Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X review
Posted by: on: 04/11/2017 02:00 PM [
154 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 > »
lexer98
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:08 PM
Nice review ! please if is possible upload some overclocked gaming results.
3200mhz memory not possible ?
Nice review ! please if is possible upload some overclocked gaming results.
3200mhz memory not possible ?
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2223
Senior Member
Posts: 2223
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:13 PM
Great review as always Hilbert.
(you might want to correct the use of 7 instead of 5 in a lot of the tables, before anyone notices, oops!)
Great review as always Hilbert.
(you might want to correct the use of 7 instead of 5 in a lot of the tables, before anyone notices, oops!)
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36804
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36804
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:20 PM
Ahw frack!
Ahw frack!
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:25 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!
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!
AlmondMan
Senior Member
Posts: 497
Senior Member
Posts: 497
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:29 PM
The R5 1600 (non-X) might be the best purchase for longevity. 4c8t is a bit old-ish atm.
The R5 1600 (non-X) might be the best purchase for longevity. 4c8t is a bit old-ish atm.
Seikon
Member
Posts: 79
Member
Posts: 79
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:32 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: 159
Senior Member
Posts: 159
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:32 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: 14754
Posts: 14754
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:33 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: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:36 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).
Bentez
Senior Member
Posts: 1307
Senior Member
Posts: 1307
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:37 PM
An OC'd 1600X seems like such great value coupled with a B350 board. Its just a shame that DDR4 prices are where they are, especially for the higher frequencies that Ryzen loves.
You have to pry my R7 from my cold dead hands but R5 6 core looks like the sweet spot for an all-rounder system. I would avoid that quad core personally..
An OC'd 1600X seems like such great value coupled with a B350 board. Its just a shame that DDR4 prices are where they are, especially for the higher frequencies that Ryzen loves.
You have to pry my R7 from my cold dead hands but R5 6 core looks like the sweet spot for an all-rounder system. I would avoid that quad core personally..
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36804
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36804
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:50 PM
Now what kind of **** reviewer would I be if I left out results just because they perform better or worse on Brand A versus B? Mate, the idea of a review is to provide you guys objective data and analysis so that you can see performance and features from many angles, hence you can make a decisive and informed purchase / decision.
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
Now what kind of **** reviewer would I be if I left out results just because they perform better or worse on Brand A versus B? Mate, the idea of a review is to provide you guys objective data and analysis so that you can see performance and features from many angles, hence you can make a decisive and informed purchase / decision.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:52 PM
Today's big winner is the six-core Ryzen 5 1600X, the processor is as fast in gaming as the 499 USD Ryzen 7 1800X is.
And that's when Ryzen 7 1800X sales dropped from the cliff...
Today's big winner is the six-core Ryzen 5 1600X, the processor is as fast in gaming as the 499 USD Ryzen 7 1800X is.
And that's when Ryzen 7 1800X sales dropped from the cliff...
Brasky
Senior Member
Posts: 2145
Senior Member
Posts: 2145
Posted on: 04/11/2017 02:55 PM
Why this site continues to thrive year after year.
Now what kind of **** reviewer would I be if I left out results just because they perform better or worse on Brand A versus B? Mate, the idea of a review is to provide you guys objective data and analysis so that you can see performance and features from many angles, hence you can make a decisive and informed purchase / decision.
Why this site continues to thrive year after year.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:13 PM
And DX11+NV+Ryzen runs faster than DX11+AMD+Ryzen.
What now
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
And DX11+NV+Ryzen runs faster than DX11+AMD+Ryzen.
What now
DarkLiberator
Member
Posts: 40
Member
Posts: 40
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:14 PM
1600X seems like insane value.
1600X seems like insane value.
Valken
Senior Member
Posts: 1471
Senior Member
Posts: 1471
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:19 PM
Like others have said OC 1600 looks like the killer value here, but that 1500x OC'ed is even better since the cpu + mb price is the same or less than a quad core Intel i7 cpu!!!
This just freaking amazing value for the kids or anyone who games and not need more than 4C/8T! It is totally overkill for bog office work too!
Just incredible! AMD is back big time!
