AMD Ryzen 5 1400 Review

[ZackL04]

Definitely one of the most interesting CPUs in years. Price/performance is excellent for a new part. I7 2600ks can be had for a little less, but are also slower, used, lack of modern mobo features, and a decent z77 board is much more than a b350.

For the average 60fps gamer this is a perfect fit.

My recenlty purchased 2600k cost me $110 and is running at 4.7ghz. Im willing to bet its faster than this 1400 overclocked. Also my z77 board was $75

But, I dont have m.2 support or memory or 2133mhz

 

[iABDOzz Mustafa]

where is this substantial price cut? i5s are still as overpriced as ever as far as I can see

The Core i7-7700k was around $400 before benchmarks of the Ryzen started to leak. Intel has cut that down both in the MSRP but also in terms of what their vendors are willing to sell. You can now pick up a 7700k for $300-320 depending on where you look.

I'd say a ~20% price drop is huge. This same type of price drop can be seen in their other products.

I keep Ask myself -- if the Processor price can be dropped to this point 20% why selling it with high price in first place !!

 

[Heinkel162]

Soooo AMD's version of an i7 is somewhere between Intels latest overclocked i3 and bottom barrell i5? Im not impressed.

I understand the price factor, but if Im building from scratch Im spending a bit more for an Intel CPU that will last longer than my current GPU and have the legs for a GPU upgrade a few years later

You understand that their version of an i7 is a 8 core processor as fast as intels i7-6900k, priced at 320$?

This is their least pricey equivalent of an i5, with their high end ones beating 600$ intel 6 cores, not in games, but in every other benchmark.

I forgot to mention that the Am4 chipset will be used for "Zen2" and "Zen3" meaning you won't need to pay much for an upgrade through 2020, that's 7nm processors with integrated graphics.

And one more thing, all of AMD's chips are overclockable, all of their chips have more onboard cache, and all of their chips have the same design.

That means they are scalable, games will be able to be designed around the architecture and will improve FPS on not just one, but all of these CPU's simply because of the fact that if they make it run well on one, it will run well on all Ryzen CPU's, they are the same core design, and not different combinations of a design like the FX series was.

 

[avioza]

The Ryzen architecture and multi-core benefits for application multitasking and 3D Modeling workloads far outweigh a few frames difference at 1080p for me. It is good enough for gaming too even though the 7700k is a fine processor and has higher frames at 1080p. I choose the versatility of Ryzen.

Someone else already mentioned the blip factor with the 7700k as well. Frames are quantifiable for benchmarking graphics power but not the only aspect for graphics quality.

 

[OcelotRex]

My prediction is, by the time the 1400 starts to feel inadequate, there will be a better choice of upgrade options anyway.

If that holds true this is where AMD will truly shine over the next few years. The only issue I have in buying into this would be what meaningful advancements will come from Ryzen's refinement over the next 4-5 years that won't necessitate a refresh of the chipset, negating the benefit of same socket upgrade path?

 

[dirtyferret]

where is this substantial price cut? i5s are still as overpriced as ever as far as I can see

The Core i7-7700k was around $400 before benchmarks of the Ryzen started to leak. Intel has cut that down both in the MSRP but also in terms of what their vendors are willing to sell. You can now pick up a 7700k for $300-320 depending on where you look.

I'd say a ~20% price drop is huge. This same type of price drop can be seen in their other products.

I keep Ask myself -- if the Processor price can be dropped to this point 20% why selling it with high price in first place !!

Why not when at the time the only competition is your own previous family of chips.

 

[Puiu]

My recenlty purchased 2600k cost me $110 and is running at 4.7ghz. Im willing to bet its faster than this 1400 overclocked. Also my z77 board was $75

But, I dont have m.2 support or memory or 2133mhz

buying a cheap second hand PC is great and I recommend it to many, but you are committed to an older platform and you also lose your upgrade path. no DDR4 and m.2 support and you also lose AM4's CPU upgrade path several years later. the resell value is also drops with every new generation.
but with all that said, if you find a great 2nd hand PC then go for it. I did buy a friend an intel PC an i7 4790.
for people who want a new PC, I will generally recommend AMD now, unless they absolutely need the higher clocks of the i7 7700k and know how to OC.

