Ryzen 5 1400 vs Ryzen 5 1500x

[Jadan]

What's up LTT forums,

I'm going to be building my first gaming rig very soon and have yet to buy a CPU. Originally, I was going to get an 8350 until Ryzen popped up with the huge difference in performance and now I'm stuck between the 1400 and 1500x. Yes, I do know that the 1500x is better in most ways but I just wanted to know what the actual differences were between the two CPUs as I want to see if it's worth the price jump. This rig will be an overall gaming/browsing rig where I'll be both gaming and browsing the net. (I also tend to open up quite a lot of tabs)

Thanks a lot!

[79wjd]

Get the 1400. The 1500x is just an overclocked 1400 with a better stock cooler.

[Jadan]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Get the 1400. The 1500x is just an overclocked 1400 with a better stock cooler.

Thanks for the reply! Do you have any idea what GPU the 1400 can go up to until it starts to bottleneck it?

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Jadan said:

Thanks for the reply! Do you have any idea what GPU the 1400 can go up to until it starts to bottleneck it?

Basically any GPU you want will be fine. 

[Jadan]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Basically any GPU you want will be fine. 

Alright, thanks for the reply.

[Elerek]

1 minute ago, Jadan said:

Thanks for the reply! Do you have any idea what GPU the 1400 can go up to until it starts to bottleneck it?

I don't understand this universal obsession with bottlenecking...

Ever single application uses cpu and gpu differently.

Every refresh rate and resolution uses your gpu to a different amount.

 

Get a gpu you can afford that pushes the number of frames per second you want at the resolution you want.

 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Elerek said:

Get a gpu you can afford that pushes the number of frames per second you want at the resolution you want.

 

What if I have an E8500 and I want to run 1080p @ 144fps in modern titles? A 1080Ti can push those frames, so I don't have to worry about anything other than that?

 

Understanding a bottleneck is very important.

[MyName13]

1500x is 1400 with 2x more l3 cache, better cooler and higher clock rate, some people say that even wraith stealth (cooler that comes with 1400) is enough for ~3.8 GHz overclock, it's also too close to r5 1600.

[Jadan]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

1500x is 1400 with 2x more l3 cache, better cooler and higher clock rate, some people say that even wraith stealth (cooler that comes with 1400) is enough for ~3.8 GHz overclock, it's also too close to r5 1600.

Ah right, so then is it worth the price jump, or is it best to stick with the 1400? Thanks.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Jadan said:

Ah right, so then is it worth the price jump, or is it best to stick with the 1400? Thanks.

If it was only a bit more, then it would be worthwhile, but generally the price gap is pretty large and puts it far too close to 1600 territory. 

[Jadan]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

If it was only a bit more, then it would be worthwhile, but generally the price gap is pretty large and puts it far to close to 1600 territory. 

In the UK it's £20 more ($25) so I'm guessing that it would be worth it.

[Elerek]

4 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

What if I have an E8500 and I want to run 1080p @ 144fps in modern titles? A 1080Ti can push those frames, so I don't have to worry about anything other than that?

 

Understanding a bottleneck is very important.

He doesn't have an ancient cpu, he's talking about getting a decent middle ground current gen cpu.

Obviously some common sense about your parts and your workload are needed, but 'does x bottleneck y' with 0 context of workload and other parts (like your monitor) is literally an impossible question to answer.

There are workloads (albeit not many) where an E8500 and a 1080ti makes sense, and there are workloads where a 1050/460 and a 7700k makes sense. 

 

Edited out ambiguity that might make it read offensively... oops.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Elerek said:

He doesn't have an ancient cpu, he's talking about getting a decent middle ground current gen cpu.

Obviously you need some common sense about your parts and your workload, but 'does x bottleneck y' with 0 context of workload and other parts (like your monitor) is literally an impossible question to answer.

There are workloads (albeit not many) where an E8500 and a 1080ti makes sense, and there are workloads where a 1050/460 and a 7700k makes sense. 

It doesn't matter, bottlenecking is still a very relevant factor. 

 

And of course workload matters, and no you don't have to make any assumptions about that because he specifically said gaming. So, you know that it's for gaming, the only thing you don't know is what resolution it is, but a lot of people don't realize resolution affects bottlenecks. But that doesn't change the fact that understanding where the bottleneck lies is very important. 

[Elerek]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It doesn't matter, bottlenecking is still a very relevant factor. 

 

And of course workload matters, and no you don't have to make any assumptions about that because he specifically said gaming. So, you know that it's for gaming, the only thing you don't know is what resolution it is, but a lot of people don't realize resolution affects bottlenecks. But that doesn't change the fact that understanding where the bottleneck lies is very important. 

No, I don't know what games, what resolution, and what target framerate. 

Some games love cpu power, others love gpu power, those need different specs to get thh same performance.

 

Even if you had the 'perfect' system for x application, where 100% of the time you had 100% utilization of cpu and gpu and perfectly hit your fps target (which is literally impossible btw, every single frame of a game requires different resources to compute and render), as soon as you start a different program, something is 'bottlenecking'.

 

By the strict definition:

if I'm running a game and have 100% usage on one core of my cpu and 90% on another core, that's bottlenecking.

If I have 100% cpu usage and 99% gpu usage, that's bottlenecking.

if I have 100% usage of cpu and gpu, but 50% on hdd and ram, that's bottlenecking.

 

Is a case where you cpu is bottlencking your hdd bad? In 99.9% of use cases, absolutely not.

Is one cpu core bottlenecking another bad? Depends. Are you getting the performance you want or not?

