AMD Ryzen 5 1600X & 1500X Review
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
if it's gaming then there isn't a reason to buy a new Ryzen CPU since you can OC the i5 3570K fairly well, but you would get a pretty big gain in multithreaded situations if you went for an 1600 or 1700 (I wouldn't bother buying an 1600x because of the lack of an stock cooler and the fact that the 1600 can reach the same clocks when you OC it).
Burty117
Posts: 5,108 +3,689
We've been saying "3/4 years" for the last 8+ years XD
They did come out, both have 8 cores, it didn't seem to change anything. Duel Core i3's can still beat 8 core AMD CPU's.
I'll add another to this list as well:
"DX12 will change the way game engines use multiple cores"
That's been said since DX12's inception, still yet to see much benefit.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Normally I am on your side here that Frequency and IPC rule when it comes to games...BUT:
I can see a paradigm shift for more cores being the future should people migrate more to the Ryzen platform. The issue though is that we're a few years away from AMD capturing significant market share and pointing that trend upward. Thus, it's likely that without significant monetary incentives we're 3-5 years from the majority of games favoring Ryzen over Intel.
Vrmithrax
Posts: 1,609 +679
Maybe I missed it in there somewhere... Is there a particular reason that all of the Ryzen systems are configured with 16Gb of RAM, but all of the Intel systems have 32Gb? I know doubling the RAM on my current system sped it up quite a bit, so it makes me curious why there isn't a true apples-to-apples comparison on that front...
I've been finding myself to be doing far more multitasking than I did years ago. Hell, years ago we didn't have multi-process web browsers like we do today.
I can definitely see how the thread load on my system is causing my system to be slower than it should be. My CPU hovers around 8 to 10% usage on all four cores at any moment in time.
Right now Ryzen's memory frequency is very limited with four DIMM modules.
Can you plase explain to me what does 1% and 0.1% mean?
Soooo the max overclocked 1600x is on the heels of a stock 7600k and Im supposed to be impressed?
Guys, these ryzen chips are Ivy level chips with more cores. I would love to see a 3770k vs 1500x both clocked at 4.0 ghz.
Lots of amd fan boys here. If you primarily game, and if your running out to build a system based of these cpu's your knowingly buying a system that is bottlenecking your gpu vs an overclocked 7600k. Sure these tests are with an ultra high end gpu, but, it a few years time that will be the more affordable 2070 or 3070 and your cpu will never let it stretch its legs
Guys, these ryzen chips are Ivy level chips with more cores. I would love to see a 3770k vs 1500x both clocked at 4.0 ghz.
Lots of amd fan boys here. If you primarily game, and if your running out to build a system based of these cpu's your knowingly buying a system that is bottlenecking your gpu vs an overclocked 7600k. Sure these tests are with an ultra high end gpu, but, it a few years time that will be the more affordable 2070 or 3070 and your cpu will never let it stretch its legs
Userbenchmark isnt a great gauge (because it includes MANY overclocked results) but, look at this:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/1317vs3921
I agree that the 3770k vs ryzen 5 isnt an "upgrade " unless you go to the 6 core version. But to say a 3770k is just as fast as a 7700k at the same clock is just wrong...
3770k vs 1500x (4 core 8 thread)
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/1317vs3921
3770k vs ryzen 5 1400 (3.2-3.4, so lower clock than stock 3770k)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2992&cmp[]=2
Dont forget your 3770k can overclock like a mother too!
Vrmithrax
Posts: 1,609 +679
Ok, that makes much more sense
M
manigma
At first I was heartbroken to see an R5 1500X beat i5 7500 (bought last month). But after seeing other reviews, I was happy that I bought an i5 7500 with an aim to upgrade to Coffee Lake 6/8 core after few years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbK0n5FjvhI
^ i5 7500 here is faster than 1500X and 1600X in DeusEX (DX12) and incredibly faster in ROTR (DX12). Also in Doom and Wildlands i5 7500 is better.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/8/
^ Here in Witcher 3 (the best game ever) even an i5 7400 frames way ahead of R5 1600X OC.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/12.html
^ i5 7500 beats R5 1500X in Fallout 4 and other games.
I wish techspot to add above games in their R5 extensive gaming review while comparing to an i5 7500.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbK0n5FjvhI
^ i5 7500 here is faster than 1500X and 1600X in DeusEX (DX12) and incredibly faster in ROTR (DX12). Also in Doom and Wildlands i5 7500 is better.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/8/
^ Here in Witcher 3 (the best game ever) even an i5 7400 frames way ahead of R5 1600X OC.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/12.html
^ i5 7500 beats R5 1500X in Fallout 4 and other games.
I wish techspot to add above games in their R5 extensive gaming review while comparing to an i5 7500.
