# AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz



## W1zzard (May 29, 2017)

The most affordable Ryzen part at the moment, the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 quad-core processor, is endowed with features you find only on Intel processors twice its price. We're interested to see where that leaves competing Intel parts within its price range.

*Show full review*


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 29, 2017)

Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.


Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p.   Read up and stop tricking noobs:


----------



## Chaitanya (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p.   Read up and stop tricking noobs:


How else do you think they are going to suck up to intel overlords? even in 1600 review they compared it to quad core chips and then complained about higher power consumption and lower gaming performance.


----------



## IceScreamer (May 29, 2017)

I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There were groups of people crying for minimum FPS tests, they delivered. Then, some asked for all-out CPU only test, which in this case is the 720p test, and they delivered. I don't really see a problem with this review, I mean everything was tested.

To comment on the review, expected a tad bit more from this CPU but still, it could possibly be my next upgrade if something was to happen to the current setup.


----------



## Mathragh (May 29, 2017)

Is the "Highly Recommended" award image at the end of the conclusion there on purpose?

The whole latter part of the conclusion (and score) reads like this chip isn't actually that good of a buy, and doesn't give the impression that a reward is warranted.

Thanks for the writeup regardless!


----------



## Chaitanya (May 29, 2017)

IceScreamer said:


> I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There were groups of people crying for minimum FPS tests, they delivered. Then, some asked for all-out CPU only test, which in this case is the 720p test, and they delivered. I don't really see a problem with this review, I mean everything was tested.
> 
> To comment on the review, expected a tad bit more from this CPU but still, it could possibly be my next upgrade if something was to happen to the current setup.


Here is the real problem that CPU costs 170$ and in that price range only CPUs Intel is selling are dual core i3s(here is a link for CPU from Intel that cost 170$ or less https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...eRange=0 170&bop=And&Order=PRICED&PageSize=60). And now they are comparing this entry level CPU to CPUs that cost twice as much(i7-7700k and 6700k(when it was released) and complaining that : 


> Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts


I have noticed similar con list for R5-1600 review where a hex core CPU was compared to quad core CPUs and then con list contained:


> Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips
> 
> Higher power draw than Intel CPUs


Compared to this Techgage did a much better job of comparing new CPUs in CPU oriented tasks.


----------



## scheilinkin (May 29, 2017)

Waaaaaaait a minute, where`s FX8350 in these tests?
This is now totally useless to me. I want to know if it`s OK for me to go from FX8350 to R5 1400, I dont really care for Intel CPU`s.


----------



## Assimilator (May 29, 2017)

So much crying from AMD fanboys who don't understand the how and why of certain tests, and make no effort to educate themselves.

@W1zzard in the same vein as the above commenter, I'd be extremely interested to see how older CPUs (FX-8350 at stock and overclocked, i5-2500K at stock and overclocked) compare to Ryzen in gaming.


----------



## IceScreamer (May 29, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Here is the real problem that CPU costs 170$ and in that price range only CPUs Intel is selling are dual core i3s(here is a link for CPU from Intel that cost 170$ or less https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671 600565702 601294614 8000&IsNodeId=1&LeftPriceRange=0 170&bop=And&Order=PRICED&PageSize=60). And now they are comparing this entry level CPU to CPUs that cost twice as much(i7-7700k and 6700k(when it was released) and complaining that :
> 
> I have noticed similar con list for R5-1600 review where a hex core CPU was compared to quad core CPUs and then con list contained:
> 
> Compared to this Techgage did a much better job of comparing new CPUs in CPU oriented tasks.


If the gaming performance is in line with the i3 then that's that, no point discussing it. 
A CPU review should not be tailored to a specific CPU (apart from maybe enterprise-consumer), so if a cheaper CPU nets you better performance in a specific scenario (in this case gaming) then there is no point discussing it. R5 1400 excels in productivity tasks and lacks in gaming performance, period.


----------



## buzzi (May 29, 2017)

Assimilator said:


> I'd be extremely interested to see how older CPUs (FX-8350 at stock and overclocked, i5-2500K at stock and overclocked) compare to Ryzen in gaming.



Same for me!


----------



## bug (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p.   Read up and stop tricking noobs:


There was a poll and a lengthy discussion where it was made clear 720p results are still relevant. Will you let it rest?

If nothing else, this shows how fast a CPU can run a game should you manage to remove the GPU bottleneck. That is important.
It can be argued that in this particular case it's 4k results that are irrelevant, because no one expects to game at 4k with a cheap CPU. But we're not going to pick and choose resolutions for each review, are we?


