AMD Ryzen 5 1400 Review

[CaptainTom]

Can you provide some proof?

It depends on the bench:

Like I said "Roughly", and depending on the use-case. I think it's also worth noting that these benches are pre-update, and it would be nice if some website would do a thorough analysis of IPC and Ryzen vs Skylake-X in a few months when companies have had some time to optimize for Ryzen.

At a minimum though Ryzen is at least 20% higher IPC than Sandybridge overall. But this is a guess considering all of the recent updates...

 

[ZackL04]

It depends on the bench:

Like I said "Roughly", and depending on the use-case. I think it's also worth noting that these benches are pre-update, and it would be nice if some website would do a thorough analysis of IPC and Ryzen vs Skylake-X in a few months when companies have had some time to optimize for Ryzen.

At a minimum though Ryzen is at least 20% higher IPC than Sandybridge overall. But this is a guess considering all of the recent updates...

That userbench graph is a joke... but I will accept the 1st tech power up chart. If you look at the graph, you just proved Im correct. Ryzen at 3.6ghz with faster ram is only equal to Haswell at 3.5ghz. Skylake blows by with an extra 20 points when both are clocked to 4.0ghz and we all know Kaby is slightly faster than Skylake.

The relative performance chart also displays an obvious GPU bottleneck in their testing (i5 7500 same performance as a i7 7700k??).

Sounds to me like you dont know what your talking about. I buy and test these parts for fun in my free time. A great game to test with is GTA V. It is very CPU intensive and responds well to overclocks and memory frequency changes when paired with a high end GPU (980ti in my case).

Im not agueing that these Ryzen chips are a poor product. They are a good value for their performance. What Im saying is that I wouldnt go out and build a new system around a cpu that will already bottleneck a 1080ti in cpu intensive games. Think about this, in 1-2 years 1080ti performance will be affordable in the form of a 3070 (like 1070 vs 980ti). If you buy a Ryzen chip now, your topped out until next generation as far as IPC goes, but if you buy a cheap locked i5, you can game just as well now and jump to a 7700k and overclock the crap out of it to maintain excellent performance without replacing the whole system.

 

[CaptainTom]

That userbench graph is a joke... but I will accept the 1st tech power up chart. If you look at the graph, you just proved Im correct. Ryzen at 3.6ghz with faster ram is only equal to Haswell at 3.5ghz. Skylake blows by with an extra 20 points when both are clocked to 4.0ghz and we all know Kaby is slightly faster than Skylake.

The relative performance chart also displays an obvious GPU bottleneck in their testing (i5 7500 same performance as a i7 7700k??).

Sounds to me like you dont know what your talking about. I buy and test these parts for fun in my free time. A great game to test with is GTA V. It is very CPU intensive and responds well to overclocks and memory frequency changes when paired with a high end GPU (980ti in my case).

Im not agueing that these Ryzen chips are a poor product. They are a good value for their performance. What Im saying is that I wouldnt go out and build a new system around a cpu that will already bottleneck a 1080ti in cpu intensive games. Think about this, in 1-2 years 1080ti performance will be affordable in the form of a 3070 (like 1070 vs 980ti). If you buy a Ryzen chip now, your topped out until next generation as far as IPC goes, but if you buy a cheap locked i5, you can game just as well now and jump to a 7700k and overclock the crap out of it to maintain excellent performance without replacing the whole system.

Yeah just ignore the 1500X matching the 7700K at lower clocks....

 

[OcelotRex]

Yeah just ignore the 1500X matching the 7700K at lower clocks....

I think that they were referring to the O/C on the 1700X which typically O/C's to 4.0 GHz while the 7700k can typically O/C to 4.9. That would be a more "real world" scenario to which the 1700x wouldn't come as close.

 

[ZackL04]

I think that they were referring to the O/C on the 1700X which typically O/C's to 4.0 GHz while the 7700k can typically O/C to 4.9. That would be a more "real world" scenario to which the 1700x wouldn't come as close.

That pic is from a pre ryzen release and is speculation. This guy is clueless.

And if hes refering To the 4k graph hes also a clueless as that represents a gpu bottleneck.

 

[ZackL04]

Yeah just ignore the 1500X matching the 7700K at lower clocks....

Im done trying to explain to you how to computer

 

[Joeyquick71]

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

I'll admit there might be some confusion, since the charts lists the i5-7400 but the testing rig information says i5-7500. However, I will point out that a) the i5-7500 only costs about $12 more than the i5-7400, & b) despite the 10% lead in base/Turbo frequencies, the i5-7500 doesn't seem to provide anywhere near 10% more performance than the i5-7400 (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1833?vs=1862) -- more like 5% tops.

