I really like what I am seeing with 1600. It is almost just as fast as 1700 in multithreaded situations. I might see myself upgrading my aging 2500K to it. I am a strict gamer so Intel would be more sensible choice for now BUT games will not be single thread performance dependant for long, and I also want to try AMD again. Last one I got was Barton. Plus DRM locking of 4K movies to Kaby Lakes only makes me feel icky inside...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 & 1400 CPU Review @ [H]
ThatsAgood1jay
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,029
Man, AMD have really nailed this, will we see mass OEM adoption of these processors?
Can't wait to see their new GPU's and hope they can nail it there as well.
Can't wait to see their new GPU's and hope they can nail it there as well.
It's not it's already happening. DX12/Vulkan is going to drive people to higher core units (assuming Nvidia fixes their drivers). Professional apps have been multithreading for ages with the exception of Adobe. The 7700 is blindingly fast and probably best DX11 CPU ever. But it's the last hurrah, like the "death of V8's" with the Voodoo and Hellcat, the next i7 will be a 6 core CPU. So basically you're paying $300 nowadays for developmental dead end.
SighTurtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,410
People were wondering about how AMD was gonna set up the CCX on the Ryzen 5 series, according to Linus, AMD decided to go with disabling one core on both CCX for the Ryzen 5 1600 skus, and two cores each on the 1500 skus. Apparently, this allows them to retain the full 16 MB of cache while still using Ryzen 7 chips (dies?)
I think you make a very valid reply here, but....considering the ever-increasing development cycle of these multi-million dollar 'AAA' game titles, I think Cobra was correct.
I think that by the time games in current development are using the extra threads, some of these new 6-Core/12 thread CPU's might be really borderline for use in bleeding-edge games. Right now, the best GAMING CPU is the i7-7700K like you mentioned. The potential longevity of Ryzen is totally based on the hope and speculation that future games will perform basically in proportion to multi-threaded synthetic benchmarks like Cinebench. The tests that I have seen in games like Ashes of the Singularity, which is basically a demo-engine that was purposely designed for DX12, show that improvements for Ryzen CPUs also improved performance for Intel CPU's by similar figures. It also showed that performance gains don't scale in a linear fashion in relation to the number of cores. On top of this, usually higher core counts mean more heat and lower IPC per core, which increases the effect of diminishing returns. I will guess that current Ryzen CPU's will close the gap to a small degree in the future, but I don't see it surpassing the 7700K in games.
But I am just speculating: speculating-upon-speculation, and this is why I don't buy hardware based on speculation.
CknSalad
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 27, 2014
- Messages
- 442
In two years or so, the current mainstream i7 will become an i5 whereas a hexacore cpu will become the i7 in terms of gaming. We probably will not see a big affect in fps in games for another 3-4 years just like when the original i5 and i7 came out. AMD 1600 is probably second behind the 1700 in terms of value and performance. 1700 is still the best overall cpu in my eyes as you can literally do whatever type of workload you want with it as its an octocore at a mere $330. The AMD 1600 really makes the case for the best overall mid-range 'gamer' cpu at just $220. The important thing is that AMD pretty much made the i5 rather irrelevant and to me the $200-250 cpu market is a huge chunk of pc builders that are mainly gaming and maybe doing some other productivity or light photoshop or video encoding stuff. That being said, if you are purely gaming, I admit that the i7 7700k overclocked is the cpu to go with for now as it has better IPC and is a very mature, stable platform.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,602
Well at least I know you don't read the articles on HardOCP.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,602
Damn shame someone was not on top of this a month earlier.
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/03/16/amd_ryzen_5_processors_core_ccx_allocation
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Hard to beat the price to performance ratio that AMD provides...finally. Feels like the X2 3800+ days all over again!
shad0w4life
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 689
yet every review site doesn't seem to use the 7700k in their benchmarks for new GPUs which is odd.
