Simulating AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, 1500X Gaming Performance

[Julio Franco]

AMD confirmed the official specifications for its upcoming Ryzen 5 CPUs last week, however by announcing those specs, the company has largely let the cat out of the bag. Now armed with that knowledge and the ability to mimic Ryzen 5 settings, I pulled a stack of GPUs out of storage and got testing.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/

 

[ET3D]

Thanks for the nice article.

Part of my takeaway from this is that 'bottleneck' testing is misleading. Testing everything with a high end card and trying to come to conclusions about performance of a CPU doesn't always work, so I'm happy that you tested with a few (although I'd be interested in how AMD cards fare).

For example Battlefield 1 with a 1080 Ti gets 130/152 for an i5-7600K and 128/141 for 'Ryzen 1600X' but 85/109 and 95/106 for the 1070. That higher min frame rate would place the Ryzen higher than the Core i5. Of course, it may just be that min frame rate is a bad measure of actual performance, and percentiles would show them to be closer.

 

[pgawe]

One of the first review Ryzen+mainstream GPU. Well then I think it performs admirably, especially the R5. Gonna be a budget choice for new gaming rig.

 

[Evernessince]

Thanks for the nice article.

Part of my takeaway from this is that 'bottleneck' testing is misleading. Testing everything with a high end card and trying to come to conclusions about performance of a CPU doesn't always work, so I'm happy that you tested with a few (although I'd be interested in how AMD cards fare).

For example Battlefield 1 with a 1080 Ti gets 130/152 for an i5-7600K and 128/141 for 'Ryzen 1600X' but 85/109 and 95/106 for the 1070. That higher min frame rate would place the Ryzen higher than the Core i5. Of course, it may just be that min frame rate is a bad measure of actual performance, and percentiles would show them to be closer.

Min and Average are in general not an optimal solution. For min, you are looking at the lowest frame rate produced through a benchmarking run. Unfortunately one or two instances of 16 FPS could very well mislead. Sometimes games will have a very specific set of conditions set off and cause a random drop in FPS or perhaps windows decided to run certain background tasks. For any benchmark I would throw out any outlying minimum frames that do not display any consistency.

Average, on the other hand, may give you an idea of the performance of the hardware but it is abject of giving you a picture of consistency. Sure with higher performance you can expect higher FPS but what frame range exactly will you be getting? It's entirely possible to maintain a high average FPS even if the game's FPS is spiking and thus creating a less than optimal experience.

I really like the idea of Histograms
http://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines

At just a glance they show you not only the average and minimum but also give you precise information on exactly what frame-rate range you should expect.

One of the first review Ryzen+mainstream GPU. Well then I think it performs admirably, especially the R5. Gonna be a budget choice for new gaming rig.

That's for sure. $170 for a 4 core 8 thread CPU that's only 10% on average slower than Intel's 7700k, comes with a better stock cooler and OC unlocked on a cheaper platform. They might not have to lower the price on the 7700k (people will always pay for the best) but everything that Ryzen can match on pure gaming performance will need a severe price cut.

 

[HoriZon]

I made an account just to thank you for this novel idea, and the completeness of the review(Dont take this lightly, I literally have no social media except an account to post on wccftech to get on the huge Ryzen post train via disquis, which would get you a ton more comments if you used.)

A question, I am embarrassed to say as I am near completion of my CS degree, I still do not fully understand how a low resolution translates to more work on the CPU, rather than GPU, can you or someone please explain this in detail please? Also given this fact, why is it that the ti does so much better in 1080p if once again 1080 is more CPU intensive, I feel like these two things conflict?

Thank you,
HoriZon

 

[Puiu]

The results are better than I expected, especially when you have a GPU like the GTX1070.

 

[HoriZon]

Ohh, and hats of to AMD! GG, cant wait till us programmers stop being lazy and code for more cores/threads. I really see the partnership between Bethesda really opening things up, and Mantle could merc Windows, and be HUGE for AMD for both their CPU results I have seen, and GPUs significantly.

I would love to see a review on windows game mode, or if their are more intensive plans for it. I honestly thought I was going to boot into a stripped down GameMode, like SafeMode, and rock it. I hear windows store games take benefit, sigh!

 

[Puiu]

I made an account just to thank you for this novel idea, and the completeness of the review(Dont take this lightly, I literally have no social media except an account to post on wccftech to get on the huge Ryzen post train via disquis, which would get you a ton more comments if you used.)

A question, I am embarrassed to say as I am near completion of my CS degree, I still do not fully understand how a low resolution translates to more work on the CPU, rather than GPU, can you or someone please explain this in detail please? Also given this fact, why is it that the ti does so much better in 1080p if once again 1080 is more CPU intensive, I feel like these two things conflict?