 

[Rippleman]

If you want Intel, hey, you just got a free $50-150 discount for doing absolutely nothing. AMD just put money in your pocket.[/QUOTE]

Reads to me as "Intel has finally been prevented from extorting from you simply because they could". Thanks AMD.

 

[kapital98]

My prediction is, by the time the 1400 starts to feel inadequate, there will be a better choice of upgrade options anyway.

If that holds true this is where AMD will truly shine over the next few years. The only issue I have in buying into this would be what meaningful advancements will come from Ryzen's refinement over the next 4-5 years that won't necessitate a refresh of the chipset, negating the benefit of same socket upgrade path?

I have serious doubts the AM4 platform will last as long as many are claiming. AMD has made the same claims in the past. While it has been true, they've come out with new '+' variants with higher bus speeds, etc. Essentially meaning that if you do keep your old motherboard you're handicapping your new chip. Yeah, it works but it's not the same thing as just upgrading to something intended to use that socket.

 

[Flebbert]

Soooo AMD's version of an i7 is somewhere between Intels latest overclocked i3 and bottom barrell i5? Im not impressed.

I understand the price factor, but if Im building from scratch Im spending a bit more for an Intel CPU that will last longer than my current GPU and have the legs for a GPU upgrade a few years later

Don't know if you are trolling or not

 

[dogofwars]

There is some error where it says Lower is Better it should say Higher is Better.

 

[Puiu]

I have serious doubts the AM4 platform will last as long as many are claiming. AMD has made the same claims in the past. While it has been true, they've come out with new '+' variants with higher bus speeds, etc. Essentially meaning that if you do keep your old motherboard you're handicapping your new chip. Yeah, it works but it's not the same thing as just upgrading to something intended to use that socket.

3 years of support isn't as long as you are saying. instead of the 2 gens Intel will generally gives you, you'll have access to 3-4.
the idea is for AMD to switch to a new socket after DDR5 becomes mainstream around 2020.
in general a Bios update should be enough for you to upgrade.
in terms of upgrades the next 2-3 gens should be just refinements and node shrinks. any new features shouldn't require a new pin layout.
all you'll miss is maybe support for PCI-E 4.0 which should have zero impact on performance for 3-5 years after it's release in 2018.

 

[ZackL04]

Yes, the only reason why I am still on an i5-2500 is because INTEL hasn't come out with a substantial upgrade since 2011.... I skipped 1st gen i5 & waited for 2nd gen. See I went from a 2005 Pentium 4 3.2ghz w/ HT and my new processor is about 300% faster overall, if you compare a i5-7500 its about 25% faster effective speed. Each processor is about six years apart from each other, hence the horrible stalling that has been happening. Now I could top out my chipset at a 3770K, but its so old already too why bother.

You should consider the 3770k, with some work and a good cooler you can get around 4.7ghz. Not to mention 2400mhz RAM. I was testing my 2600k at 4.6 the other night. I swapped 1600mhz ram for 2400mhz (runs at 2133 on Sandy) with my 980ti I was seeing 20+ fps increase with the GTA V benchmark. No joke. GTA V is very CPU intensive, I run the game on Very High settings in 1080p. (I game on a 1080p projector)

Based on tech spots 1st review of the 1800x, ryzens single thread performance is on par with a 3770k stock, (via their cinebench tests). Im not going to invest in a R5 1400 when I basically already have the intel version thats like 6 years old.

 

[kapital98]

You should consider the 3770k, with some work and a good cooler you can get around 4.7ghz. Not to mention 2400mhz RAM. I was testing my 2600k at 4.6 the other night. I swapped 1600mhz ram for 2400mhz (runs at 2133 on Sandy) with my 980ti I was seeing 20+ fps increase with the GTA V benchmark. No joke. GTA V is very CPU intensive, I run the game on Very High settings in 1080p. (I game on a 1080p projector)

Based on tech spots 1st review of the 1800x, ryzens single thread performance is on par with a 3770k stock, (via their cinebench tests). Im not going to invest in a R5 1400 when I basically already have the intel version thats like 6 years old.

