AMD Ryzen 5 processors detailed, launching April 11

[Scorpus]

AMD Ryzen processors have dominated discussion in the PC hardware community over the past couple of weeks, and that discussion isn't going away any time soon. Today, AMD is announcing their Ryzen 5 line-up, which consists of two quad-core and two six-core processors, all of which will be available to purchase on April 11th.

AMD's presentation on Ryzen 5 was short, so we're going to cut right to the chase. Everything we know about the Ryzen 5 line-up is included in the table below, but you can expect additional information – such as TDP and cache configuration – to be released at launch.

Model	Cores / Threads	Base Frequency (GHz)	Boost Frequency (GHz)	Box Cooler	Price
Ryzen 5 1600X	6/12	3.6	4.0	None	$249
Ryzen 5 1600		3.2	3.6	Wraith Spire	$219
Ryzen 5 1500X	4/8	3.5	3.7		$189
Ryzen 5 1400		3.2	3.4	Wraith Stealth	$169

As all Ryzen processors are unlocked, there are two parts which are very attractive here: the $219 Ryzen 5 1600 with six cores, and the $169 Ryzen 5 1400 with four cores. While the boost frequencies of these parts aren't hugely impressive, you should be able to overclock them to around or above the 4.0 GHz mark.

The $219 Ryzen 5 1600 will compete directly with the $239 Intel Core i5-7600K, a four core, four thread Kaby Lake CPU. The Ryzen 5 1600 will have a core advantage, as it packs an extra two cores, while it also includes SMT support where the 7600K does not. It will be interesting to see how these CPUs compare when overclocked, as the 7600K can reach 5 GHz with relative ease.

The $169 Ryzen 5 1400 undercuts Intel's entire quad-core line-up, and competes directly with their two-core, four-thread Core i3 processors such as the $189 i3-7350K. Of course, you shouldn't buy the 7350K over the unlocked $65 Pentium G4560, so the Ryzen 5 1400 will practically have an entire market segment to itself.

AMD only provided one performance figure for their Ryzen 5 processors: the Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms the Core i5-7600K by up to 69 percent in the Cinebench multi-threaded workload.

You'll be able to purchase a Ryzen 5 processor from your favorite retailers on April 11th worldwide. There is no official pre-order system for Ryzen 5, but you can expect to see plenty of stock on launch day. AMD's entry-level Ryzen 3 processors are on track for a 2H 2017 release.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/68519-amd-four-ryzen-5-processors-launching-april.html

 

[Sarcasm]

Get the 1600 for less money, and overclock it to meet or exceed the 1600X. And it includes a cooler. Looking like a pretty good value. I wonder how it fares against the 6800K.

 

[Evernessince]

Hm, wonder what the wraith stealth will look like. Hopefully it's low profile for use in HTPC and ITX builds.

 

[GeforcerFX]

There's the ryzen I am interested in, will be interesting to see intel's response pricing wise. On a side note when did the Pentium G4560 become a unlocked chip?

 

[EEatGDL]

Hm, wonder what the wraith stealth will look like. Hopefully it's low profile for use in HTPC and ITX builds.

Ehm...

 

[Evernessince]

Ehm...

Thanks!

 

[Puiu]

All of them look really good at those prices

 

[NightAntilli]

The R5 1600 seems to be the one to get... Insane value. I might be grabbing one... My FX-8320 has served me well, but it might be time to upgrade.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

The R5 1600 seems to be the one to get... Insane value. I might be grabbing one... My FX-8320 has served me well, but it might be time to upgrade.

Might? That's like me saying "I might from my Pentium II sometime". I know money is an issue with lots of people but that FX chip of yours was one sad chip... from the day it was launched.

 

[Kibaruk]

Oh noes, here comes the "my low end AMD is better than your i5" guys...

 

[NightAntilli]

Might? That's like me saying "I might from my Pentium II sometime". I know money is an issue with lots of people but that FX chip of yours was one sad chip... from the day it was launched.