A friend linked me this article since we were having a debate about the 1600X vs the i5-7500...
It seems the 7500 in this article isn't performing correctly as I have checked 4 other sources who are within ~3 fps of each other. These guys are using 3000Mhz RAM though while it says 2400mhz in this article here, so it could be bottlenecking?
-21 fps on Hitman alone compared to other benchmarks! That's a huge hit.
It seems the 7500 in this article isn't performing correctly as I have checked 4 other sources who are within ~3 fps of each other. These guys are using 3000Mhz RAM though while it says 2400mhz in this article here, so it could be bottlenecking?
-21 fps on Hitman alone compared to other benchmarks! That's a huge hit.
Burty117
Posts: 5,108 +3,689
I don't disagree, Just we've been saying this for 8+ years now. It's a bit boring you know? Ever since the Core2Quad and Phenom CPU's everyone's been rambling on about using more cores etc... That was a VERY long time ago in the tech world and it still hasn't really happened. It seems developers have just got to grips with quad cores.
the simplest way to explain would be: you take the lowest 1% and 0.1% FPS numbers you got from the benchmarks and do an average for those. a game that has high average FPS but stutters will have low numbers in the 1% and 0.1% percentile results.
these results show just how smooth the overall experience is
another way to put it is like this:
in scene A a game gets 110 FPS for CPU 1 and 80 FPS for CPU 2
in scene B the same game gets 40 FPS in CPU 1 and 60 FPS for CPU 2
CPU 1 has higher averages, but CPU 2 will feel smoother. the percentile results will be in favor of CPU 2. (in a way, the average FPS is a misleading)
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,824
For gaming it is.
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
These Ryzen CPUs are not cleaning Intel's clock like AMD fan boys will have you believe but they are offering a viable alternative, something that has not happened in almost ten years (since the phenom II came out). Intel has been sand bagging performance in their processors since Sandy Bridge. It will be interesting to see if the next Intel processor makes the same jump as Sandy did from Nehalem or do they still offer small increments of performance increase.
Either way, everyone wins with competition. AMD fan boys, Intel fan boys, and budget conscious buyers looking for the best bang for their buck.
Lieutenant Tofu
Posts: 7 +1
In case no one's mentioned it yet here, done Ryzen chips have a +20C temperature offset that is not compensated for by some software (yet). The temperatures aren't actually add high add they appear during the testing here.
I'm curious about the power consumption numbers, since all the other reviews I've seen had the Ryzen 7 and 5 chips using less per under load than their Intel counterparts, but usually more at idle.
Just some info and constructive criticism. Great article, guys!
I'm curious about the power consumption numbers, since all the other reviews I've seen had the Ryzen 7 and 5 chips using less per under load than their Intel counterparts, but usually more at idle.
Just some info and constructive criticism. Great article, guys!
No, with a 1060 or faster card you will see incremental fps increase in many games, also ddr4 3000 and higher memory makes a big difference paired with a high end card
I think you've read the wrong results dude. in that BF 1 OC chart you can clearly see the 1600x having better lows than the stock 7600k. and even after OCing the 7600k it was just 10 fps faster in the lows and 12 fps for the averages. this is a sub 10% difference, it's unnoticeable.
let me tell what IS noticeable: 12 threads vs 4 threads
I think you would have to have some serious problems to sacrifice this kind of multithreading performance to get an unnoticeable fps boost in games.
in my opinion the best CPU to buy would be the 1600. you get almost the same performance when you OC it and it is much cheaper with a good stock cooler included too (guaranteed to reach 3.9GHz on all 6 cores with stock cooler with good temps). to OC the 7600k to 4.8GHz you would need a pretty beefy cooling system and possibly delid the CPU too (depends on your luck).
let me ask you this: does your PC have a fresh install of windows? do you never game with something else running in the background (browser, music, skype/TS/discord, antivirus, etc)? all of these things affect the 7600k a lot more than the 1600 which has extra cores/threads.
and another thing, are you going to pair a 200-250$ CPU with a Titan X Pascal or 1080 Ti?
christiangeli
Posts: 74 +57
Testing anything other than a video card using titan Xp worth nothing . please do test with mainstream video card !
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,824
Have any data to share?
I have a review of a 3770k vs a 6700k with both CPU's at 4.2GHz and there is no difference in FPS at 1080 or 1440p over a lot of 15 games or so. Techspots reviews of CPU's show the same thing when the clockspeeds are the same.
http://multimonitorcomputer.com/solved/ddr3-vs-ddr4-gaming.php
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/8
Anandtech said:
Techspot did a review on RAM, some games did show a nice difference, most of them it was very small, even at high resolutions. Not trying to be argumentative, but super fast DDR4 RAM will be faster then super fast DDR3, but the difference most the time is pennies.
Similar threads
- Locked
