AMD Ryzen 5 1400 Review

[OcelotRex]

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.

I'm not really one for d**k measuring contests but which game is Fire Strike Custom? How do you find the gameplay? What about the game do you find to be most rewarding? For someone who hasn't played the game can you compare it to other more well known games? How long does it take to beat?

 

[HardReset]

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...

To put this into better perspective:

Zen is more like AMD's Pentium Pro and Zen 2 will be AMD's Pentium II. Remember that Zen is designed from scratch while Intel's development went like this:

Pentium Pro -> Pentium II -> Pentium 3 -> Core -> Core 2 -> Nehalem -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake.

AMD:'s development:

Zen -> (future) Zen 2

So Zen is not likely "maxed out" anytime soon while Intel maxed out Pentium Pro with Sandy Bridge. No wonder Intel is rumoured to make new "from scratch" architecture.

 

[OcelotRex]

So Zen is not likely "maxed out" anytime soon while Intel maxed out Pentium Pro with Sandy Bridge. No wonder Intel is rumoured to make new "from scratch" architecture.

I don't get why most people do not understand that it takes 3-5 years for a product to be developed and sold; it took nearly 5 for Ryzen and the product roll out is not even complete.

If Intel began a response when Zen was announced we're still looking a a few years before a true response will come to market. CPUs and GPUs cannot appear overnight.

 

[ZackL04]

I don't get why most people do not understand that it takes 3-5 years for a product to be developed and sold; it took nearly 5 for Ryzen and the product roll out is not even complete.

If Intel began a response when Zen was announced we're still looking a a few years before a true response will come to market. CPUs and GPUs cannot appear overnight.

The only "response" they need is to lower pricing and create a mainstream platform 6 and maybe 8 core cpu. Their 4 core and 4 core with ht are much faster than their ryzen counterparts. Its their price that maintains a discussion at all

 

[cliffordcooley]

Pentium Pro -> Pentium II -> Pentium 3 -> Core -> Core 2 -> Nehalem -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake.
No wonder Intel is rumoured to make new "from scratch" architecture.

Since there hasn't been much put out since Sandy Bridge, that is likely when they started working on a new architecture. Especially now that the "tic toc" cycle has been broken. That really points a finger to Intel doing the very same thing AMD has been doing since they announced they would no longer be competing with Intel. Either way though I couldn't say, I can only speculate as to what they are doing.

 

[OcelotRex]

The only "response" they need is to lower pricing and create a mainstream platform 6 and maybe 8 core cpu. Their 4 core and 4 core with ht are much faster than their ryzen counterparts. Its their price that maintains a discussion at all

Perhaps in 3-5 years when those cores will be utilized. Right now I think they're sitting fine in the desktop market while they seem to completely own the laptop/ultrabook/macbook segment. I'd also think it will be a while before we see Ryzen 3 in a mini desktop, which I see replacing towers in most places I work.

 

[CaptainTom]

To put this into better perspective:

Zen is more like AMD's Pentium Pro and Zen 2 will be AMD's Pentium II. Remember that Zen is designed from scratch while Intel's development went like this:

Pentium Pro -> Pentium II -> Pentium 3 -> Core -> Core 2 -> Nehalem -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake.

AMD:'s development:

Zen -> (future) Zen 2

So Zen is not likely "maxed out" anytime soon while Intel maxed out Pentium Pro with Sandy Bridge. No wonder Intel is rumoured to make new "from scratch" architecture.

All I am saying is at this point it might just be that processing engineers have done most of what they can to maximize silicon. The long hold on 28nm seems to have forced companies to really focus on making their architectures efficient since they can't rely on simply rushing to the next node anymore.

Or to put it another way - AMD seems to have really taken their time to maximize the design of Zen from the start, and they learned lessons while optimizing AM1 CPU's and xxxx-dozer archs along the way.

But hey, I would love 10-20% YoY increases for 5 years from AMD lol.