Throw in a say 1070 and doom vulkan, 7700 loses
ROTR DX12 is very very close (and beats a lot of the other ROTR benchmarks using a 1080)
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-review-benchmarks
Along with some of the FuryX and 480 discrepancies showing the fury X outperforming a titax XP with a ryzen CPU and you have yourself a not so solid statement.
Singularity_Survivor
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 212
Big picture, Ryzen will force Intel to evolve from its stagnate 4/8 'mainstream' business model to an 8/16 strategy, not to mention having to lower its price points.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
I'm sold. Thanks for doing the 1600 review as these were hard to come by.
Thanks for the review and sorry for the blindly game-and-upgreade-centered rant to follow.*
Being short on time when they were released, glancing at the conclusions from the various reviews felt I was finally going to pull the trigger on an upgrade using a 1600X... but going back over the reviews and watching some of the associated videos in full for the details of the gaming benchmarks, seeing where the overclocked i7 2600K can fall in relation to both Ryzen and Kabylake, depressingly, just makes me again wish I had picked up Sandy Bridge back in the day.
I share the view that it doesn't make much sense buying a 4C/4T CPU anymore, and even 4C/8T feels as though it should be waning, but as someone that's looking to upgrade a gaming PC on an older i5 platform I don't see much point in giving either Intel or AMD money at this point. Intel's generation to generation performance increase doesn't seem worth it and the lower core and thread counts should start to show its age in the coming years, and on the AMD's side even things like Benchmark of the Singularity with the recent work for Ryzen optimizations doesn't appear to be offering any great advantage for the higher core thread count R5 and R7 combined with the number of games announced using either DX12 or Vulkan let alone due for release in the next few years is looking rather anemic.
Understand that wanting to future-proof is a consideration, but also find it somewhat a fool's errand here - I think its safe to say we're going to see a number of generations and iterations of CPUs from both Intel and AMD in the time it takes new API and higher thread counts being widely adopted in gaming, so if you're not going to see much benefit now or for a couple of years compared to existing hardware, why not keep waiting?
*Acknowledge, far, far, far more compelling for people with heavier/mixed workloads, or needing to build a new system right now.
Being short on time when they were released, glancing at the conclusions from the various reviews felt I was finally going to pull the trigger on an upgrade using a 1600X... but going back over the reviews and watching some of the associated videos in full for the details of the gaming benchmarks, seeing where the overclocked i7 2600K can fall in relation to both Ryzen and Kabylake, depressingly, just makes me again wish I had picked up Sandy Bridge back in the day.
I share the view that it doesn't make much sense buying a 4C/4T CPU anymore, and even 4C/8T feels as though it should be waning, but as someone that's looking to upgrade a gaming PC on an older i5 platform I don't see much point in giving either Intel or AMD money at this point. Intel's generation to generation performance increase doesn't seem worth it and the lower core and thread counts should start to show its age in the coming years, and on the AMD's side even things like Benchmark of the Singularity with the recent work for Ryzen optimizations doesn't appear to be offering any great advantage for the higher core thread count R5 and R7 combined with the number of games announced using either DX12 or Vulkan let alone due for release in the next few years is looking rather anemic.
Understand that wanting to future-proof is a consideration, but also find it somewhat a fool's errand here - I think its safe to say we're going to see a number of generations and iterations of CPUs from both Intel and AMD in the time it takes new API and higher thread counts being widely adopted in gaming, so if you're not going to see much benefit now or for a couple of years compared to existing hardware, why not keep waiting?
*Acknowledge, far, far, far more compelling for people with heavier/mixed workloads, or needing to build a new system right now.
SighTurtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,410
CPUs are hitting a wall. AMD just reached the wall now with Ryzen, but Intel been stuck here.
You can bet AMDs next goal is hit that 4.0GHZ base clock from 3.6, and OC around 4.4 to 4.5 with zen 2. That is pretty much all they have to worry about with 5% or so increase in IPC. Seriously these chips are just unbeatable at their price. $219 for ryzen 1600 is a steal. OC that baby to 3.9 or 4 if you get a decent board and call it a day. What a value!