And having said that, this is what you also have to consider:
-- price-wise, I found a $3 USD difference between the i5-7400 build (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/bKmKgL) & the Ryzen 5 1400 build (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/qPLKgL), although I switched the i5 build to only have 16GB of DDR4 RAM (& have both using DDR4-2400 RAM). To be fair, I still don't consider them "mainstream" builds, given the use of the Titan X & a 2TB SSD pushes them to nearly $2,200 each...but cutting down to an ASUS RX 480 (8GB ROG STRIX model) & a 250TB SSD (along with 2 Western Digital 1TB Caviar Blue drives) cuts them down to under $1,000 ($952 for the i5, $955 for the 1400).
-- performance-wise, the Ryzen 5 1400 in the non-gaming benchmarks used here averages about 17.4% better performance compared to the i5-7400, while using only about 3% more power at idle & 7% power under load; gaming doesn't look quite as good, but based on these benchmarks you're talking about getting 98% of the i5-7400's performance for the same price. That's so close that it's almost really a tie between them... & when was the last time you heard of a brand-new AMD chip tying a brand-new "equivalent" Intel chip in performance of any kind?
-- As pointed out many, many times, with the Intel build you have a "locked" system: not only can you never overclock it for a little more performance, you can't even overclock any of the unlocked CPUs (not available on a B250 board). In contrast, the Ryzen 5 1400 system can be overclocked (& even overclocked with the stock cooler it comes with)...& the overclocking they did here provided measurable performance (38% better non-gaming, 10% better gaming performance compared to the i5-7400). And to even have a chance to overclock a Kaby Lake i5, you'd have to spend another $115 USD for that Z270 & a halfway-decent cooler (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pVvCVY). That's about a 10% increase in cost, but I don't know if you can guarantee that an overclocked i5-7600K will have even 10% more performance than the overclocked Ryzen 5 1400.

You do realize using 2400 Mhz Ram with Ryzen would lower the numbers shown in the tests above. From what I understand the Infinity fabric on Ryzen does benefit noticeably from the higher Ram speeds. I would love to see if there would be any noticeable difference if they used a Z270 MB with 2933 Mhz clocked Ram with the Intel system compared to the Ryzen system. MSI has a nice $105 Z270 MB that would be great if you were planning to grab a K sku cpu down the road for the Intel system.

 

[iABDOzz Mustafa]

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

Well last until they change to new socket in 6 months and u need to change the MB to Upgrade the CPU Good way of thinking

 

[ZackL04]

Well last until they change to new socket in 6 months and u need to change the MB to Upgrade the CPU Good way of thinking

Last longer as I can swap a 7700k in there or coffee lake and it will not bottleneck my GTX 3070 (maybe 1080ti like) in a few years.

 

[OcelotRex]

That pic is from a pre ryzen release and is speculation. This guy is clueless.

And if hes refering To the 4k graph hes also a clueless as that represents a gpu bottleneck.

I was just shocked at the 4.5 on the Ryzen - from what I've read 4.0 across all 4 is not only the pinnacle it's not as common as reviewers have presented.

I'm very interested in either retiring my 3570k to media serving duty or grabbing a Ryzen 3 for the same duty. IF Ryzen matures well and what is presented here holds true (better mins at slightly lower highs) I could grab a discounted 7 as well.

 

[CaptainTom]

Im done trying to explain to you how to computer

Right back at you buddy

 

[CaptainTom]

That pic is from a pre ryzen release and is speculation. This guy is clueless.

And if hes refering To the 4k graph hes also a clueless as that represents a gpu bottleneck.

It's clearly not just a GPU bottleneck. If it was the 7700K would still be ahead by .1% in 4K and above, but the 7700K consistently falls behind more the higher you increase the resolution. 1080p = 5% win, 1440p= tie, 4K = 1-2% LOSS.


Clearly Zen is more efficient at processing higher resolutions.

 

[ET3D]

I'll be looking forward to the Ryzen 3. After reading this I feel that upgrading my HTPC to a G4560 is validated. But that desktop that I'm hardly using feels neglected. The Ryzen 3 will likely be a very good upgrade from a Phenom II X6 1090T.

 

[Rudy Dajoh]

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

Sooo.... i7?? 7700?? I can beat any 7700 in ANY non gaming scenarios, with my eyes closed. My 1600 have even beaten an overclocked and over voltaged 7700@5Ghz with stock everything. That's non X part for ya.
If you want buy a $330 processor, overclock until it smokes, and still can't beat a $260 processor at stock clock, you are welcome. Some OC champion that tried this Ryzen said, that you can put any 6700 on LN2 and overclock like mad, but it still won't touch air cooled Ryzen performance.