----------



## trog100 (May 29, 2017)

oddly enough its not a likely scenario but it would seem that at 4 K a cheap cpu does perfectly fine.. which kind of proves the old adage that where gaming is concerned the gpu is king.. 

but basically the 1400 is a fail.. for a small amount more the 1500 makes tons more sense..

comparing the overclocked 1400 to a stock 1500 is also a nonsense.. anybody that overclocks a 1400 will do exactly the same to a 1500.. back to square one..

trog


----------



## oxezz (May 29, 2017)

Nice and detailed review as always, still ryzens are a bit overpriced at the moment in my country.
Are they gonna releasing lower models ? Like R3 maybe..?




scheilinkin said:


> Waaaaaaait a minute, where`s FX8350 in these tests?
> This is now totally useless to me. I want to know if it`s OK for me to go from FX8350 to R5 1400, I dont really care for Intel CPU`s.


Same situation here looking for a cheap and "future proof" upgrade.


----------



## bug (May 29, 2017)

trog100 said:


> oddly enough its not a likely scenario but it would seem that at 4 K a cheap cpu does perfectly fine.. which kind of proves the old adage that where gaming is concerned the gpu is king..
> 
> but basically the 1400 is a fail.. for a small amount more the 1500 makes tons more sense..
> 
> ...


Yeah, well, this particular CPU may not be the best bang for the buck, but it still kind of redefines what you can get for less than $200.
I'm not sure it's what I'd buy one (it loses in music encoding or office stuff, which is something I do way more often then 3D rendering or video transcoding, power draw isn't exactly stellar), but this is not a bad CPU by a long shot.


----------



## birdie (May 29, 2017)

It's the first Ryzen review at TPU where the summary is not filled to the top with extreme AMD affection. Me like.

As for 720p gaming - it's the exact scenario where games are CPU limited, not GPU limited (I would have added 1080Ti for a good measure), so it makes perfect sense.

Also, just recently I built a system with Intel Core i5 7400, because with all things considered, the competing Ryzen CPUs don't have an iGPU and cost significantly more in my country (Ryzen 1600 is 20% more expensive) and Ryzen motherboards are at least 80% more expensive than H110 motherboards.


----------



## Caring1 (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing...


Get off your high horse, 720p is the best way to test CPU load and ensure the GPU isn't taking the load. If you knew anything about CPU tests you wouldn't have questioned it.


----------



## zzzaac (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p.   Read up and stop tricking noobs:




Why am I not surprised that you linked AdoredTV?.

Seems like every rebuttal for a Ryzen review, there's always a link to AdoredTV somewhere.

And do "Noobs" really read TPU?, just wondering....


----------



## meirb111 (May 29, 2017)

if you want an amd cpu buy the ryzen 1600 ,the 1400 and 1500x are not worth their price.


----------



## Sempron Guy (May 29, 2017)

nice array of old single threaded games


----------



## bug (May 29, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> nice array of old single threaded games


There's nothing stopping you from grabbing a Ryzen today and waiting till games get written to uses all those cores 
And single threaded? Really?


----------



## creativeusername (May 29, 2017)

It would be nice to see the gaming benchmarks with the 1400 overclocked, overclocking makes a huge difference in gaming benchmark for the minimum frame rate.


----------



## Basard (May 29, 2017)

I just plunked $140 down on a new 9590 this past weekend.  My 8300 was showing signs of death--I was not nice to it.  I figured 'If I wanna game faster, I'll buy a new GPU'.  That, and I don't wanna spend the cash on a new mobo/cpu/ram.


----------



## Freez (May 29, 2017)

- We have a problem, sir.
- What's wrong?
- Ryzen looking too good overall.
- Add 720p game test.
- Genius!
P.S. As retro gamer, can i ask add 480p test?


----------



## P4-630 (May 29, 2017)

Can I compare my i5 6500 with a i5 7500 with the fps in gaming @ 1440p?
Or should I compare it with the i5 7400?


----------



## IceScreamer (May 29, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Can I compare my i5 6500 with a i5 7500 with the fps in gaming @ 1440p?
> Or should I compare it with the i5 7400?


Split the difference.


----------



## Disparia (May 29, 2017)

The 1400 seems a like a CPU that got bumped up to business class because the flight was overbooked. Go back to the Ryzen 3 lineup with your 8MB cache! /pitchfork


----------



## P4-630 (May 29, 2017)

IceScreamer said:


> Split the difference.



Lol yeah there isn't much difference! 

But how was it, the difference between skylake and kaby lake 1% (1fps) or what?


----------



## R0H1T (May 29, 2017)

Basard said:


> I just plunked $140 down on a new *9590* this past weekend.  My 8300 was showing signs of death--I was not nice to it.  I figured 'If I wanna game faster, I'll buy a new GPU'.  That, and I don't wanna spend the cash on a new mobo/cpu/ram.