 

[HardReset]

Since there hasn't been much put out since Sandy Bridge, that is likely when they started working on a new architecture. Especially now that the "tic toc" cycle has been broken. That really points a finger to Intel doing the very same thing AMD has been doing since they announced they would no longer be competing with Intel. Either way though I couldn't say, I can only speculate as to what they are doing.

Some rumours say Intel is dropping certain hardware legacy support from CPU's, they are still supported with some kind of emulation though. Not sure if that's true, since Intel has traditionally supported legacy instructions very well.

AMD has never announced they are not competing with Intel. That statement is simply some kind of misunderstanding.

All I am saying is at this point it might just be that processing engineers have done most of what they can to maximize silicon. The long hold on 28nm seems to have forced companies to really focus on making their architectures efficient since they can't rely on simply rushing to the next node anymore.

Or to put it another way - AMD seems to have really taken their time to maximize the design of Zen from the start, and they learned lessons while optimizing AM1 CPU's and xxxx-dozer archs along the way.

But hey, I would love 10-20% YoY increases for 5 years from AMD lol.

Zen is not maximized at all. Based on architecture, Zen should be able to reach much higher clock speeds than Intel's offerings, but manufacturing tech heavily limits right now. GF/Samsung 14nm LPP is not designed for high clock speeds CPU and that's main reason why Zen overclocking above 4 GHz with air cooling is very hard. AMD has also admitted that some parts of Zen are recycled from Excavator design with simple modifications to get it faster into market. Zen 2 is what this announced Zen should have been. So Zen 2 is first "true" Zen design and there are quite lot to maximize Zen architecture.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Since there hasn't been much put out since Sandy Bridge, that is likely when they started working on a new architecture. Especially now that the "tic toc" cycle has been broken. That really points a finger to Intel doing the very same thing AMD has been doing since they announced they would no longer be competing with Intel.

AMD has never announced they are not competing with Intel. That statement is simply some kind of misunderstanding.

This is what I was referring to.

Late last year AMD spokesperson Mike Silverman told the San Jose Mercury News that his company needed to let go of the old AMD versus Intel mindset because as technology moves forward, that strategy will no longer be the key focus.

https://www.techspot.com/news/48704...n-the-planet-has-enough-processing-power.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html

I knew at the time they were backing out so they could work on something new. And here it is, the Ryzen CPU line. But this also put slack on the table, so Intel could do the same. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[HardReset]

This is what I was referring to.

https://www.techspot.com/news/48704...n-the-planet-has-enough-processing-power.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html

I knew at the time they were backing out so they could work on something new. And here it is, the Ryzen CPU line. But this also put slack on the table, so Intel could do the same. That's all I'm trying to say.

As I said, that was just misunderstanding. What AMD said did not mean they wouldn't want to compete with Intel on high end CPU's but more one or more of following, perhaps all:

- AMD didn't release Steamroller or Excavator cores for FX line, but just into APU's. Just to save money for more important projects (Zen).
- AMD knew they don't have high performance manufacturing process anytime soon so they really cannot compete with high clock speeds. 14nm LPP is still very competitive on server/mobile market.
- AMD has much better GPU's than Intel has so AMD's integrated solutions are clearly superior (consoles...)
- AMD could do ARM chip whereas Intel, well, of course could but x86 market leader making ARM chip to compete with x86

That statement meant AMD has much broader product catalog right now than just CPU that competes with Intel CPU. So those remarks about "exit x86 high performance market" are just misunderstanding. I should also point that AMD didn't hire Jim Keller 2012 to create just ARM core

 

[cliffordcooley]

That statement meant AMD has much broader product catalog right now than just CPU

Which doesn't make sense here because the CPU is all I am talking about. You are the one bringing in everything else.

 

[HardReset]

Which doesn't make sense here because the CPU is all I am talking about. You are the one bringing in everything else.

Exactly because everything else is "new strategy" AMD talked about. And that's why whole "AMD exit from x86 market" was misunderstanding.

