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

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by Calavaro, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. Calavaro

    Calavaro [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,403
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2001
    The 1400 and 1500X are 4 core/8 thread parts and the 1600 and 1600X are 6 core/12 thread parts.
    How will they stack up you think?



    ryzen.png
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2017
  2. britjh22

    britjh22 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    272
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    R5 1400 4c/8t unlocked CPU for the same price as the i3-7350k, sounds good to me. It's a shame Toms doesn't do it's System Builders Marathons any more, as I would love to see how Ryzen stacks up at a set budget, I think it would be a winner.
     
  3. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    The 1700X is barely above the i3

    [​IMG]

    with lower clocks and half the number of cores/threads the R5 1400 would under the i3.
     
    mICKEL likes this.
  4. Schmave

    Schmave [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,693
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    It's too bad you can't "dislike" posts on here.
     
  5. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,512
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    You can't and if you voice any opposed opinion and it gets reported by anyone you get deleted. I get it ... these are not my forums, I don't own them, and they are privately owned, but what is the point in having a forum if you can't say anything if everything you say can be "Trolling". I bet I get a bad mark or banned for saying even this.

    5000 posts and 7+ years membership and a huge follower of Kyle and crew and yet I get Trolling deletions often. I guess I am not a politically correct sensitive little snowflake like the modern effeminate generation millennial. Yeah I said that.
     
    257Tony, c3k, dice144 and 4 others like this.
  6. wyqtor

    wyqtor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    It is actually above the Skylake i5 in your own graph. You don't seem to be a gamer, otherwise you'd know that min FPS is much more relevant than avg FPS.
     
    Kato1144 and Schmave like this.
  7. ZeroBarrier

    ZeroBarrier Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Minimum FPS means fuck all without frame pacing numbers. A higher minimum FPS doesn't mean shit if the FPS bounces between minimum and maximum consistantly; a one dip is better than several dips in FPS. As for the graph, it's an average graph depicting average numbers to get a rough look at performance.
     
    juanrga likes this.
  8. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,866
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    In other words, if AMD shows actual better minimums than Intel, it does not mean jack, got it. :D
     
    JustReason, thebufenator and Gideon like this.
  9. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,866
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    No, I think you mean an i3 is barely above an FX-8370. :D
     
  10. ZeroBarrier

    ZeroBarrier Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    I know you aren't that dense and that my comment didn't go straight over your head. I'll take the smiley at the end there as a /sarcasm tag.
     
  11. Gideon

    Gideon Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    453
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    So many people feeling Blue or is that Green with envy, dunno. I wonder how they will clock with less cores, prices look good.
     
  12. geok1ng

    geok1ng [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,593
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    The 1500X is the one to look closely. Intel's entire CPU lineup was handicapped by Ryzen 7 prices, and only the 7700K survived on the recommendation lists. There are a number of reasons to expect the 1500X to perform better than the Ryzen 7 chips in gaming, and offer a budget alternative to the 7700k. the 7600K may suffer another price cut and reach HTPC territory.
     
    Simplyfun likes this.
  13. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 Gawd

    Messages:
    1,019
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Literally none, actually, slow ass data fabric did not go anywhere.
     
  14. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    We have known for a while that silicon is worse in those and clocks are lower. The official slides confirm quad-core RyZen have lower clocks than octo-cores. CanardPC also said that the samples that they got lack all-core turbo.
     
  15. geok1ng

    geok1ng [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,593
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    the 1500X do not need to OC above 4.1Ghz to perform better than 8 cores. there quite a few scenarios where no data jump between clusters will reduce latency and improve real life gaming benchmarks. also it is priced waaayyyy below the 7700k.

    AMD has sieged the Intel castle and the only survivor left is in bad shape: there is a slightly more expensive 8c16T Ryzen that beats the 7700k in production tasks, and in a few weeks there will be a slightly slower 4c8t for half the 7700k price.

    Considering that the 7700K needs to be dellided to justify the yuugee price premium against Ryzen, i hope that Intel launches a 7790K with better TIM and clock bins to replace it.
     
  16. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Benchmarks show that the average performance gap between 4+0 and 2+2 is minimal: <5%.