I would have loved to see max OC for both 1500x/1600x on LCS for academic reasons.
Hilbert should just have a king of gaming shootout with Ryzen vs i7-7700k all OC'ed and valued on price.
Like others have said OC 1600 looks like the killer value here, but that 1500x OC'ed is even better since the cpu + mb price is the same or less than a quad core Intel i7 cpu!!!
This just freaking amazing value for the kids or anyone who games and not need more than 4C/8T! It is totally overkill for bog office work too!
Just incredible! AMD is back big time!
I would have loved to see max OC for both 1500x/1600x on LCS for academic reasons.
Hilbert should just have a king of gaming shootout with Ryzen vs i7-7700k all OC'ed and valued on price.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:20 PM
The 1600x looks like the "right" CPU for any person wanting to have a new and fast CPU without giving an arm and a leg. I can't believe it gives 12 threads and is basically priced as an i5. As an all-arounder is a no brainer.
I would still go for the 1600 and OC it, same for the 1700.
EDIT: When is AMD fixing the offset thing? It's really making these CPUs look worse, while they're actually extremely cold chips.
The 1600x looks like the "right" CPU for any person wanting to have a new and fast CPU without giving an arm and a leg. I can't believe it gives 12 threads and is basically priced as an i5. As an all-arounder is a no brainer.
I would still go for the 1600 and OC it, same for the 1700.
EDIT: When is AMD fixing the offset thing? It's really making these CPUs look worse, while they're actually extremely cold chips.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9474
Senior Member
Posts: 9474
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:26 PM
Damn pretty much 6850K performance for $400 less across the board.
Damn pretty much 6850K performance for $400 less across the board.
vase
Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ0SxpGzbw0
They OC'd it to 5.9Ghz on LN2 already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ0SxpGzbw0
They OC'd it to 5.9Ghz on LN2 already.
Raplapla
Member
Posts: 29
Member
Posts: 29
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:34 PM
The power consumption graphs for the overclocked system are the same as for the non-overclocked one.
Nice to see that these CPUs are efficient and competitive with Intel, for a more reasonable price than the Ryzen 7.
The power consumption graphs for the overclocked system are the same as for the non-overclocked one.
Nice to see that these CPUs are efficient and competitive with Intel, for a more reasonable price than the Ryzen 7.
msroadkill612
Member
Posts: 53
Member
Posts: 53
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:39 PM
A bit obvious, but i have not seen it mentioned re the "sufficient cores?" debate.
It matters not, if your current software is single threaded.
The reality is, that over time, more/most pertinent software will utilise multi core, and it will prioritise use of idle cores, increasingly freeing up the core your single threaded apps DO use.
e.g. it would make sense for a multi core savvy app to prioritise cores 5-8on an 8 core, and leave the first four cores free for more mature apps from the 4 core max era.
A bit obvious, but i have not seen it mentioned re the "sufficient cores?" debate.
It matters not, if your current software is single threaded.
The reality is, that over time, more/most pertinent software will utilise multi core, and it will prioritise use of idle cores, increasingly freeing up the core your single threaded apps DO use.
e.g. it would make sense for a multi core savvy app to prioritise cores 5-8on an 8 core, and leave the first four cores free for more mature apps from the 4 core max era.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 1019
Senior Member
Posts: 1019
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:53 PM
I feel like I may have jumped the gun too quickly lmao.
Why?
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
It's just one benchmark and it's representative of what people with the setup would get in it. HH did allot more benchmarks for you to compare and take your own conclusions.
An OC'd 1600X seems like such great value coupled with a B350 board. Its just a shame that DDR4 prices are where they are, especially for the higher frequencies that Ryzen loves.
You have to pry my R7 from my cold dead hands but R5 6 core looks like the sweet spot for an all-rounder system. I would avoid that quad core personally..
CL14 3200 is crazy expensive, but you don't really need that: CL15 or CL16 3000 will go just fine and will be allot cheaper.
Now what kind of **** reviewer would I be if I left out results just because they perform better or worse on Brand A versus B? Mate, the idea of a review is to provide you guys objective data and analysis so that you can see performance and features from many angles, hence you can make a decisive and informed purchase / decision.