Despite popular opinion, it is still doing fine for 60 FPS gaming in general. Some of us actually play games, rather than looking at benchmark numbers all day without looking at its implications. Even an FX-4 CPU does fine for 60 FPS in modern games;

So... Whatever.

Besides all that, I want all the motherboard and memory issues to be ironed out before I jump on the Ryzen bandwagon. And it's not a need to upgrade for me as previously shown. I'll do it when it suits my needs, not the desires of overly vocal extremists on the internet.

The comparison to Pentium II is hilarious though. That CPU is 20 years old, not 5 years like Piledriver. And I doubt it would be able to maintain over 60 fps in any modern title.

 

[OcelotRex]

Despite popular opinion, it is still doing fine for 60 FPS gaming in general. Some of us actually play games, rather than looking at benchmark numbers all day without looking at its implications. Even an FX-4 CPU does fine for 60 FPS in modern games

So... Whatever.

There's a huge caveat to said graph - that's with the Titan XP. I know that is supposed to "eliminate" GPU bottlenecks and all but I can envision some situations where the FX could become the bottleneck.

 

[Burty117]

Oh noes, here comes the "my low end AMD is better than your i5" guys...

You mean @HardReset ?
I'm sure he'll be along shortly. Actually if he is, Here's a very in-depth video comparing the FX-8370 vs Core i5 2500K. Basically, the FX-8370 wasn't a particularly good buy when it came out and it only got worse as time went on.

Despite popular opinion, it is still doing fine for 60 FPS gaming in general. Some of us actually play games, rather than looking at benchmark numbers all day without looking at its implications. Even an FX-4 CPU does fine for 60 FPS in modern games.

So it would be completely useless for VR then?
You know what Steam should add to their survey (Not sure if I'm just being blind if they already did this)? How many people use a screen that refreshes faster than 60Hz and how many use variable refresh rate technologies like G-Sync and Free-Sync.
Out of my group of friends, only 1 or 2 still have 60Hz monitors, everyone else has 100Hz+ monitors. That is of course just my little group of friends, it would be interesting to see how many people in gaming use higher refresh rate monitors.

The comparison to Pentium II is hilarious though. That CPU is 20 years old, not 5 years like Piledriver. And I doubt it would be able to maintain over 60 fps in any modern title.

Meh, it still aged better than the FX-8370 did...

 

[NightAntilli]

There's a huge caveat to said graph - that's with the Titan XP. I know that is supposed to "eliminate" GPU bottlenecks and all but I can envision some situations where the FX could become the bottleneck.

Sure, that's true. In BF1 DX11, the FX-4 is no longer enough with an AMD card (nVidia cards still are over 60 fps on it), but the FX-6 is. For Deus Ex Mankind Divided not even an OC FX-8 is enough to maintain over 60 fps at all times for example, and there are more games. But, for me, I don't have a need to upgrade yet. I'm not on the whole 'upgrade every two years' cycle, and the games I play don't require a stronger CPU at this point. And it's better to wait till I need to; I spend less money that way. No I'm not poor. I'm money conscious.

So it would be completely useless for VR then?

No it wouldn't be useless for VR. But my comment was about what I was thinking regarding Ryzen. I for starters, don't use VR right now. Somehow the implication of the reply is that I should upgrade my current CPU. But that's up to me, not anyone else.

You know what Steam should add to their survey (Not sure if I'm just being blind if they already did this)? How many people use a screen that refreshes faster than 60Hz and how many use variable refresh rate technologies like G-Sync and Free-Sync.
Out of my group of friends, only 1 or 2 still have 60Hz monitors, everyone else has 100Hz+ monitors. That is of course just my little group of friends, it would be interesting to see how many people in gaming use higher refresh rate monitors.

That would be interesting indeed. I happen to have a 21:9 monitor, with a FreeSync range of 40 - 75 Hz. I'm in no hurry to upgrade

Meh, it still aged better than the FX-8370 did...

Which only makes the comparison he made even worse lol.