As much as I prefer AMD, I wouldn't recommend that upgrade. Having said that if you live *beyond the wall*, you need all the heat you can get for the long awaited *winter*, is coming this July.

P.S. bad joke, probably applies more to the newbie Freez(a?) from Syberia.


----------



## P4-630 (May 29, 2017)

The only game what it's better at than my i5 6500 @1440p is Civilization VI , I don't have that game anyway...
Seems I'm still good.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2017)

Assimilator said:


> @W1zzard in the same vein as the above commenter, I'd be extremely interested to see how older CPUs (FX-8350 at stock and overclocked, i5-2500K at stock and overclocked) compare to Ryzen in gaming.



I'd be interested in an FX-8370 and an Intel HEDT chip, maybe a 6900K or something slower end is on the HEDT platform, thrown in the mix.


----------



## kruk (May 29, 2017)

As a future Ryzen buyer I find this review very informative. Can't wait for Ryzen 3 reviews, than I finally can make my decision.

AMD has doomed this CPU by cutting it's cache in half. If Ryzen 3 1200x will comes with same amount of cache it will have *much better performance per dollar* and surely much better final score. Ryzen 5 1400 could thus become obsolete as Intels i3 series and Ryzen 3 could become highly recommended as Intels Pentium line with HT.

The rating is low, but I'm pretty sure @W1zzard would rate any *i3 Kaby Lake* CPU *under 7.5*, *i5 and Pentium with HT* around *8.5*, and *i7* might get a *9* (*9.5* for *7700K*)


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2017)

Unbelievable how some people can't take criticism of AMD for anything.  As for linking to the Adored shite - GTFO.   "Oh look I dont like what someone has said about my favourite brand so I'll go to my default defence of the guy who says thing contrary to opinion".

As a proud Ryzen owner I'd have been better served by a 7700k and it would have been cheaper but I did not want to line Intels pockets.  So I'll (maybe) wait for a process refinement and hopefully upgrade the CPU and keep the current mobo.  It's good enough at 1440p but even then, I know in some games a faster 4 core would be better.

@W1zzard - ignore those who criticise everything you do.  It's not your job to make people happy.  Keep telling it how it is.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 29, 2017)

IceScreamer said:


> I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There were groups of people crying for minimum FPS tests, they delivered. Then, some asked for all-out CPU only test, which in this case is the 720p test, and they delivered. I don't really see a problem with this review, I mean everything was tested.
> 
> To comment on the review, expected a tad bit more from this CPU but still, it could possibly be my next upgrade if something was to happen to the current setup.



The 720p test doesn't test the CPU, it just tests where the programming bottleneck is.   Actually watch the video I posted, it highlights the issue me and other people have been complaining about for YEARS.

low-res CPU tests prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 29, 2017)

kruk said:


> As a future Ryzen buyer I find this review very informative. Can't wait for Ryzen 3 reviews, than I finally can make my decision.
> 
> AMD has doomed this CPU by cutting it's cache in half. If Ryzen 3 1200x will comes with same amount of cache it will have *much better performance per dollar* and surely much better final score. Ryzen 5 1400 could thus become obsolete as Intels i3 series and Ryzen 3 could become highly recommended as Intels Pentium line with HT.
> 
> The rating is low, but I'm pretty sure @W1zzard would rate any *i3 Kaby Lake* CPU *under 7.5*, *i5 and Pentium with HT* around *8.5*, and *i7* might get a *9* (*9.5* for *7700K*)



Imo the R5 1400 should cost $139, and the R3 line-up should fill out the $69 - $119 space.


As for what they would say of Intel: I didn't even look at the score, but I am sure the i3 would get a good store for winning the useless 720p moron test.


----------



## Aquinus (May 29, 2017)

Why is this a con?


> Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1500X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz)


It's not like every AMD chip is going to have the same clocks, just as a lot of older i3s never had turbo boost and it's kind of just saying this con in a different way:


> Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor"



I almost think that these are just one con: "Lack of XFR harms single-thread performance and takes away the Ryzen "wow factor.""


----------



## kruk (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Imo the R5 1400 should cost $139.



Exactly! Either 1400 should be priced lower or it should have full 16 MB cache. It would have much better value then.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 29, 2017)

kruk said:


> Exactly! Either 1400 should be priced lower or it should have full 16 MB cache. It would have much better value then.



AMD will eventually drop the price on it, but you do understand why they overpriced it at launch right?  It has no competition lol.   It matches weaker i5's, and DESTROYS i3's.   Maybe now that the i3-K is $30 cheaper the 1400 will be as well.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?! This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.