Well said, it's not like we base our purchase decisions out of CPUz benchmark (for example) but from the hole perspective.
And that's when Ryzen 7 1800X sales dropped from the cliff...
People buying the 1800X are of the same kind buying Intel i7 for gaming (when all of the internet reviewers say its better to spend the extra money on GPU if you're on a budget): they just want the best. At the price R7 1700 is a steal but on a budget: R5 1400 will be king.
ATM I'm fine with my system but I'm most certain I won't be going Blue with my next build.
I feel like I may have jumped the gun too quickly lmao.
Why?
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
It's just one benchmark and it's representative of what people with the setup would get in it. HH did allot more benchmarks for you to compare and take your own conclusions.
An OC'd 1600X seems like such great value coupled with a B350 board. Its just a shame that DDR4 prices are where they are, especially for the higher frequencies that Ryzen loves.
You have to pry my R7 from my cold dead hands but R5 6 core looks like the sweet spot for an all-rounder system. I would avoid that quad core personally..
CL14 3200 is crazy expensive, but you don't really need that: CL15 or CL16 3000 will go just fine and will be allot cheaper.
Now what kind of **** reviewer would I be if I left out results just because they perform better or worse on Brand A versus B? Mate, the idea of a review is to provide you guys objective data and analysis so that you can see performance and features from many angles, hence you can make a decisive and informed purchase / decision.
Well said, it's not like we base our purchase decisions out of CPUz benchmark (for example) but from the hole perspective.
And that's when Ryzen 7 1800X sales dropped from the cliff...
People buying the 1800X are of the same kind buying Intel i7 for gaming (when all of the internet reviewers say its better to spend the extra money on GPU if you're on a budget): they just want the best. At the price R7 1700 is a steal but on a budget: R5 1400 will be king.
ATM I'm fine with my system but I'm most certain I won't be going Blue with my next build.
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:54 PM
Awesome review as always Hilbert , straight to the point , objective and very informative. I believe that R5 1600 6 cores 12 threads overclocked CPUs to 4.0Ghz will be the really sweet spot on the Ryzen line up when paired up with a good AB 350 motherboard , that oozees a lot of price to performance ratio and it makes a lot of sense value wise. 6 cores 12 threads year 2017 it's a good compromise of future proffness and jump in performance going forward.
At this point in time year 2017 in my own opinion a 4 core cpu does not make any sense for gaming going forward into the future as Hilbert already stated we have multicore CPUs available for affordable prices for the masses , the hardware it's here to stay and going forward into the future , the software will follow as it has always been the case ( ex. 2 cores to 4 cores moved for gaming , mentioned by Hilbert )
All in all Ryzen is and will be changing the future of games and software and how they use Multi threaded CPUs. Great to see strong competition again , we all will benefit from it !
Awesome review as always Hilbert , straight to the point , objective and very informative. I believe that R5 1600 6 cores 12 threads overclocked CPUs to 4.0Ghz will be the really sweet spot on the Ryzen line up when paired up with a good AB 350 motherboard , that oozees a lot of price to performance ratio and it makes a lot of sense value wise. 6 cores 12 threads year 2017 it's a good compromise of future proffness and jump in performance going forward.
At this point in time year 2017 in my own opinion a 4 core cpu does not make any sense for gaming going forward into the future as Hilbert already stated we have multicore CPUs available for affordable prices for the masses , the hardware it's here to stay and going forward into the future , the software will follow as it has always been the case ( ex. 2 cores to 4 cores moved for gaming , mentioned by Hilbert )
All in all Ryzen is and will be changing the future of games and software and how they use Multi threaded CPUs. Great to see strong competition again , we all will benefit from it !
malitze
Member
Posts: 89
Member
Posts: 89
Posted on: 04/11/2017 03:59 PM
Top notch as always Boss, great read. Meanwhile I'm having a really good time tweaking and tuning my system. Good days
Top notch as always Boss, great read. Meanwhile I'm having a really good time tweaking and tuning my system. Good days
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 14754
I feel like I may have jumped the gun too quickly lmao.