G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight​ (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600 processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X review
Posted by: on: 04/11/2017 03:00 PM [
153 comment(s) ]
We put Ryzen 5 to the test as we benchmark the six-core Ryzen 5 1600X and four-core Ryzen 5 1500X processors. The 1600X we can tell you already is a bit of a beast, and that quad-core just oozes proper value.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Seikon
Member
Posts: 79
Member
Posts: 79
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:32 PM
Why did you used Rise of the tombraider dx12 , when it's a known fact dx12+nvidia card's run bad on ryzen for some reasson , specialy RoTB
Why did you used Rise of the tombraider dx12 , when it's a known fact dx12+nvidia card's run bad on ryzen for some reasson , specialy RoTB
mattm4
Senior Member
Posts: 179
Senior Member
Posts: 179
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:32 PM
The 1600x has killer performance for the price, but like before, bet the 1600 non x will yield the same performance once overclocked. AMD did great on that chip. My buddy wants to do a build, and is not wanting to spend a lot. 1600 is gold for him!
Cheers for great review Hilbert!
The 1600x has killer performance for the price, but like before, bet the 1600 non x will yield the same performance once overclocked. AMD did great on that chip. My buddy wants to do a build, and is not wanting to spend a lot. 1600 is gold for him!
Cheers for great review Hilbert!
vbetts
Posts: 15142
Posts: 15142
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:33 PM
And just as I predicted - the 1500X has a nearly (but not literally) negligible performance difference compared to the 1700 in gaming performance.
Good to know - that's what I wanted to get all along, but I'm glad this proved my point that we don't need anything more for the time being. I couldn't care less about getting beyond 60FPS, so any latency issues are irrelevant to me.
Looks like I know what I'll be buying next!
Looking at results though it's funny, only a few fps difference where real world you will not notice a difference and it's 4 threads less. So what does that saying about Ryzen 7 and application support...?
And just as I predicted - the 1500X has a nearly (but not literally) negligible performance difference compared to the 1700 in gaming performance.
Good to know - that's what I wanted to get all along, but I'm glad this proved my point that we don't need anything more for the time being. I couldn't care less about getting beyond 60FPS, so any latency issues are irrelevant to me.
Looks like I know what I'll be buying next!
Looking at results though it's funny, only a few fps difference where real world you will not notice a difference and it's 4 threads less. So what does that saying about Ryzen 7 and application support...?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7145
Senior Member
Posts: 7145
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:36 PM
Until consoles move beyond 8 cores, an 8-threaded CPU makes for a healthy minimum. When you go beyond 1080p, the GPU is the bottleneck, in which case having more cores still isn't going to help a whole lot. The 1600's lower clock speed currently puts it at a greater disadvantage for gaming purposes than the 1500X. By the time games can take advantage of 12 threads in a way that offers you performance you need, you'd be better off buying a new system anyway.
Of course, those who do stuff such as recording/streaming while gaming would have more of an interest in the 1600 or 1600X. I personally run little to nothing in the background (no music player, no AV, no recording stuff - nothing) so the 4c/8t is plenty sufficient for me. I won't be doing any production work on this PC either, so any non-gaming benefits are irrelevant to me.
EDIT:
I completely agree. In many cases, you can even remove another 4 threads and most games will still be playable. I have said from the very beginning that Ryzen 7 is not and wasn't intended to be for gamers. Though, it is undoubtedly the best-valued workstation CPU, if PCIe lanes and memory bandwidth aren't a top priority (obviously those are legitimate limiting factors to some people).
The R5 1600 (non-X) might be the best purchase for longevity. 4c8t is a bit old-ish atm.
Until consoles move beyond 8 cores, an 8-threaded CPU makes for a healthy minimum. When you go beyond 1080p, the GPU is the bottleneck, in which case having more cores still isn't going to help a whole lot. The 1600's lower clock speed currently puts it at a greater disadvantage for gaming purposes than the 1500X. By the time games can take advantage of 12 threads in a way that offers you performance you need, you'd be better off buying a new system anyway.
Of course, those who do stuff such as recording/streaming while gaming would have more of an interest in the 1600 or 1600X. I personally run little to nothing in the background (no music player, no AV, no recording stuff - nothing) so the 4c/8t is plenty sufficient for me. I won't be doing any production work on this PC either, so any non-gaming benefits are irrelevant to me.
EDIT:
Looking at results though it's funny, only a few fps difference where real world you will not notice a difference and it's 4 threads less. So what does that saying about Ryzen 7 and application support...?
I completely agree. In many cases, you can even remove another 4 threads and most games will still be playable. I have said from the very beginning that Ryzen 7 is not and wasn't intended to be for gamers. Though, it is undoubtedly the best-valued workstation CPU, if PCIe lanes and memory bandwidth aren't a top priority (obviously those are legitimate limiting factors to some people).
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 981
The R5 1600 (non-X) might be the best purchase for longevity. 4c8t is a bit old-ish atm.