Wow, reviewers really are damned if you do and damned if you don't.  They just started including 720p in the benchmarks for the last two reviews, and whiney people are already bitching about it like they've been doing it forever.

People asked for 720p, so they include 720p.  Don't like it and don't understand what the test is there for?  Then skip that page and look at all the other resolutions.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 29, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> Wow, reviewers really are damned if you do and damned if you don't.  They just started including 720p in the benchmarks for the last two reviews, and whiney people are already bitching about it like they've been doing it forever.
> 
> People asked for 720p, so they include 720p.  Don't like it and don't understand what the test is there for?  Then skip that page and look at all the other resolutions.



Damned if you do?  Who asked for this garbage lol, not me.

Anyone asking for that didn't know what they were talking about.  If a bunch of us start asking for GPU Drop Tests, should we expect TPU to start chucking GPU's at the floor?!  

NO!   They are supposed to be smart enough to know which requests are stupid.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2017)

A lot of people asked for it, there was an entire thread on it. I was initially against 720p, but after seeing the results I'm actually for them. If you don't understand why they are there and don't want to read them, just skip the page. Is it really that hard?


----------



## AndreiD (May 29, 2017)

Anyone with half of a brain will understand that a *CPU *review should test *CPU performance* and for gaming being that the GPU can be a limiting factor, removing it as much as possible from the equation and making the CPU become the limiting factor will give a clearer picture, reason why very low resolution gaming tests are a thing. They're very useful since the performance delta is easier to see and you now know how the CPU will perform with a future GPU update, which is usually what most people upgrade more often nowadays.     

With that in mind I'd like for TPU to start using a 1080 Ti because that will show a much bigger performance delta in higher resolutions than currently and hopefully start including more frame time data, otherwise the CPU reviews are pretty good so far.


----------



## evernessince (May 29, 2017)

Overclocking should have been given a bigger note.  You can get within 5% of a 7700K on this CPU if you overclock.


----------



## punani (May 29, 2017)

I think that low res game tests are a good indicator *if they include cpu load % per core in the measurement data.* IMO this applies to all benches high or low res. Then you can see is the GPU still bottlenecking and/or application actually optimized for the CPU or does it favor AMD/Intel.


----------



## notb (May 29, 2017)

evernessince said:


> Overclocking should have been given a bigger note.  You can get within 5% of a 7700K on this CPU if you overclock.


This is supposed to be an entry-level, cheap CPU. I seriously doubt many potential R5 1400 buyers will consider overclocking it.
Moreover, we know that the platform needs fairly high-end motherboards and RAM to get significant boost from OC. So what's the point of getting a cheap CPU? I'd rather save money on mobo/RAM and just buy the R5 1600.

Also the bundled cooler (Wraith Stealth) is clearly not designed with OC in mind, so you'd have to buy something else...



punani said:


> I think that low res game tests are a good indicator *if they include cpu load % per core in the measurement data.* IMO this applies to all benches high or low res. Then you can see is the GPU still bottlenecking and/or application actually optimized for the CPU or does it favor AMD/Intel.


OK, so if the CPU loses a benchmark by 20%, but only achieving 50% load, does it make it a winner?
It is possible that the Infinity Fabric (especially combined with slow RAM) is not efficient enough to optimally send jobs to all the cores. If that's true, the R5 1400 might not be a CPU with huge performance margin, but rather a CPU that's almost impossible to fully utilize in highly unpredictable tasks (e.g. gaming).
And once again: this is a cheap CPU. You can't expect people to pair it with ASUS Crosshair and DDR4-4000.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 29, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> The 720p test doesn't test the CPU, it just tests where the programming bottleneck is.   Actually watch the video I posted, it highlights the issue me and other people have been complaining about for YEARS.
> 
> low-res CPU tests prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


You and others simply whine and moan anytime AMD isnt destroying competition. CPU and GPU wise, you cant stand when AMD isnt on top of the charts, and go crying to adoredTV and youtube instead of admitting that AMD isnt always the best. 

If the 720p tests proved nothing, nobody would test them. 720p puts the CPU as the bottleneck, and is useful in identifying raw gaming CPU performance, and which one might start to have issues 5-10 years down the line.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2017)

It looks like this is the Bulldozer of the Ryzen range and one to avoid.


----------



## Jism (May 30, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> As much as I prefer AMD, I wouldn't recommend that upgrade. Having said that if you live *beyond the wall*, you need all the heat you can get for the long awaited *winter*, is coming this July.
> 
> P.S. bad joke, probably applies more to the newbie Freez(a?) from Syberia.