    Also where is the confirmation that the 1500X is 4+0?
     
  17. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    TechSpot had to write an special article to explain basic matters about resolutions, bottlenecks, and performance

    http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html

    I guess they will have to write another article explaining why CPU gaming performance is ordered by averages and why minimums alone mean nothing.
     
  18. ZeroBarrier

    ZeroBarrier Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Sorry, I need to correct you here. The 7700K only needs deliding if you wish to overclock and seriously push the upper limits of the chip, period. It can be run happily stock without any deliding at all, and the only reason anyone delids is because they want to push limits, fact.
     
  19. Snowdog

    Snowdog Pasty Nerd with Poor Cardio

    Messages:
    7,322
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    But the new "ignore" filter is freaking Awesome!

    Say some new poster looks to be trolling with giant images in his post. Put him on ignore and all signs of him are obliterated forever. Even if other people fall for the troll bait, you still don't see it quotes.
     
    Schmave likes this.
  20. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Shintai likes this.
  21. geok1ng

    geok1ng [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,593
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Canadian?
    I usually thank those that corrected me.
    In this case there is a misunderstanding, not a disagreement.
    Some Ryzen gaming review pitted the poor 4.0GHz 1700 against a 5.0GHz 7700, some a 4.1 Ryzen ( an OC that quite a few 1800X can not perform) against a 5.1GHz 7700k. AFAIK, 5GHz is not your run of mill OC for a 7700K.
    OC is a big part of the 7700k value equation and its cheap TIM forces the user to invest more money on cooling than Ryzen's solution- no one would call a gamer meek if they pick a 1700, OC to 3.9 (which most 1700 can do) with stock cooler and call it a day.
     
  22. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,866
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Nope, I said exactly what I meant and meant that I think that is exactly what you said. You may want to check out the previous few years where minimums where trumpeted and the end all be all of gaming. (Of course, that was because AMD could not meet the same minimums as Intel but hey, revisionist history and all that.) :D
     
  23. geok1ng

    geok1ng [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,593
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
  24. sover

    sover [H]Lite

    Messages:
    80
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    Unfortunately the choice to cripple the performance of the 4core parts by splitting their cores across two CCXs really sours me to this release. I'll probably pick up a 6 core in a few months, but they could have really laid the hammer down on intel by making their 4 core parts a single CCX without the cross ccx communication problem it would likely have soundly beaten the i5 at a lower price making it a compelling part. As it is I'm guessing its performance will be closer to i3 in gaming than i5, which will make it a part with questionable application. If you want real performance in multithreaded apps you'll go 1700, if you want performance in single threaded apps you'll go Kabylake i5.
     
    Elios likes this.
  25. trueplaya4ever8

    trueplaya4ever8 n00bie

    Messages:
    59
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Hopefully they bring some more change to the current market... and they can help get Ryzen through their growing pains.
     
  26. luke51087

    luke51087 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,951
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    I think the ability for them to switch over to a single CCX would make way too many changes to their overall architecture which is probably why they went this route. The pricing is how they will stay in the game, hopefully they clock all to ~4ghz but i wouldnt expect much more.
     
  27. Spoonie_G

    Spoonie_G Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    207
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    They're quick to hit the "P*$$¥" button. No one is allowed to disagree anymore.
     
  28. ZeroBarrier

    ZeroBarrier Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    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.
     
  29. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    As said in another thread 4+0 was unlikely from a combinatorial point of view: it is much more probable to have two defective cores on each CCX than having four defective cores in the same CCX.
     
    Shintai likes this.
  30. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett HardOCP MasterChef Editor Staff Member

    Messages:
    42,962
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
  31. Gideon

    Gideon Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    453
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Thanks for getting a clear answer on it Kyle.
     
  32. CompletelyBrokn

    CompletelyBrokn n00bie

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    I understand the desire to see pure benchmarked results, however, in the real world you will only ever have one of them at your house. It's like buying a tv. Sure, there are plenty of higher priced TVs than the one you are likely getting that have a better picture and more features. However, you only notice when you are in the stores surrounded by the others and see it first hand. This is how benchmarks work. You only notice while you are looking at them. When you get home and power up a game, in a blind test you'd never notice the difference. That's the real appeal to Ryzen and the awesome move AMD is making. You don't have to be at the very top of the list to have a better buy. AMD doesn't have to beat intel, they just need to get so close you can't tell the difference in person.

