Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X, 1600 and 1600X. US$ 169-249

DuronBurgerMan said:
In that graph, they assumed 6c/12t part would be 3.3/3.7. Top 6 core part looks to be 3.6/4.0. Early reports THOUGHT it would 3.3/3.7, but apparently not. This likely means Ryzen 1600X will be faster than the 7700k in multithreaded applications/content creation. But obviously the lead will not be so dramatic as with the 8 core Ryzens. The 1600X's value will probably be based on a comparison with the 7600k, and it should dominate the 7600k in multithreaded applications, since the 7600k lacks hyperthreading. For gaming performance, I doubt the 6 core Ryzens will vary much from the 8 core parts. It will be slower than the 1800X, but not by much I suspect.
Click to expand...

AMD-Ryzen-geschaetzte-Workstation-Performance.png


The above graph was an early estimation (before launch). Final clocks are higher than expected (3.6/4.0), but in the other hand reviews have shown that RyZen IPC is lower than expected. The lower IPC compensates for the higher clocks and the result is that the top 6C Ryzen, the 1600X, performs very much as above graph predicted for a SKU #3.

Anandtech has a modern estimation of the performance of the 4C and 6C, based in data from their review of the 1800X. Ananadtech finds the same situation that we expected before launch, with the 1600X behind the i7-7700k in both multithread and single thread

R5EstimatesST.png


R5EstimatesMT.png


Both AMD and Anandtech seem to position the 1600X as a competitor for the i5-7600k. The 6C Ryzen will be substantially faster in heavily multithreaded workloads, whereas the Kabylake i5 will be substantially faster in single thread and slightly multithreaded workloads.

On games, we know that the i5 is able to compete with the top 1800X.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Now, the 4 core Ryzens might be more interesting. It's too bad about them not disabling a CCX instead of slicing off 2 cores from each CCX... but I started to think about this a little more. Maybe it's NOT going to hurt them much. After all, this means for the 1500 Ryzen, each core will have double the L3 cache available to it. That might compensate somewhat.

The 4 core Ryzens are probably a better buy for some, because if the choice is Intel dual core or Ryzen quad... the quad is a much better buy. Yeah, the Intel duals might STILL win in gaming, but now you're talking a serious multitasking deficiency even for the casual user. Duals just don't cut it anymore. For the budget user, even if you must sacrifice some FPS, you're probably still going to be a lot happier with a quad over a dual just on general use computing. Opening browsers and sh*t. Unzipping sh*t. Downloading sh*t. It's pretty easy to saturate a dual core these days. And then it's back to wanting to chuck your computer out the nearest window. I bet you those cheap-*ss Ryzen quads are going to sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

I don't see how more L3 cache will solve anything. If you have more threads than fit in two cores, the scheduler will assign threads to cores in the other CCX. If threads are dependent then data will have to be migrated from one CCX to another CCX and we have the same problem that with the 8C models.

The only advantage of more L3 cache per core is that it would reduce accesses to main memory, improving performance in certain workloads, but in other other hand the quads have lower clocks, which will affect all workloads.

Some quads like the 1500X will compete with the i5-7500. Other quads like the 1400 would compete with i3. The 1400 will win in heavily threaded worklaods, whereas the i3 will win in single thread, slightly threaded workloads, and games.
 
juanrga said:
I don't see how more L3 cache will solve anything. If you have more threads than fit in two cores, the scheduler will assign threads to cores in the other CCX. If threads are dependent then data will have to be migrated from one CCX to another CCX and we have the same problem that with the 8C models.

The only advantage of more L3 cache per core is that it would reduce accesses to main memory, improving performance in certain workloads, but in other other hand the quads have lower clocks, which will affect all workloads.

Some quads like the 1500X will compete with the i5-7500. Other quads like the 1400 would compete with i3. The 1400 will win in heavily threaded worklaods, whereas the i3 will win in single thread, slightly threaded workloads, and games.
Click to expand...

Probably right on the positioning of competition -- I wouldn't suggest the 1600X is a real competitor for the 7700k, only that it will beat it in multithreading (but not by all that much - we'll see when the official reviews take place). That's why I've no interest in the 1600X. But compared to a 7600k, it starts to look a lot better. Three times the threads and two extra cores. It will be much better in workstation sh*t than the 7600. And it may not suffer much in gaming compared to the 1800X. So maybe a good value for mixed use or workstation use on a tight budget. Budget gaming still best with 7600 though.

It's a theme that we'll see repeated for every comparison, I think. Ryzen will win in multithreading compared to its relative competitors... and will lose in gaming.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
But it's nice and fair to pit the "poor" 4GHz 1700 against a 5GHz 7700K in something like Cinebench or Handbrake right? Bias much?

And again, deliding is not a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. Deliding is something only done by enthusiast; period, full stop.



Hey, that's just fine. It is your right to have your opinion and be completely wrong no matter how misguided you may be. Those of us that really care and crave explanations and understanding found out that minimums are just one data point that mean fuck all without frame pacing data quite some time ago. And there's a plethora of information out there at our fingertips, all we need to do is search, read and do some reaserch.
Click to expand...