The 9570 only puts out that much heat if you load all 8 cores (or 4 in that case) to a 100% full load. Games dont tax a 8350 or 9570 in general that hard. It's also known that you can undervolt the 9570 and shave like 60watts off the total power consumption of your computer. It's proberly due to AMD not fully testing their chips and going for a one voltage fits all approach.

As for performance, a 8350 is still sufficient to play many games on.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 30, 2017)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> You and others simply whine and moan anytime AMD isnt destroying competition. CPU and GPU wise, you cant stand when AMD isnt on top of the charts, and go crying to adoredTV and youtube instead of admitting that AMD isnt always the best.
> 
> *If the 720p tests proved nothing, nobody would test them*. 720p puts the CPU as the bottleneck, and is useful in identifying raw gaming CPU performance, and which one might start to have issues 5-10 years down the line.



Hahahahaha you don't benchmark much do you?

4 years ago people did 720p tests with the 2500K and the 8350 - the 8350 lost by 10-20%.  According to the brilliant reviewers that meant the 8350 would age worse.  Yet here we are, and the 8350 _wins_ in most modern games (Or at least the gap has closed).

So please, explain that buddy.   I own all Intel processors at the moment btw, but it's funny you are calling me a fanboy.  All I want is the truth, and you seem to want to remain ignorant.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> The 720p test doesn't test the CPU, it just tests where the programming bottleneck is.   Actually watch the video I posted, it highlights the issue me and other people have been complaining about for YEARS.
> 
> *low-res CPU tests prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.*


Bollocks. It certainly does _not_ simply "test where the programming bottleneck is" lol. Going by that logic, you might as well test it with the weedy IGP at 4K ! 

Another one that doesn't understand how to test a CPU properly. Seriously, figuring this out really isn't rocket science.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> Bollocks. It certainly does _not_ simply "test where the programming bottleneck is" lol. Going by that logic, you might as well test it with the weedy IGP at 4K !
> 
> Another one that doesn't understand how to test a CPU properly. Seriously, figuring this out really isn't rocket science.



Right because the 2500K beats the 8350 in BF1, Deus Ex, Far Cry, and broken gamesworks Assassin's Creed right?  oh wait:

http://i.imgur.com/oYLpybY.jpg

Hmmm that's weird let's look at what the low res test from 4 years ago said:

http://cdn.overclock.net/7/7f/500x1000px-LL-7f57cf13_51141.png


WOW.  What an excellent test of future performance.  Good lord do you even fact check anything you say?  This is sad.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Right because the 2500K beats the 8350 in BF1, Deus Ex, Far Cry, and broken gamesworks Assassin's Creed right?  oh wait:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/oYLpybY.jpg
> 
> ...


Look, it's really simple: the review wants to test the framerate performance of the CPUs _right now_, _as in today_. Therefore bottlenecking the thing with the GPU at high resolution is idiotic. All that happens then is that the graphs all start to look the same length as the various CPUs on test perform faster than the GPU. Therefore, you now _do not_ know how fast the CPU can actually go. All you can say is that it goes fast enough to shift the bottleneck to the graphics card under those conditions. This is so mind numbingly obvious that I can't believe I actually have to explain it to someone who allegedly has a technical understanding. And you're not the only one on TPU either. Seriously.

Now, when the true framerate performance is known, what one does with that information is another matter.

The comparisons of the 8350 catching up to the 2500K in that stupid video are frankly irrelevent for justifying your point, as it's not the same thing. It's an interesting find for sure, but not the same thing. I'll hazard that the reasons for it are possibly due to better drivers and perhaps Windows and game patches.


----------



## Captain_Tom (May 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> The comparisons of the 8350 catching up to the 2500K in that stupid video are frankly irrelevent for justifying your point, as it's not the same thing. It's an interesting find for sure, but not the same thing. I'll hazard that the reasons for it are possibly due to better drivers and perhaps Windows and game patches.



"An interesting find".  It's not just interesting, it is the entire bloody point!   When one benchmarks CPU's, they are *entirely* benchmarking to see what the future will bring.

If all you care about is _today's_ performance, then buy a f***ing pentium genius:


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 30, 2017)

Pentium G4560 FTW, still looking for a decent CPU upgrade... hoohum.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 30, 2017)

@W1zzard, Something that i would like to see tested is visual smoothness. What i mean is actually running a comparable intel and amd system side by side and running some benchmarks while watching to see witch one runs threw the benchmark smoother. its been noted that many people including myself have seen for example an i5-7600 get higher frame rates but just does not look as smooth as say the ryzen 5 1600x. both systems will report a constant 60 fps but from my own experience the Ryzen platform performs smoother. this might also explain why it seems that the Ryzen system is not getting overall higher fps because the its taking care of business differently that results in the more smoother gameplay.

