said:

@Morgan MLGman They have focused on lower power usage which has been where the money is. But now for gaming they may have to not rely on single core performance. Which has been rising only; by like I think 5 to 10% per gen since ivy bridge. Which isint a lot per generation. While this has meant lower energy needs and thats good the lack of competition has left intel sort of a window to do whatever it wants without fear.

Though AMD beat Intel on efficiency as well... An 8 core 1800X draws less power in gaming than an i7-7700K While having double the cores & threads.