 

[OcelotRex]

1.- AMD didn't release Steamroller or Excavator cores for FX line, but just into APU's. Just to save money for more important projects (Zen).
- AMD knew they don't have high performance manufacturing process anytime soon so they really cannot compete with high clock speeds. 14nm LPP is still very competitive on server/mobile market.
3. - AMD has much better GPU's than Intel has so AMD's integrated solutions are clearly superior (consoles...)
- AMD could do ARM chip whereas Intel, well, of course could but x86 market leader making ARM chip to compete with x86

I see things differently with points 1 and 3:
1. I don't think it was a cost saving measure as much as sales were not going to be high enough to justify the release.

3. Intel iGPUs do not compete with AMD APUs. They're built to drive monitors with low power output; it's a happy circumstance that they can play some resource light games.

While I don't think Intel is willing to surrender any portion of the market the desktop/workstation market is arguably their weakest at least when price/value is considered. Intel has clearly focused on mobile and efficiency over the last few years. AMD seized on this and released a great product that Intel has no real answer only price adjustments (if they are even warranted).

 

[HardReset]

I see things differently with points 1 and 3:
1. I don't think it was a cost saving measure as much as sales were not going to be high enough to justify the release.

3. Intel iGPUs do not compete with AMD APUs. They're built to drive monitors with low power output; it's a happy circumstance that they can play some resource light games.

While I don't think Intel is willing to surrender any portion of the market the desktop/workstation market is arguably their weakest at least when price/value is considered. Intel has clearly focused on mobile and efficiency over the last few years. AMD seized on this and released a great product that Intel has no real answer only price adjustments (if they are even warranted).

1. Pretty much both. That way AMD had money for Zen development.

3. Intel tries to compete, Iris Pro with eDRAM is quite competitive but very expensive and only resolves memory bandwidth problem. It's huge advantage on laptops to have fast GPU and CPU on same chip. Intel is just too many years behind Nvidia and AMD on GPU's.

I don't really agree Intel is focusing on mobile and efficiency. Intel's 14nm manufacturing process is mainly for desktop CPU's. If Intel would only be focusing on mobile/efficiency, they would have similar mobile focused process that AMD now uses. This remains to be seen but it's very possible that 14nm LPP is superior against any Intel's current process on low clock speeds. If that holds true in practice also, then Naples will be huge threat for Intel on servers. Unless Intel bribes manufacturers, of course.

Another point against focusing on efficiency is AVX. Intel will add 512 bit AVX units on server CPU's and even many mobile CPU's (Haswell based and newer, i3 and above) have 256-bit AVX units. AVX calculations are very power hungry so when talking about heavy AVX loads, efficiency goes out of the window.

Third reason is that Intel's current desktop CPU architecture is based on Pentium Pro, not designed for high clock speeds like Pentium 4. This automatically means lower clock speeds and better efficiency.

 

[electriac]

@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

Ditto our production machines have now all been backdated to WIN7 which we cannot do without. Win 10 does not work for us. Most of the updates are for their browser, any how, and we use Chrome exclusively. I Have not auto updated for years now. Cancelled recent purchases of three Rizen machines due to this issue. Like you I would like a definitive answer.

 

[electriac]

@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

Ditto our production machines have now all been backdated to WIN7 which we cannot do without. Win 10 does not work for us. Most of the updates are for their browser, any how, and we use Chrome exclusively. I Have not auto updated for years now. Cancelled recent purchases of three Rizen machines due to this issue. Like you I would like a definitive answer.

Sorry about that: Ryzen not Rizen

 

[HardReset]

Ditto our production machines have now all been backdated to WIN7 which we cannot do without. Win 10 does not work for us. Most of the updates are for their browser, any how, and we use Chrome exclusively. I Have not auto updated for years now. Cancelled recent purchases of three Rizen machines due to this issue. Like you I would like a definitive answer.

Ryzen works just fine with Windows 7, tried it myself. I recommend integrating chipset drivers into Windows 7 ISO or use PS/2 mouse. Also integrating NVME hotfix is highly recommended if installing to NVME drive.

Just avoid April 2017 updates (at least KB4015549, perhaps some others too) and there are no problems. Not sure what May updates do as they are not released yet.