AMD Ryzen 5 1600X & 1500X Review

[Jos]

As we begin to recover from the roller coaster ride that was Ryzen 7, we now have Ryzen 5 to address. AMD has announced four models in this series, including a pair of six-core CPUs as well as two quad-core models. We'll be pitting the sub-$200 1500X against the locked Core i5-7500 and the 1600X against the unlocked 7600K which compete in the $250 price range.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1379-and-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x/

 

[Pap1er]

What to say, time to build new machine...

 

[madboyv1]

Yesss... I had the feeling the Ryzen 5 series was where AMD was going to put it's foot down, color me impressed. Makes me think I'll start to see AMD processors being offered by IT contracts again, and not ONLY because it's cheaper like yesteryear.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Competition has returned!!

 

[rexper]

I am actually very impressed with the 1500x. At the same price as the i5 7500, it performs a few frames higher atleast in most of the games test, as well as having alot better synthetic & application performance. I believe the 1500x is definitely a solid CPU for gaming with a 60 FPS performance goal, and would recommend over the i5 7500 due to the overall performance of the psu in all areas.

Also, spelling mistake:
"When paired with the ~~Warit~~ Max, the 1600X idled at 36 degrees and maxed out at just 61 degrees at the stock frequencies. "

 

[dirtyferret]

Looks like the 1500x is a real winner, time to check the microcenter prices

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

And about time too. Although I'm not upgrading anytime soon but when the time comes, I'll have to seriously and meticulously study the lie of the land then. Hopefully these two companies will still be viciously tearing away at each others throats.

 

[Puiu]

These are much better results than I expected. good job AMD.

 

[Burty117]

Genuinely Impressive results, especially the 1500x, That is a serious kick in the nuts for Intel.

Bravo AMD, keep this momentum up. I want to see you kick Nvidia down a peg or two as well.

 

[Rockstarrrr]

Welcome back, AMD.

 

[Reehahs]

Can we have red bars in the chart for AMD please, it makes it easier to distinguish.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Most outlets are pushing reviews of the X versions of these chips but with their limited overclocking abilities, it seems like there isn't a lot of reason to buy them over the non X 1400 and 1600.

As I suspected reading this and various other places, 1600 is really the chip to have. The 1400 is a bargain as well, but the 1600 for me is the star shining in the whole lineup.

Before today it was impossible to get a 6 core of this performance level coupled with the chipset for less than $600. Now you can get it for like $350.

Now Intel have to respond, by dropping prices. Their chips are still clearly quality choices, but only if they lop about $40-50 off every i5 model......

 

[Puiu]

I would love it if Techspot could also do some percentile results (1% and 0.1%) too in future reviews.

 

[GeforcerFX]

About what I expected Ryzen 5 is the performance winner, intel is the gaming winner (if you need over 60 FPS constant). I am more excited for the mobile apu's at this point, get some decent competition going in the laptop market. Ryzen seems to be really efficient so a 4 core 8 thread ryzen with a r7 graphics module onboard should be great competition for the 45 watt i7's.

 

[OcelotRex]

These are much better results than I expected. good job AMD.

I am in total agreement with you. Anandtech has the same conclusion of many more cores with only a 10-15% IPC penalty:

As a result, where Intel offer four cores and four threads, AMD is now offering six cores and twelve threads – a potential +200% uptick in the number of threads and +50% in cores, albeit at 10-15% lower instructions per clock.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Can't wait to pop a Ryzen 5 in my system this summer. What a comeback by the red team! Now to Vega...

 

[CaptainTom]

In just a month bios/windows/games updates have placed Ryzen equal to Intel in gaming. I have no doubt that in a few months they will indeed take a comfortable lead.


The question is how big that lead will become, and if Intel can even respond adequately if it reaches 10-20%. Not to mention, X399 16-Cores are coming...

 

[meric]

Like I expected, ryzen 5 1600 is the best chip of AMD when we consider price, performance and power consumption. Really it's the chip to get due to its well-balanced feats and also I expect it to be the main competitor to intel parts

 

[alabama man]

Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K or 4790K would be useful for most people, not saying that comparing to current market is pointless, just that people want to know if the upgrade makes any sense. Older AMD processors would be nice too, kind of pointless but would show the progress they made.

 

[Indigo5]

Looks great! I think I found my next build. Time to go to pcpartpicker.

 

[amstech]

Review is stellar Steve, no complaints whatsoever!
This review is missing one critical CPU.
The 6800K.

I was hoping to see how the 6800K matched up against the 1600X in all of these tests, and then with both chips set at 4.0GHz. I love that 6-core Skylake chip!

Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K .

If you have a 3700K there is no reason to upgrade if your talking gaming, its still faster then any Ryzen chip and just as fast as the 7700K with the same clock speeds. For other specific reasons it might be worth it though.

 

[Evernessince]

Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K or 4790K would be useful for most people, not saying that comparing to current market is pointless, just that people want to know if the upgrade makes any sense. Older AMD processors would be nice too, kind of pointless but would show the progress they made.

The 3700K to any Ryzen R5 is going to be an upgrade. The 4790K is very clock to the 7500

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/2384vs3648

And since even the low end R5 1500X competes very well with the 7500 in gaming, it's a safe bet to say it will too with the 4790K. You could get the higher clocked, 6 core 1600 or 1600X and it would be a very nice upgrade.

 

[dirtyferret]

Could you add more comparisons for gaming? Most people who will get these will have older processors and comparisons to 3700K or 4790K would be useful for most people, not saying that comparing to current market is pointless, just that people want to know if the upgrade makes any sense. Older AMD processors would be nice too, kind of pointless but would show the progress they made.

The 3700K to any Ryzen R5 is going to be an upgrade. The 4790K is very clock to the 7500

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/2384vs3648

And since even the low end R5 1500X competes very well with the 7500 in gaming, it's a safe bet to say it will too with the 4790K. You could get the higher clocked, 6 core 1600 or 1600X and it would be a very nice upgrade.

depends on your specific PC and requirements. I'm not questioning that the 1600X is a better CPU, it is, but would someone actually see a real world performance difference if they are moving from an i7-3700 or 4790 with a video card like the GTX 970/960 or AMD 480/370 video card? Even if the increase is 10%, that means you move from 50FPS to 55FPS. Probably not a worthwhile investment for most people unless they have a specific purpose for the extra AMD cores.

 

[ScubaRhys]

Much better than the 8 core components I think. Interesting review. Still, can't beat my 4790k in games. Maybe Ryzen 2 will be my upgrade?

I'm still not sold on games preferring multithreaded architectures to IPC anytime soon though, reckon that will still take at least 3/4 years to happen.

 

[dirtyferret]

Much better than the 8 core components I think. Interesting review. Still, can't beat my 4790k in games. Maybe Ryzen 2 will be my upgrade?

I'm still not sold on games preferring multithreaded architectures to IPC anytime soon though, reckon that will still take at least 3/4 years to happen.

I agree. I think once the new consoles come out you really won't be able to game effectively on pure dual physical core CPUs but dual cores with virtual core ability will remain a budget option.

IPC in quad cores will only increase making them viable gaming CPUs for a long time especially with the lack of CPUs with 4+ cores in the market (dual and quads make up 95% of the gaming CPU market), number of people who game on laptops (they make up most of the dual core market), and the lackluster jaguar CPU to be used in the new consoles.