It may just be me but others have noticed this too. If this is within your power i would greatly appreciate seeing the results.

Edit: i should note that both the intel and ryzen are completely playable. its not like the intel is less playable, its just something you have to be around a lot to notice is all im saying, so i would like to see a test.


----------



## meirb111 (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Imo the R5 1400 should cost $139, and the R3 line-up should fill out the $69 - $119 space.
> 
> 
> As for what they would say of Intel: I didn't even look at the score, but I am sure the i3 would get a good store for winning the useless 720p moron test.



your price range is very close to what it should be,this is the reason why intel will not lose much market share simply because the current prices of amd are not tempting for r3 and 8 threaded r5.


----------



## AndreiD (May 30, 2017)

Final_Fighter said:


> @W1zzard, Something that i would like to see tested is visual smoothness. What i mean is actually running a comparable intel and amd system side by side and running some benchmarks while watching to see witch one runs threw the benchmark smoother. its been noted that many people including myself have seen for example an i5-7600 get higher frame rates but just does not look as smooth as say the ryzen 5 1600x. both systems will report a constant 60 fps but from my own experience the Ryzen platform performs smoother. this might also explain why it seems that the Ryzen system is not getting overall higher fps because the its taking care of business differently that results in the more smoother gameplay.
> 
> It may just be me but others have noticed this too. If this is within your power i would greatly appreciate seeing the results.
> 
> Edit: i should note that both the intel and ryzen are completely playable. its not like the intel is less playable, its just something you have to be around a lot to notice is all im saying, so i would like to see a test.


 
That's what frame times are for, and from what I gather only TechReport seems to gather that data for their reviews. You can see how the R5s compare to I5s in that regard in their review here: http://techreport.com/review/31724/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-and-ryzen-5-1500x-cpus-reviewed-part-one 
My personal experience has been that I haven't noticed any difference in 'smoothness' with my R7 1700 coming from an overclocked i7 2600K with higher speed DDR3.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> "An interesting find".  It's not just interesting, it is the entire bloody point!   When one benchmarks CPU's, they are *entirely* benchmarking to see what the future will bring.
> 
> If all you care about is _today's_ performance, then buy a f***ing pentium genius:


Oh dear, you've lost the argument so badly that you're now resorting to personal insults, lol. How can you not realize that the graph you've just posted beautifully demonstrating the graphics card bottleneck is making my point? 

Ok, let's try just one more time with this analogy: you have two supercars with engine powers of about 500 horsepower. You want to find out their top speeds.

Now, instead of just putting that pedal to the metal as it were and let them go, which would give you their top speeds, you put a 100mph limiter in the engines (aka the graphics card at 4K). All you could do then is confirm that both cars can hit 100mph and not their actual top speeds of, say, 170mph and 200mph. Therefore you can't measure their top speeds this way. Can you see it now?


----------



## Kissamies (May 30, 2017)

IceScreamer said:


> I think you guys are overreacting a bit. There were groups of people crying for minimum FPS tests, they delivered. Then, some asked for all-out CPU only test, which in this case is the 720p test, and they delivered. I don't really see a problem with this review, I mean everything was tested.
> 
> To comment on the review, expected a tad bit more from this CPU but still, it could possibly be my next upgrade if something was to happen to the current setup.


Agree. Nobody forces us to check those 720p tests if we don't want to look them.


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2017)

The real star - as in all game benchmarks - is the Pentium G4560. Imagine if it was unlocked.


----------



## biffzinker (May 30, 2017)

Well that didn't take long, Dell is now offering a AIO 27" (1080P) with a *Ryzen 5 1400*, and Radeon RX 560.

Dell Inspiron 27 7775

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11455/dell-launches-inspiron-27-7775-aio-ryzen-7-rx-580


----------



## dirtyferret (May 30, 2017)

bug said:


> There's nothing stopping you from grabbing a Ryzen today and waiting till games get written to uses all those cores


...besides reality


----------



## Gungar (May 30, 2017)

Freez said:


> - We have a problem, sir.
> - What's wrong?
> - Ryzen looking too good overall.
> - Add 720p game test.
> ...



If you want to do CPU testing, you want low resolution so you can see the TRUE power of the cpu without being distorted by gpu performance. So yes 720p is a very good resolution to test CPUs.

1440p and 4k cpu tests are utterly stupid and doesn't reflect real cpu performance. And it's not even funny anymore to look at "tests" and you see every single cpu tested at around the same fps.