Ryzen 1700 though seems to be hot seller at Newegg. Over 100 reviews already on newegg.
Ryzen 1700 though seems to be hot seller at Newegg. Over 100 reviews already on newegg.
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,866
As mentioned more then once in this thread, it is due to Nvidia's drivers, and every review site using Nvidia cards in Ryzen reviews. Nvidia will fix things. Eventually. Dual RX480's/FuryX show Ryzen knocking on 7700K front door due to properly optimized DX12 drivers.
SighTurtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,410
Has anyone asked AMD or Nvidia what they think about this?
Singularity_Survivor
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 212
1700 at a minimum for [H] members, at least in my opinion.......
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
probably the ryzen 3 and ryzen 5 1400 will be the primary OEM chips, 1600 possibly for the high end OEM but intels sorta got that market on lock down right now. the mobo manufactures and AMD need to get their shit together with the bios before OEM's will start producing ryzen based systems.
yes and no, the gaming performance isn't any different between the 1600 and 1700 really nor is the overclocking, so unless you're doing something that absolutely demands having 16 threads the 1600's the way to go if you decide to build an AMD rig. i'd say 12 threads is more than enough for at least 90% of people, maybe in 2-3 years 16 threads will become a must for gaming when developers pull their heads out of their asses(lets hope the affordability of ryzen jump starts it though so we don't have to wait that long). but unless you're a streamer, encoder/video editor, or do image rendering 16 threads is still a niche market.
i don't think that's true. i will agree that intel's current cpu architecture has basically hit a wall which is why they gave up on the tick-tock upgrade path. but i feel ryzen still has a lot of potential with their variation of hyperthreading. we'll just have to see what changes they make in future generations of the chip. but bringing Jim Keller back was probably the smartest thing AMD's done in the last 10 years, lol.
Last edited:
Sodapopjones
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
1600 + MSI Tomahawk + Geil EVO X 3200 = Profit?
It seems like a lot of the reviews I have read are running that setup, or the ASUS B350 Prime + EVO X Ram. I'm debating going the fugly route and going with an MSI Krait Gaming X370 and the Giel Forza 3200 or just going with what the reviews have showed, a Tomahawk and a set of EVO X. I know folks in the UK apparently are up in arms over the lack of support for the X370 MSI boards, and if you've ever read my posts you will know how much I hate MSI, but really, is there any other game in town that works at the moment that's not an ASUS/MSI board?
It seems like a lot of the reviews I have read are running that setup, or the ASUS B350 Prime + EVO X Ram. I'm debating going the fugly route and going with an MSI Krait Gaming X370 and the Giel Forza 3200 or just going with what the reviews have showed, a Tomahawk and a set of EVO X. I know folks in the UK apparently are up in arms over the lack of support for the X370 MSI boards, and if you've ever read my posts you will know how much I hate MSI, but really, is there any other game in town that works at the moment that's not an ASUS/MSI board?
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
right now i'm preferring asrock over pretty much everyone except asus's crosshair board..msi's bios support has been pretty mediocre.
Asrock b350 pro is a good cheap board.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
Was originally eyeing the 1600, but for only $30 extra I opted to go for the 1600X for my HTPC. I am now a two time Ryzen owner.
Sodapopjones
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
I was under the impression ASUS/MSI were among the first to offer better ram support, MSI dropped a BIOS yesterday, and I'm aware they stopped offering Beta BIOS's.
What is ram support like, from my understanding the Taichi is the ASRock board to buy.
1700 still is best value and sales in Newegg and reviews show it. It's selling like hot cakes.
Sodapopjones
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
I don't really see the point in spending more than you have to on this revision... Once clocks go up, count me in for willy nilly mode, till then I want a new toy to play with.
seems like the 1700x is the loser of the two. 1700 or 1800x are selling the most if you go buy reviews on newegg and amazon.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
agree, it some what feels like it exists as justification of the cost of the 1800x but really doesn't need to be there since the price of the 1800x is exactly where it should be.