    What we have here with AMD is 85-95% of the performance (in it's category and sometimes over 100%) for 1/3 to 1/2(or more) of the price of it's competitor. On a 60hz or even 75hz monitor, once both AMD and Intel systems can match that fps in a game the performance just becomes a pointless measurement of who's is biggest. Save your money and buy AMD.
     
    atom likes this.
  33. DuronBurgerMan

    DuronBurgerMan [H]Lite

    Messages:
    89
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    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.

    Either way, I've no interest. 8 core Ryzens were what piqued my attention. The 6 core parts are too close to the Intel i7 quads in work-related sh*t, and too far in gaming sh*t. Buuuuuut if you're a workstation user or livestreamer on a serious budget, they'd probably warrant a close look. Slap one of these in a cheap-*ss B350 board, and you got yourself some serious threads (three times the threads of a 7600k) on the cheap. But still, I'm thinking the 6 core Ryzen doesn't have as much of a market. You can make an argument that the 8 core Ryzen doesn't really compete against Intel quads, because it dominates them in workstation use. But the 6 core *is* a direct competitor for the Intel quads, and unless you're a budget workstation user (and even then, I'd tell you to get the 8 core if you possibly can), it doesn't seem like a good buy.

    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.
     
  34. Shintai

    Shintai 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,021
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    So even a quad will have the CCX penalty. Guess that saves the face of the 6 core.
     
    juanrga likes this.
  35. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    And it is going to be fun to be a developer, oh joys designing a game around the cache-CCX-data fabric and 4+4/3+3/2+2, when one is trying to scale a more complex game engine with new advanced functions and features.
    And of course this is compounded that they will then be having to approach multicore thread design separately to that of what they do for Intel.
    IMO they should not release the quad core until it has its own dedicated part with 1 CCX.
    Cheers
     
    juanrga likes this.
  36. Shintai

    Shintai 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,021
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Its pretty much like designing for a SMP system. Latency, bandwidth limitation and all.
    https://www.techpowerup.com/231585/amd-ryzen-infinity-fabric-ticks-at-memory-speed

    A single CCX would place the 6 core in a very bad position.

    Have it been tested or released yet what the actual cycle latency is between the CCXes? With the consoles its 190 cycles and more or less making it useless. Developers avoid it like the plague.
     
    juanrga likes this.
  37. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    It will still have latency even with improved bandwidth, some are surmising and assuming that latency can be reduced if they double the speed to parity with memory tick.
    Similar surmisation that there was no issue with inter-CCX thread and data dependency, which in reality we are seeing in games but not other apps and benchmark scenarios.
    Some are reaching this conclusion because higher memory speed is seeing some games with higher performance, but then I linked earlier from Digital Foundry showing the i6300 also could gain over 10% improvements in games from memory going up to 2666MHz from 2133MHz.
    Raises the question how much of the gain in Ryzen is just related to game with memory and how much benefiting the Infinity-Data Fabric, needs many more games tested IMO and ones that are known not to be sensitive to memory speeds.

    PCPer are going to test latency with various memory speeds at some point, along with heavier traffic across the Infinity Fabric (its concept as on-chip switch).
    Cheers
     
    juanrga and Shintai like this.
  38. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    The quad core for mainstream really needs to be dedicated 4-core die and not 2+2 as it will heavily be used with games as a consumer part.
    Unfortunately like you say the 6-core must always use 2 CCX and it helps costs with AMD by using those with defective cores disabled from the 8-core SKUs, still a bit of a pain for gaming as 3+3 though.
    The 6-core would still be good for nearly all other scenarios and have a market position when compared to a dedicated 4-core die.

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
    juanrga likes this.
  39. juanrga

    juanrga Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Yes, all those simulations that reviews have been doing of 4+0 parts are useless now because all commercial quads are 2+2.
     
    CSI_PC likes this.