If you are gaming at 1080p, 1440p, or 4K, the minimums translate to whether or not you can maintain a specific framerate for vsync (i.e. 60 Hz). If you have vsync on, the fluctuation between high and not as high framerates shouldn't be noticeable, should it? The frame pacing question makes sense if you want to run above 60 Hz, but is there any CPU/GPU combination that is outputting 144Hz minimums at maximum graphics detail at any of those resolutions?

The reason why I ask is because I'm still locked at 1080p 60Hz and I imagine a lot of other people are as well.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
If you are gaming at 1080p, 1440p, or 4K, the minimums translate to whether or not you can maintain a specific framerate for vsync (i.e. 60 Hz). If you have vsync on, the fluctuation between high and not as high framerates shouldn't be noticeable, should it? The frame pacing question makes sense if you want to run above 60 Hz, but is there any CPU/GPU combination that is outputting 144Hz minimums at maximum graphics detail at any of those resolutions?

The reason why I ask is because I'm still locked at 1080p 60Hz and I imagine a lot of other people are as well.
Click to expand...

Every serious gamer and enthusiast turns vsync off, or might only use adaptive vsync (rarely mind you). Why you are even asking is beyond silly.

Competitive gamers will run their games at 1080p or 1440p at low to medium settings to ensure maximum frame rates at 120-144Hz because in competitive gaming fluidity is king and eye candy will get you killed, full stop.

4K isn't part of the equation yet as there are no high refresh rate panels nor are there any GPUs that can push enough frames at those pixel counts yet. 4K is better suited for cinematic games such as Tomb Raider and the like, and for those types of games it's great.

144Hz monitors aren't expensive anymore, you can get a 24" acer 144Hz monitor for $199.
 
A competitive gamer needs a 7700k and the beefiest GPU they can afford (or more than one of them, if possible). Done deal. But competitive gaming is a luxury most of us can't afford. I haven't had that kind of time to dedicate to gaming in like a decade.

I don't know. Clearly, the Ryzens aren't good for the purist gamer. I wouldn't buy one for that.

Ryzen's sweet spot is for the mixed-use guy. You know, folks who use their rig for work and play both. I mean, the encoding performance on Ryzen is retarded-good. I'm going to save real, tangible time on encoding and rendering sh*t in After Effects. I'm also a developer, so I will likely see savings when compiling, also. These aren't "oh, I'm getting some higher theoretical fps that I don't notice" benefits. These are real time savings that make a big f*cking difference in my day-to-day work. Huge. It may literally save *hours* each day. Before Ryzen, my options were $1050 for a 6900k, or suffer.

And paired with a Geforce 1080 Ti, I've no worries when it comes to gaming anyway. It's going to be a beautiful rig.
 
Yeah, gaming on Ryzen is still good. Not better than literally the best gaming CPU ever made, but more than adequate.

If the cheaper Ryzen chips are still decent in gaming, and great in other tasks, I could see it being a compelling option for multi-purpose budget rigs.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Every serious gamer and enthusiast turns vsync off, or might only use adaptive vsync (rarely mind you). Why you are even asking is beyond silly.

Competitive gamers will run their games at 1080p or 1440p at low to medium settings to ensure maximum frame rates at 120-144Hz because in competitive gaming fluidity is king and eye candy will get you killed, full stop.

4K isn't part of the equation yet as there are no high refresh rate panels nor are there any GPUs that can push enough frames at those pixel counts yet. 4K is better suited for cinematic games such as Tomb Raider and the like, and for those types of games it's great.

144Hz monitors aren't expensive anymore, you can get a 24" acer 144Hz monitor for $199.
Click to expand...

I would consider myself a serious gamer and I use vsync because there is no point having my graphics card pushing more than 60 FPS if I am not going to see it. I do not play competitive FPS games, but I have logged a lot of hours in a wide variety of other games where I do not feel that my experience has been diminished because of vsync. I can't be the only person that plays non-competitive FPS games on here, can I?
 
Yeah, I always use VSync because the screen tearing ruins the experience for me. Some people don't care or notice the tearing, same as some people don't care or notice a small amount of lag.

If I am playing online competitively I will play at 144Hz GSync, which is sort of the best of both worlds.
 
This is all pretty much ending up as I expected. Which is that, at the end of the day, AMD is stirring the shit out of the pot and even the die hard Blue fanboys will be picking up their favorite gaming quads for less money. Intel will react to this with pricing cuts and other measures. They're not going to lay down and let AMD walk all over them.

Good time to be involved in tech, looking forward to more.
 
Last edited:
Seeings as many current games are not taking advantage of 8 core systems, the Ryzen quads at the much lower prices could be a decent buy. I still believe that games will be fully threaded in the near future but if you buy a Ryzen 5 now, you can always pop in a new CPU down the road when that happens.
 
I am interesting in seeing what a 4c/8t Ryzen can do. I am more interested if it can clock higher than the 8c/16t parts....I guess we will find out soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top