 

[Onygen]

I have asked and asking again.
Can you please test Ryzen 7 with only 4 core enabled or even two.

 

[Kibaruk]

I have asked and asking again.
Can you please test Ryzen 7 with only 4 core enabled or even two.

Why??

It has absolutely no real world use that way, the average joe user will never be switching from cores while changing tasks. No one will, it's a duckload of work. Also, it's a waste of time for the people who work that will actually have to review this for you.

Your best bet is to go to an enthusiast or AMD lover tech forum where there will be a load of unaverage Joes happy to try and demonstrate it can work better than other offerings.

 

[Evernessince]

Despite popular opinion, it is still doing fine for 60 FPS gaming in general. Some of us actually play games, rather than looking at benchmark numbers all day without looking at its implications. Even an FX-4 CPU does fine for 60 FPS in modern games;

So... Whatever.

Besides all that, I want all the motherboard and memory issues to be ironed out before I jump on the Ryzen bandwagon. And it's not a need to upgrade for me as previously shown. I'll do it when it suits my needs, not the desires of overly vocal extremists on the internet.

The comparison to Pentium II is hilarious though. That CPU is 20 years old, not 5 years like Piledriver. And I doubt it would be able to maintain over 60 fps in any modern title.

AMD's blog says their rolling out major micro-code upgrades in April and May so May should likely be your date.

You mean @HardReset ?
I'm sure he'll be along shortly. Actually if he is, Here's a very in-depth video comparing the FX-8370 vs Core i5 2500K. Basically, the FX-8370 wasn't a particularly good buy when it came out and it only got worse as time went on.

So it would be completely useless for VR then?
You know what Steam should add to their survey (Not sure if I'm just being blind if they already did this)? How many people use a screen that refreshes faster than 60Hz and how many use variable refresh rate technologies like G-Sync and Free-Sync.
Out of my group of friends, only 1 or 2 still have 60Hz monitors, everyone else has 100Hz+ monitors. That is of course just my little group of friends, it would be interesting to see how many people in gaming use higher refresh rate monitors.

Meh, it still aged better than the FX-8370 did...

You should probably read the reviews, The 1800X gets over 250 FPS on overwatch.

If steam were to release statistics on monitor refresh rate you'd be shown that few people have over 60 Hz monitors. Right now, less than half of surveyed users even have a quad core cpu. It's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to be a hardcore gamer who actually needs over 60 Hz. Heck, I game all the time and don't have a 60 Hz monitor. Why? It turns out I also do other thing with my computer and color accuracy was more important than FPS.

I have asked and asking again.
Can you please test Ryzen 7 with only 4 core enabled or even two.

Hardware.fr did this and saw a 20% increase in performance in Battlefield 1

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-24/retour-sous-systeme-memoire-suite.html

 

[Onygen]

Why??

It has absolutely no real world use that way, the average joe user will never be switching from cores while changing tasks. No one will, it's a duckload of work. Also, it's a waste of time for the people who work that will actually have to review this for you.

Your best bet is to go to an enthusiast or AMD lover tech forum where there will be a load of unaverage Joes happy to try and demonstrate it can work better than other offerings.

I am not asking for detailed review,
Few bench will not hurt to know about latency. Look at comment below for example hardware.fr

 

[Kibaruk]

I am not asking for detailed review,
Few bench will not hurt to know about latency. Look at comment below for example hardware.fr

So... LMGTFY...

Disabling cores has no real world usage, whatsoever. It's a waste of time and nothing more than a curiosity.

 

[Burty117]

You should probably read the reviews, The 1800X gets over 250 FPS on overwatch.

I think you should re-read my comment. You get bonus points if you can find the number 1800 next to an x anywhere in the entire post

If steam were to release statistics on monitor refresh rate you'd be shown that few people have over 60 Hz monitors. Right now, less than half of surveyed users even have a quad core cpu. It's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to be a hardcore gamer who actually needs over 60 Hz. Heck, I game all the time and don't have a 60 Hz monitor. Why? It turns out I also do other thing with my computer and color accuracy was more important than FPS.