You are playing at a low resolution. Numerous benchmarks show that Ryzen outpaces the 2600k+3750k at higher resolutions and also at higher graphics settings. The newer intel chips still beat Ryzen at single core performance (say, the 7700k), but the vast majority of games released in the last 5 years use 3+ cores.

I'm currently running a 3750k. It's a great chip. It's done well for the last 4.5 years and will continue to do well as an HTPC. However, I bought a 1700 because I game at 1440p and in VR (I don't use VR much but I love it and will surely buy the next version, which will almost certainly have a higher resolution). It's also a risky move OC'ing such an old chip. I'm running the 3750k at 4.2ghz on air without a problem. Pushing it further, or increasing the voltage, is too risky.

Not to mention all the little benefits that come with owning a modern chipset: NVMe, USB 3.1, etc. If you plan on playing at 1080p then there is no reason to upgrade. This makes a lot of sense on a projector. Gaming on a 1080p monitor (especially if it's a TN panel) doesn't make much sense in 2017.

 

[ZackL04]

You are playing at a low resolution. Numerous benchmarks show that Ryzen outpaces the 2600k+3750k at higher resolutions and also at higher graphics settings. The newer intel chips still beat Ryzen at single core performance (say, the 7700k), but the vast majority of games released in the last 5 years use 3+ cores.

I'm currently running a 3750k. It's a great chip. It's done well for the last 4.5 years and will continue to do well as an HTPC. However, I bought a 1700 because I game at 1440p and in VR (I don't use VR much but I love it and will surely buy the next version, which will almost certainly have a higher resolution). It's also a risky move OC'ing such an old chip. I'm running the 3750k at 4.2ghz on air without a problem. Pushing it further, or increasing the voltage, is too risky.

Not to mention all the little benefits that come with owning a modern chipset: NVMe, USB 3.1, etc. If you plan on playing at 1080p then there is no reason to upgrade. This makes a lot of sense on a projector. Gaming on a 1080p monitor (especially if it's a TN panel) doesn't make much sense in 2017.

Uh, what does resolution have to do with cpu usage? As long as the setting are the same, resolution changes only effect gpu usage. The 1800x review here shows the 3770k keeping pace. Like I said, the 3770k and all these ryzen chips are basically the same speed, its just most of them have many more cores and threads. The 3770k has more overclocking headroom too.

But your right about nvme and usb 3.1, my arguement really only applies to gaming anyway, where you dont really need those features

 

[Jad Chaar]

Soooo AMD's version of an i7 is somewhere between Intels latest overclocked i3 and bottom barrell i5? Im not impressed.

I understand the price factor, but if Im building from scratch Im spending a bit more for an Intel CPU that will last longer than my current GPU and have the legs for a GPU upgrade a few years later

It doesn't look like it's meant to take on i7s, not at sub $200. In and around i5s is probably exactly where they intended for it to be.

I'd be hesitant to call Intel a better long term option as well. People have only managed to stick with sandy bridge so long only because Intel have been stagnating ever since. That, and the fact that AMD have better long term support for older socket types means you'd probably have a better choice for upgrades in the future. Intel chipsets are a deadend for upgrading after two years.

Agreed. We have to factor in the cost of the chipset associated with the i7.

 

[CaptainTom]

My recenlty purchased 2600k cost me $110 and is running at 4.7ghz. Im willing to bet its faster than this 1400 overclocked. Also my z77 board was $75

But, I dont have m.2 support or memory or 2133mhz

It actually might not be. Ryzen is about equal to Kabylake IPC, and that is about 30% higher than SB.

Then throw in support for MUCH faster RAM (Which is important in many of the latest games), PCIE 3.0 (Very important), double the PCIE lanes, MUCH better storage support, and the fact that it uses HALF the energy of your aging i7.


Why did you buy that again? LOL

 

[ZackL04]

It actually might not be. Ryzen is about equal to Kabylake IPC, and that is about 30% higher than SB.