Thank you,
HoriZon

After a certain point, a higher resolution will hit a bottleneck in the GPU. It just can't work fast enough to keep the CPU saturated.
At lower resolutions the GPU will output a frame as fast as it can get the information needed from the CPU so a better CPU will give more FPS.

In general when building a PC you want to hit a happy medium of CPU and GPU performance (with the GPU being a bit more important). You will buy the best combination that can fit in your budget.

 

[Satish Mallya]

I made an account just to thank you for this novel idea, and the completeness of the review(Dont take this lightly, I literally have no social media except an account to post on wccftech to get on the huge Ryzen post train via disquis, which would get you a ton more comments if you used.)

A question, I am embarrassed to say as I am near completion of my CS degree, I still do not fully understand how a low resolution translates to more work on the CPU, rather than GPU, can you or someone please explain this in detail please? Also given this fact, why is it that the ti does so much better in 1080p if once again 1080 is more CPU intensive, I feel like these two things conflict?

Thank you,
HoriZon

CPU doesn't draw pixels. The GPU does that.

The CPU does other things that don't change with resolution e.g. physics, geometry, collision, AI, etc.

The more pixels you have, the greater the load on the GPU.

The framerate is limited by the slowest component - thus, easing the load on the GPU forces the CPU to be the bottleneck.

 

[Steve]

Thanks for the nice article.

Part of my takeaway from this is that 'bottleneck' testing is misleading. Testing everything with a high end card and trying to come to conclusions about performance of a CPU doesn't always work, so I'm happy that you tested with a few (although I'd be interested in how AMD cards fare).

For example Battlefield 1 with a 1080 Ti gets 130/152 for an i5-7600K and 128/141 for 'Ryzen 1600X' but 85/109 and 95/106 for the 1070. That higher min frame rate would place the Ryzen higher than the Core i5. Of course, it may just be that min frame rate is a bad measure of actual performance, and percentiles would show them to be closer.

Min and Average are in general not an optimal solution. For min, you are looking at the lowest frame rate produced through a benchmarking run. Unfortunately one or two instances of 16 FPS could very well mislead. Sometimes games will have a very specific set of conditions set off and cause a random drop in FPS or perhaps windows decided to run certain background tasks. For any benchmark I would throw out any outlying minimum frames that do not display any consistency.

Average, on the other hand, may give you an idea of the performance of the hardware but it is abject of giving you a picture of consistency. Sure with higher performance you can expect higher FPS but what frame range exactly will you be getting? It's entirely possible to maintain a high average FPS even if the game's FPS is spiking and thus creating a less than optimal experience.

I really like the idea of Histograms
http://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines

At just a glance they show you not only the average and minimum but also give you precise information on exactly what frame-rate range you should expect.

One of the first review Ryzen+mainstream GPU. Well then I think it performs admirably, especially the R5. Gonna be a budget choice for new gaming rig.

That's for sure. $170 for a 4 core 8 thread CPU that's only 10% on average slower than Intel's 7700k, comes with a better stock cooler and OC unlocked on a cheaper platform. They might not have to lower the price on the 7700k (people will always pay for the best) but everything that Ryzen can match on pure gaming performance will need a severe price cut.

It's an average from three runs...

 

[amstech]

Pretty impressive in many scenarios no doubt.
These Ryzen chips will be a great option for those who don't want to overclock much (or at all) while also saving $$ on a formidable budget build. Excellent gaming results overall.

For me personally I will continue to stick with Intel as I want to get the most of out my new GPU at 1440p/75Hz, and also achieve 5.0GHz. I found out the 6800K can not go much past 4.3GHz!! Damnit! Now I don't know what I want again.

 

[manigma]

I am glad I bought the $199 i5 7500 instead of waiting for Ryzen Quad / Hexa cores. Paired with GTX 1080 an i5 totally crushes Ryzen's midrange cpu's.

 

[oldikes]

I am glad I bought the $199 i5 7500 instead of waiting for Ryzen Quad / Hexa cores. Paired with GTX 1080 an i5 totally crushes Ryzen's midrange cpu's.

uh no, no it doesnt, all the intel CPUs here are running at 4.8 Ghz, not 3.4 w/3.8 boost ghz, yours would actually be running roughly 75-85% as fast at best as the 7600k here.

 

[OcelotRex]

Such an interesting preview. Thanks Steve for the insight. I must ask though:

 

[NightAntilli]

I made an account just to thank you for this novel idea, and the completeness of the review(Dont take this lightly, I literally have no social media except an account to post on wccftech to get on the huge Ryzen post train via disquis, which would get you a ton more comments if you used.)