It would still be an interesting statistic nonetheless. I'm one of the two people in my group who games at 60Hz (I have no choice but to use a laptop at the moment). Steam is a gaming platform, the amount of people on there with a higher refresh rate monitor is bound to be greater than a survey done on everyone with Photoshop installed. Hence why I wished Steam added it to the survey.

 

[Evernessince]

I think you should re-read my comment. You get bonus points if you can find the number 1800 next to an x anywhere in the entire post


It would still be an interesting statistic nonetheless. I'm one of the two people in my group who games at 60Hz (I have no choice but to use a laptop at the moment). Steam is a gaming platform, the amount of people on there with a higher refresh rate monitor is bound to be greater than a survey done on everyone with Photoshop installed. Hence why I wished Steam added it to the survey.

I was referencing Ryzen performance only, not the 8370 or previous gen AMD hardware.

You originally said that the FX 8370 wouldn't be able to do VR and my comment was meant as "Hey, read the reviews of Ryzen because it can handle VR just fine"

Also, the Steam Hardware Survey makes it pretty clear that the average steam user doesn't really have a rig powerful enough for high FPS gaming.

 

[Wizwill]

In Texas, spray cans of what may be just compressed air labeled "Bull **** Detector" are usually found on on a back shelf at most bars. Truly outrageous 'tall tales' often receive a generous application of this truth serum from skeptical bartenders, repeated as needed.
I think some of the 'alternate facts' and fake news being spread by both sides in the debate surrounding the new AMD processor could stand a brisk freshening spray.

 

[Evernessince]

In Texas, spray cans of what may be just compressed air labeled "Bull **** Detector" are usually found on on a back shelf at most bars. Truly outrageous 'tall tales' often receive a generous application of this truth serum from skeptical bartenders, repeated as needed.
I think some of the 'alternate facts' and fake news being spread by both sides in the debate surrounding the new AMD processor could stand a brisk freshening spray.

You guys didn't use that enough on Rick Perry.

 

[Burty117]

I was referencing Ryzen performance only, not the 8370 or previous gen AMD hardware.

You originally said that the FX 8370 wouldn't be able to do VR and my comment was meant as "Hey, read the reviews of Ryzen because it can handle VR just fine"

I don't understand, my comment was purely about the FX-8370 yet you somehow made it about Ryzen? You must be a nightmare to live with:

Me: Morning Evernessince. These new PG Tip Tea Bags aren't very good!
Evernessince: RYZEN MAKES A GREAT TEA BAG!
Me: Rrright...

(Just FYI I like Ryzen, I just wasn't talking about Ryzen, I was talking about how the i5 2500k was possibly the deal of the century compared to the FX-8370).

Also, the Steam Hardware Survey makes it pretty clear that the average steam user doesn't really have a rig powerful enough for high FPS gaming.

Even Duel Cores and modest GPU's run Counter Strike, Team Fortress, DOTA, LOL, HotS, WoW and many other popular online games at over 60fps.
My question is, why wouldn't you want that in the Steam Survey? It could give developers something to test and make sure their games work on higher refresh rate screens (I'm looking at you Bethesda!). We can see how the market for higher Hz monitors pickup in the coming years as the prices go down etc...

 

[hahahanoobs]

According to pcper's podcast last night, it was revealed that Ian Cutress from Anandtech has said Ryzen 5 CPU's will consist of 3+3 and 2+2 physical core configurations per CCX on Ryzen 5 CPU's, so I'll be waiting for pcper's testing and various CPU gaming reviews before I pull the trigger on one of these alleged Ryzen 5 KBL killers.

I don't want more cores if performance is going to suffer from CCX to CCX communications, but if the performance is better than good enough, then I'm probably going to go all in on a 1600X if gaming and overall system performance from future UEFI's and software optimizations are impressive - and only then.

*fingers crossed*