The Ryzen 5 1600 (non-X) is virtually unchallenged in terms of value among enthusiasts processors. However, we've yet to determine the next best option for those who can't afford to spend $220 on AMD's six-core champion. For $170, the quad-core AMD Ryzen 5 1400 appears to be a great alternative.
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.
Since our initial review we've been looking at Ryzen from a few different angles. But there's a rumor going around that Ryzen's gaming performance is better than we think... if you use a Radeon GPU. Curious to see if there is any truth to the story, we put together a test designed to eliminate GPU bottlenecks and see what happens.
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.
AMD Ryzen processors made a strong impression last week, however time constraints resulted in more questions than answers when it came to the four games we managed to benchmark in time for launch. As promised, we're back to follow up on our initial 1080p testing with a more in-depth look at Ryzen's gaming performance across a 16 titles played at 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
After more than a decade of playing underdog and years of hyping its latest undertaking, we've reached the moment of truth: AMD Ryzen processors are on our testbed and we can finally discuss our findings.