 

That's all that really matters: Are you getting the performance you want.

 

You will ALWAYS have some form of a bottleneck in your system, and it will change for every program you run.

Focusing on 'bottlenecking' is the wrong approach.

 

1) Choose a target performance in a target workload that you want to hit.

2) Buy parts that can each hit that performance mark individually.

 

If you can't get all your parts to hit your performance target and stay in budget, than your target performance is out of budget and will have to be adjusted.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Elerek said:

No, I don't know what games, what resolution, and what target framerate. 

Some games love cpu power, others love gpu power, those need different specs to get thh same performance.

 

Even if you had the 'perfect' system for x application, where 100% of the time you had 100% utilization of cpu and gpu and perfectly hit your fps target (which is literally impossible btw, every single frame of a game requires different resources to compute and render), as soon as you start a different program, something is 'bottlenecking'.

 

By the strict definition:

if I'm running a game and have 100% usage on one core of my cpu and 90% on another core, that's bottlenecking.

If I have 100% cpu usage and 99% gpu usage, that's bottlenecking.

if I have 100% usage of cpu and gpu, but 50% on hdd and ram, that's bottlenecking.

 

You will ALWAYS have some form of a bottleneck in your system, and it will change for every program you run.

Focusing on 'bottlenecking' is the wrong approach.

 

1) Choose a target performance in a target workload that you want to hit.

2) Buy parts that can each hit that performance mark individually.

 

If you can't get all your parts to hit your performance target and stay in budget, than your target performance is out of budget and will have to be adjusted.

Think of this question: "I have a G4560, what is the best GPU I can/should get?" The answer is basically always an RX580/GTX1060. Much more than that and you're almost always going to have a problem. So the question, "What is the best gpu I can get?", is a perfectly valid question even without clarifying details. Of course, those clarifying details can affect the answer, but buying a 1080Ti and a G4560 is moronic. 

[Elerek]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Think of this question: "I have a G4560, what is the best GPU I can/should get?" The answer is basically always an RX580/GTX1060. Much more than that and you're almost always going to have a problem. So the question, "What is the best gpu I can get?", is a perfectly valid question even without clarifying details. Of course, those clarifying details can affect the answer, but buying a 1080Ti and a G4560 is moronic. 

It's only moronic because those parts don't have the same performance target in mind.

A general use case that is met by a G4560 is also met by a much cheaper gpu than a 1080ti.

A general use case that needs a 1080ti needs much more than a G4560.

 

A target performance/workload is a much better tool for choosing parts than bottlenecks, which change with every single application and patch. You shouldn't be choosing parts based on other parts but rather based on what you want all the parts together to do.

[Elerek]

Basically if you pick your parts based on 'not bottlenecking', you'll either overspend and end up with performance you aren't using (a pc that can render 144 fps, but only using a 60hz monitor), or you won't reach the performance you actually want (cpu and gpu both working really hard, but only getting 30fps with the settings I want).

Your goal in getting a pc isn't to make all the parts work equally hard, your goal is to have a machine that delivers the experience you want.

Buying with a goal other than that doesn't really make sense and may end up either disappointing you or eating your wallet.

[79wjd]

25 minutes ago, Elerek said:

Basically if you pick your parts based on 'not bottlenecking', you'll either overspend and end up with performance you aren't using (a pc that can render 144 fps, but only using a 60hz monitor), or you won't reach the performance you actually want (cpu and gpu both working really hard, but only getting 30fps with the settings I want).

Your goal in getting a pc isn't to make all the parts work equally hard, your goal is to have a machine that delivers the experience you want.

Buying with a goal other than that doesn't really make sense and may end up either disappointing you or eating your wallet.

OP never said he wanted to get the best GPU that wouldn't be bottleneck his CPU. All he wants to know is what is the upper limit of his CPU is so he knows not to buy a GPU more powerful than that. That is a perfectly reasonable question to be asking. 

[Elerek]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

OP never said he wanted to get the best GPU that wouldn't be bottleneck his CPU. All he wants to know is what is the upper limit of his CPU is so he knows not to buy a GPU more powerful than that.  

But that would never be a problem if he already knows that the cpu he's buying can deliver the experience he wants. Any gpu he buys, as long as he doesn't change his target experience and buys a gpu that fits it, will go well with the cpu.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Elerek said:

But that would never be a problem if he already knows that the cpu he's buying can deliver the experience he wants. Any gpu he buys, as long as he doesn't change his target experience and buys a gpu that fits it, will go well with the cpu.

You do realize you're saying that OP needs to figure out where the bottleneck lies in order to know what component needs to be more powerful in order to deliver this "target experience". 

[Elerek]

27 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You do realize you're saying that OP needs to figure out where the bottleneck lies in order to know what component needs to be more powerful in order to deliver this "target experience". 

I'm not talking about a gpu slowing down a cpu or vice versa, I'm talking about hardware slowing down software beyond what you are willing to tolerate. That has nothing to do with the relationship between a cpu and it's gpu, but between a cpu or gpu and your application.

 

Look at some benchmarks in the games/programs you want to use, and pick the cheapest part that has the performance you want. Do that for each part. If you have extra budget, go up a tier in whatever part was closest to not meeting the goals you want and repeat until your budget is used up, or set aside the extra money towards a future upgrade.

How your cpu and gpu compare is irrelevant if you are happy with the performance you are getting for the money you spent.

Your goal is an experience, not a hardware relationship. If you shop for the experience, you will inevitably end up with the appropriate hardware relationship as a side effect.

 

And that's just what it is, a side effect of a well built computer.