I'm sure there are still further optimizations coming for a number of games, and am curious despite being cynical about the number of developers that will either spend the time and money doing so on titles already released or well into development. However, I don't think nVidia's drivers are going to be a silver bullet across the board especially when you have other benchmarks where a RX480 or Fury X are used that still has it behind or on parity with Intel CPUs that themselves I didn't feel were compelling enough performance increases to justify an upgrade.
Like motherboard BIOS updates, Windows scheduler and power management, memory speeds and cache latency before it, I think the nVidia drivers are just the go to issue being cited at the moment (and hence so many review sites now making sure to include AMD graphics cards in their benchmarks) - once the reasons in those specific titles are found and addressed, like the other issues mentioned, it'll see improvement for those titles and make no difference in others. View it more as the whack-a-mole of a new platform, rather than edge cases either way making or breaking a platform.
And as you say, eventually. Happy to look at it again when that eventually comes... and if games on the whole are better threaded and this list or this list look any better before Intel and AMD release their next range of CPUs, I'll be very pleasantly surprised.
Last edited:
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,866
Plus cost of HSF. Get a crappy fan then I think the 1600 could match with its included. Buy a real HSF then you are in 1700 territory. If you are willing to spend bucks on a HSF the buy the 1600 and go 4Ghz. I don't understand the "X" models at all. Pay extra for no HSF? They all seem to hit the same mark. Am I right?
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,866
Clearly AMD cards are NOT holding Ryzen back and getting very competitive FPS with Intel. Under Nvidia, DX12 titles suck shit. Your point?
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,000
Late to this conversation, but what incentive does Nvidia have to optimize their drivers for Ryzen? What ACTUAL monetary benefit does that action entail? Spoiler-alert: Nvidia has no reason to or even a responsibility to optimize for their direct competitor.
More Ryzen sales = more revenue for AMD.
More revenue for AMD = More potential R&D money for RTG
More R&D money for RTG = only bad things for Nvidia's bottom line.
Nvidia should be doing everything they can to make EVERY AMD product flop if they want to keep their position.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
you answered your own question.. more ryzen sales = more reasons to fix their drivers so that those buying ryzen processors don't also buy AMD GPU's..
Last edited:
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
Nvidia drivers works better on AMD CPUs due to their much better multithreaded scaling. That's already been shown with FX CPUs.
I think there are examples of AMD cards performing worse on Ryzen than nVidia cards in DX11 titles compared to Intel, but picking out a couple of benchmarks from many isn't my point... otherwise I may as well cite Rocket League as AMD killing it on DX9!!11!!1
(To stress for me) I just don't see there being anything (and certainly not one thing) that is going to suddenly improve Ryzen's performance to the point where for current games its going to be performing any or significantly better than previous CPUs I passed on for an upgrade, including the 7700K. For future gaming, potential performance when developers come to the table with DX12 and increased thread counts to actually utilize the extra computing power sure, Ryzen I'd wager will come into its own, but why would I pay for that extra computing power to sit idle now when by the time I might see any real benefit from it I'll likely be here at [H] reading the review of the next iteration of Ryzen, sans new platform teething problems and with further improvements?
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
Nice to see a recent resident migrate back to his watering hole called Semi accurate, his IPC ~ Sandy arguments are getting no love at all there, won't be long before the permaban hits, then he will be back here sadly. I mean for a guy that was so high on cinebench for finding IPC he now avoids it like a cancer patient, now he tries to find IPC on games, oh dear.
Excuse me sir but, Cinebench keeps showing IPC is Haswell/Broadwell level, what AMD actually have an issue iwth is clock speed.
Excuse me sir but, Cinebench keeps showing IPC is Haswell/Broadwell level, what AMD actually have an issue iwth is clock speed.