----------



## 64K (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> "An interesting find".  It's not just interesting, it is the entire bloody point!   When one benchmarks CPU's, they are *entirely* benchmarking to see what the future will bring.
> 
> If all you care about is _today's_ performance, then buy a f***ing pentium genius:




The REDengine probably isn't using more than 2 cores 4 threads. Also that GTX 1080 is maxxing out at 4K in that game.


----------



## notb (May 30, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Well that didn't take long, Dell is now offering a AIO 27" (1080P) with a *Ryzen 5 1400*, and Radeon RX 560.
> 
> Dell Inspiron 27 7775
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11455/dell-launches-inspiron-27-7775-aio-ryzen-7-rx-580



Actually it took weeks. Finally an AIO with Ryzen 7. Where are the notebooks?!
But hold on... Ryzen 7 + RX580 in an AIO powered by 330W PSU. Based on the reviews we've seen, just these 2 parts are able to consume those 330W in heavy load and there has to be a ~100W margin for the LCD, memory and everything else.
Significantly limited clocks? Or maybe it's the RX580 mobile version?


----------



## Basard (May 30, 2017)

mor


R0H1T said:


> As much as I prefer AMD, I wouldn't recommend that upgrade. Having said that if you live *beyond the wall*, you need all the heat you can get for the long awaited *winter*, is coming this July.
> 
> P.S. bad joke, probably applies more to the newbie Freez(a?) from Syberia.


More of a replacement than an upgrade.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (May 30, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?!  This tests nothing, and only proves Ryzen is siting around 50% cpu usage in legacy games.



1) Do you not understand removing GPU bottlenecks to test CPU performance? That's the entire point of low res gaming tests - to test the cpu without having a GPU bottleneck. 

Why do you think the i5s and i7s, or the ryzen 6 and ryzen 7s are all getting the same fps at higher resolutions? GPU bottleneck.

2) The games tested aren't legacy games. They're all fairly new. Crysis 1 would be a legacy game.

3) Ryzen sitting at 50% means it performs worse in games due to unoptimization. Kinda important for folks running lower end hardware with weaker GPUs.


----------



## GoldenX (May 30, 2017)

Low cost PC, Pentium for gaming, R5 1400 for the rest.
I still think the G4560 is the only good Intel CPU right now, considering price and performance.


----------



## bug (May 30, 2017)

Bluescreendeath said:


> 1) Do you not understand removing GPU bottlenecks to test CPU performance? That's the entire point of low res gaming tests - to test the cpu without having a GPU bottleneck.
> 
> Why do you think the i5s and i7s, or the ryzen 6 and ryzen 7s are all getting the same fps at higher resolutions? GPU bottleneck.
> 
> ...


I don't think he doesn't understand as much as he seems to be allergic to anything that paints Ryzen in less than stellar colors.

I wonder when he says "software will evolve to put Ryzen to better use", whether "software will simply need to be rewritten with less conditionals to take better advantage of Netburst's pipeline" or "Windows 8 offers such an advanced GUI, all it takes is people getting used to it" ring any bells.

Ok, Ryzen is a good chip we all get that. But do you fanboys think you'll accomplish by clubbing anyone that highlights some of its shortcomings? Cause you can't seriously think it's a perfect chip.


----------



## 0x4452 (May 31, 2017)

Great unbiased review.

Sadly many either die-hard fanboys or hired guns in the forums, always taking the same stance of accusing anybody who disagrees with the greatness of AMD products of being incompetent or a sucker for Intel/NVIDIA.

As for the Ryzen 1400, I think it should have been priced $20 lower.


----------



## dwade (May 31, 2017)

Ya'll acting like those petty liberals losing the election. We already know AMD doesn't have the best performance with Ryzen. A 4c8t variant is expected to get slaughtered like this.


----------



## creativeusername (May 31, 2017)

dwade said:


> Ya'll acting like those petty liberals losing the election. We already know AMD doesn't have the best performance with Ryzen. A 4c8t variant is expected to get slaughtered like this.



Why are you bringing politics into the conversation?


----------



## THU31 (Jun 1, 2017)

The minimum framerates are just awful in so many games. I would love to buy a 6-core or 8-core Ryzen CPU, because the multithreaded value is just amazing, but unfortunately the gaming performance is still so far from Intel.

Sad to say it, but at the moment I am waiting for mainstream 6-core Intel CPUs.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 1, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Get off your high horse, 720p is the best way to test CPU load and ensure the GPU isn't taking the load. If you knew anything about CPU tests you wouldn't have questioned it.



This is 2017 not 2005. You also need a good CPU to make use of a good GPU also and in these tests its a 1080.


----------



## notb (Jun 2, 2017)

Melvis said:


> This is 2017 not 2005. You also need a good CPU to make use of a good GPU also and in these tests its a 1080.