Then throw in support for MUCH faster RAM (Which is important in many of the latest games), PCIE 3.0 (Very important), double the PCIE lanes, MUCH better storage support, and the fact that it uses HALF the energy of your aging i7.


Why did you buy that again? LOL

Kaby is MUCH faster than Ryzen. And if unlocked can overclock 25% higher. Look at the cinebench single thread numbers.

I agree Im missing out on storage options, but a 500mbps ssd is more than fast enough for me. I am running 2400hz ram, its def a step up from 1600 with my 980ti. (20+ frames in gta v).

I only game with my pc, so I want the fastest cores I can get for my "budget".

 

[NumberCruncher]

One disadvantage that Ryzen chips have is the lack of an igpu. There are many users out there that could care less about gaming. When you add the $100, for a rx460 or GTX 1050 to a 1600 or 1600x you blow the value part out the window. The Ryzen is a welcome addition to the PC world, but gaming is not the end all. There are millions more PC owners who are not gamers. Give me a 1700 or 1600x with built-in RX 400 or Vega graphics, now your talking.

 

[OcelotRex]

One disadvantage that Ryzen chips have is the lack of an igpu. There are many users out there that could care less about gaming. When you add the $100, for a rx460 or GTX 1050 to a 1600 or 1600x you blow the value part out the window. The Ryzen is a welcome addition to the PC world, but gaming is not the end all. There are millions more PC owners who are not gamers. Give me a 1700 or 1600x with built-in RX 400 or Vega graphics, now your talking.

I've been bringing this point up as well. If you're not in the market for a discrete card then Intel still offers value.

 

[Phr3d]

@Steve: Do I gather that a Ryzen 4GHz OC is effortless like the Sandy 2500k (also with 'factory air)?

I understand if you'd like to avoid the subject, but for those that care not about Win7 'updates' do I understand that I can create a Ryzen build, install Win7 (and Maybe SP1) and it will work fine (as I avoid updates)?

TIA for a reply, great comparo

 

[Steve]

@Steve: Do I gather that a Ryzen 4GHz OC is effortless like the Sandy 2500k (also with 'factory air)?

I understand if you'd like to avoid the subject, but for those that care not about Win7 'updates' do I understand that I can create a Ryzen build, install Win7 (and Maybe SP1) and it will work fine (as I avoid updates)?

TIA for a reply, great comparo

As always mileage will vary when it comes to overclocking but it looks like quite a few chips are hitting 4 GHz with resonable voltage. I would expect at least 3.9 GHz. I have two chips, both managed 4 GHz.

Yes you can run Windows 7 if you like but it's a real pain to setup due to lack of driver support.

 

[CaptainTom]

Kaby is MUCH faster than Ryzen. And if unlocked can overclock 25% higher. Look at the cinebench single thread numbers.

I agree Im missing out on storage options, but a 500mbps ssd is more than fast enough for me. I am running 2400hz ram, its def a step up from 1600 with my 980ti. (20+ frames in gta v).

I only game with my pc, so I want the fastest cores I can get for my "budget".

You might want to double check that lol. Depending on the benchmark Ryzen is roughly clock-for-clock the same as Intel's best. The only difference is they clock higher...

 

[kapital98]

Uh, what does resolution have to do with cpu usage? As long as the setting are the same, resolution changes only effect gpu usage. The 1800x review here shows the 3770k keeping pace. Like I said, the 3770k and all these ryzen chips are basically the same speed, its just most of them have many more cores and threads. The 3770k has more overclocking headroom too.

But your right about nvme and usb 3.1, my arguement really only applies to gaming anyway, where you dont really need those features

CPU does matter at higher resolution and also at greater graphical settings (obviously not as much as differences in GPUs). For instance, the older chips will match the Ryzen's at 1080p but then get destroyed at 4k gaming.

1080p is really a moot point unless you have a 100+ hz monitor. Any decent dual-core and midrange GPU combo can max out every game at 1080p. That dual-core (and the older quad-cores) will start to choke at 1440p and especially at 4k.

 

[ZackL04]

You might want to double check that lol. Depending on the benchmark Ryzen is roughly clock-for-clock the same as Intel's best. The only difference is they clock higher...

Can you provide some proof?