A question, I am embarrassed to say as I am near completion of my CS degree, I still do not fully understand how a low resolution translates to more work on the CPU, rather than GPU, can you or someone please explain this in detail please? Also given this fact, why is it that the ti does so much better in 1080p if once again 1080 is more CPU intensive, I feel like these two things conflict?

Thank you,
HoriZon

After a certain point, a higher resolution will hit a bottleneck in the GPU. It just can't work fast enough to keep the CPU saturated.
At lower resolutions the GPU will output a frame as fast as it can get the information needed from the CPU so a better CPU will give more FPS.

In general when building a PC you want to hit a happy medium of CPU and GPU performance (with the GPU being a bit more important). You will buy the best combination that can fit in your budget.

It's not a guarantee that it's a CPU bottleneck though. Might as well be a memory bottleneck.

 

[Puiu]

It's not a guarantee that it's a CPU bottleneck though. Might as well be a memory bottleneck.

yes that can be too, but unless you have a beast of a PC, the memory will not play a huge role in getting higher FPS. It might help AMD more than Intel though since the "infinity fabric" runs at half the speed of the RAM, but even there it will not be amazing.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I made an account just to thank you for this novel idea, and the completeness of the review(Dont take this lightly, I literally have no social media except an account to post on wccftech to get on the huge Ryzen post train via disquis, which would get you a ton more comments if you used.)

A question, I am embarrassed to say as I am near completion of my CS degree, I still do not fully understand how a low resolution translates to more work on the CPU, rather than GPU, can you or someone please explain this in detail please? Also given this fact, why is it that the ti does so much better in 1080p if once again 1080 is more CPU intensive, I feel like these two things conflict?

Thank you,
HoriZon

Ryzen (CPU) Benchmarking @ 1080p Explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TId-OrXWuOE&t=0s

 

[meric]

Just as what I was expecting from R5. i7's positions in the market are in question now. Prosumer-oriented i7s are in question too. Would you pay extra $ for i7 or get a cheaper AMD alternative for a similar experience? And intel has no competition in the low end / low to mid segments other than the lowest end pentium models. i5s have only one unlocked competitor, 7600k, and that doesn't come so cheap (still needs high end motherboard) plus is not so much ahead of AMD counterparts compared to cost difference. What I draw from this article as a conclusion is that, only if you have high end GPU you have an "excuse" to buy faster intel CPUs

 

[andy234]

I don't know much about the ins-&-outs of chips, but since the Ryzen 5 chips have the same cores as the 7 chips just disabled, would it be somehow possible to "hack" the 5 chips to enable all the cores?

 

[Evernessince]

It's an average from three runs...

That was not a strike against your article steve, I was just commenting on those methods in general. Adding multiple runs will of course iron out consistency for averages and for mins removing the outlying frames will remove unreasonable spikes that do not occur with frequency.

 

[christiangeli]

Nice benchmark, interesting to see cpu with normal video card

 

[Reehahs]

Such an interesting preview. Thanks Steve for the insight. I must ask though:

I was wondering the same thing. That display cabinet looks very nice.

Fantastic article, it drives home the point that a person going for R5 or i5 would not necessarily be able to afford *,*80/*,*90 GPU. AMD would get a nice boost if additional cores could be unlocked simply from the bios like what happened in Phenom generation.

 

[Papacheeks]

This is a bad analysis.

You say your not making it about Clock speed and yet you don't try and have the intel cpu's be at the same or close clock speed as Ryzen? Which would give you a more accurate comparison for what the other cores are doing and for comparing the difference with SMT off/on.

Like how are any of these good bench marks?

 

[dirtyferret]

Sweet great review if only for ballpark simulation; I had a feeling the 1600 would offer more or less the same gaming performance as the 1800 and by the time games need those extra cores both CPUs will be outdated and under performing against the market.

A little eye opening on the i3 numbers though, as a gaming CPU it may have a shorter lifespan then first believed.

 

[Papacheeks]

Sweet great review if only for ballpark simulation; I had a feeling the 1600 would offer more or less the same gaming performance as the 1800 and by the time games need those extra cores both CPUs will be outdated and under performing against the market.

A little eye opening on the i3 numbers though, as a gaming CPU it may have a shorter lifespan then first believed.

Did you even read how they set up these test's? And how this gives us a idea not the whole picture? You wonder if overclocking wise you can take the x1600 higher? Also they are comparing a cpu that needs some software patches on the game side to use the new architecture let alone alleviate the issues with the SMT.

Also comparing CPU's clocked at 4.8ghz vs 3.9-4.0ghz is really disingenuous.

Also add in the fact it's been proven faster DDR4 ram 2933,3200,3500 results in 16%+ increase in performance in Ryzen.

These just like Linus Tech tips did are only giving you an idea, not the whole picture of performance.