 

[Rudy Dajoh]

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 can try it with ANY i7 I dare ya. Even 22 core Xeon can't beat an overclocked Ryzen 7 class.
http://oc.jagatreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/R15_2357s.jpg

As for live longer, my i7 had died today in front my Ryzen 5. AMD AMD platform last much longer than ANY intel platform. My AM3 lasts about 8 years. Can't say the same with a younger Intel 1150 platform.

 

[ZackL04]

You can try it with ANY i7 I dare ya. Even 22 core Xeon can't beat an overclocked Ryzen 7 class.
http://oc.jagatreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/R15_2357s.jpg

As for live longer, my i7 had died today in front my Ryzen 5. AMD AMD platform last much longer than ANY intel platform. My AM3 lasts about 8 years. Can't say the same with a younger Intel 1150 platform.

2.6ghz vs 5.3ghz.....ok bud

 

[ZackL04]

Sooo.... i7?? 7700?? I can beat any 7700 in ANY non gaming scenarios, with my eyes closed. My 1600 have even beaten an overclocked and over voltaged 7700@5Ghz with stock everything. That's non X part for ya.
If you want buy a $330 processor, overclock until it smokes, and still can't beat a $260 processor at stock clock, you are welcome. Some OC champion that tried this Ryzen said, that you can put any 6700 on LN2 and overclock like mad, but it still won't touch air cooled Ryzen performance.

Your right, I'm talking gaming though, hence the reference to a GPU

 

[hell666]

I have an i7 3770 on cpubenchmark Average CPU Mark 9314,
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 CPU Mark 8691, so after 5 years almost nothing.
I still don't see point on new cpu intel or amd, a sistem with 3770 like hp second you get with the money on new processor and what you get in games 10 fps

sorry my eng is bad.

 

[ZackL04]

I have an i7 3770 on cpubenchmark Average CPU Mark 9314,
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 CPU Mark 8691, so after 5 years almost nothing.
I still don't see point on new cpu intel or amd, a sistem with 3770 like hp second you get with the money on new processor and what you get in games 10 fps

sorry my eng is bad.

This is exactly what im talking about

 

[CaptainTom]

I have an i7 3770 on cpubenchmark Average CPU Mark 9314,
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 CPU Mark 8691, so after 5 years almost nothing.
I still don't see point on new cpu intel or amd, a sistem with 3770 like hp second you get with the money on new processor and what you get in games 10 fps

sorry my eng is bad.

I mean you don't need a new CPU. That's fine.

But the price is now cut in half for the same performance. And it uses a lot less energy.

 

[OcelotRex]

I mean you don't need a new CPU. That's fine.

But the price is now cut in half for the same performance. And it uses a lot less energy.

Your points are valid but when taken into consideration that the 3770 was released in Q2 2012 the 5 years to reach that level of performance for half the price is underwhelming.

 

[ZackL04]

Your points are valid but when taken into consideration that the 3770 was released in Q2 2012 the 5 years to reach that level of performance for half the price is underwhelming.

Exactly my point, the performance is underwhelming

 

[CaptainTom]

Your points are valid but when taken into consideration that the 3770 was released in Q2 2012 the 5 years to reach that level of performance for half the price is underwhelming.

Haha buddy you are preaching to the choir. CPU's (And imo now GPU's) are really starting to max out silicon. In fact I am incredibly curious to see if Intel will even respond with more than a 2% IPC increase in the next year. Intel maxed out their design with Broadwell, everything since then has been the same (If you don't believe me, go look at Broadwell vs skylake at the same clocks).


Zen is AMD's Core, and Zen 2 will likely be their Sandy Bridge in 2018 (Another 10-20% IPC increase). But after that AMD will likely have maxed out is design as well. Then we will just have to wait for Graphene...

 

[Rudy Dajoh]

Exactly my point, the performance is underwhelming

Your points are valid but when taken into consideration that the 3770 was released in Q2 2012 the 5 years to reach that level of performance for half the price is underwhelming.

Ok.. Gaming? Try to match this. This is another R5, albeit 1600. Not even a top class of R5. Not even overclocked 6700 can match mine. 1400 is the lowest of all R5. I've seen R5-1500X beating 6700, that's quad core for ya if you are looking for equal 4 cores comparison.. You are welcome to overclock any 6700 to reach my score.

 

[ZackL04]

Ok.. Gaming? Try to match this. This is another R5, albeit 1600. Not even a top class of R5. Not even overclocked 6700 can match mine. 1400 is the lowest of all R5. I've seen R5-1500X beating 6700, that's quad core for ya if you are looking for equal 4 cores comparison.. You are welcome to overclock any 6700 to reach my score.

1600 has 6 cores 12 threads