How is this even relevant?
You concentrate way to much on the "it's 2017" and 1080p. This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications. The impact of GPU is therefore minimized. Simple as that.


----------



## bug (Jun 2, 2017)

Melvis said:


> This is 2017 not 2005. You also need a good CPU to make use of a good GPU also and in these tests its a 1080.


You're obviously an obvious intel shill. AMD users should hang on to their Phenoms, games don't need CPU power. /s


----------



## Melvis (Jun 2, 2017)

notb said:


> How is this even relevant?
> You concentrate way to much on the "it's 2017" and 1080p. This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications. The impact of GPU is therefore minimized. Simple as that.



Hows isnt it?
I concentrate on the now and the majority not something thats clearly not even relevant in todays market. Just read exactly what you just said, it makes no sense at all. "This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications." Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore. The market shows the majority uses 1080P, fact! Why even bother showing this type of benchmark if your going to "relate" this to gaming? when no one uses it, hello! Run a real CPU benchmark then if your going to show true CPU performance, not a res that no one ever uses anymore.



bug said:


> You're obviously an obvious intel shill. AMD users should hang on to their Phenoms, games don't need CPU power. /s



Looks over to my system specs < ummm clearly not. Get your heads out of the sand and into the future kids.


----------



## notb (Jun 2, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Hows isnt it?
> I concentrate on the now and the majority not something thats clearly not even relevant in todays market. Just read exactly what you just said, it makes no sense at all. "This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications." Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore. The market shows the majority uses 1080P, fact! Why even bother showing this type of benchmark if your going to "relate" this to gaming? when no one uses it, hello! Run a real CPU benchmark then if your going to show true CPU performance, not a res that no one ever uses anymore.



1) I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people (if not most) play games at around 720p. Where did you get those "the market shows" data from?
2) I used the word "synthetic" because this benchmark is not meant to replicate real usage of today. The goal of this test is to check, how CPUs compare in a gaming load. Not "in 2017" or "in 1080p", but GENERALLY. It's not here to give you any meaningful results for the particular way to use your PC (much like proper synthetic benchmarks).
Games are *very unique *among other applications and it is important to check how a CPU copes with such a task.
However, GPUs bottleneck the system at high resolution (they flatten the results of faster CPUs): currently even a high-end GTX1080 is not enough to see a significant difference at 1440p.

Luckily, Ryzen 5 1400 is so slow that even your beloved 1080p is enough (as G4560 beats it in some titles). The "720p" was originally requested because of the more powerful CPUs we have today (to see any difference between e.g. 7700K and 1800X).


----------



## infrared (Jun 2, 2017)

Sorry @Melvis , I have to agree with notb. I originally thought 1080p and higher resolutions would be best, based on my opinion that poorly coded games might skew the results at much higher fps. 

At least W1zzard is doing 720P testing *as well as, and not instead of* the higher resolution tests. So there's really nothing to complain about. Look at whatever resolution game test results you want to draw your own conclusions


----------



## Melvis (Jun 3, 2017)

notb said:


> 1) I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people (if not most) play games at around 720p. Where did you get those "the market shows" data from?
> 2) I used the word "synthetic" because this benchmark is not meant to replicate real usage of today. The goal of this test is to check, how CPUs compare in a gaming load. Not "in 2017" or "in 1080p", but GENERALLY. It's not here to give you any meaningful results for the particular way to use your PC (much like proper synthetic benchmarks).
> Games are *very unique *among other applications and it is important to check how a CPU copes with such a task.
> However, GPUs bottleneck the system at high resolution (they flatten the results of faster CPUs): currently even a high-end GTX1080 is not enough to see a significant difference at 1440p.
> ...




I think this thread here will cover everything  

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654097

Majority rules!


----------



## notb (Jun 3, 2017)

Melvis said:


> I think this thread here will cover everything
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654097
> 
> Majority rules!


I doubt you've thought this through.


Melvis said:


> Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore.


Have you seen the statistics few posts below the one you've linked?
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654104


----------



## Melvis (Jun 3, 2017)

notb said:


> I doubt you've thought this through.
> 
> Have you seen the statistics few posts below the one you've linked?
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654104



It shows that Im right? that the majority do indeed use 1080P at over 49%, whats your point here? 720P will only decrease and at a rapid rate, 1366*768 is netbooks that play some silly basic games like candy crush or some shit, not really relevant now is it?


----------



## notb (Jun 3, 2017)

Melvis said:


> It shows that Im right? that the majority do indeed use 1080P at over 49%, whats your point here? 720P will only decrease and at a rapid rate, 1366*768 is netbooks that play some silly basic games like candy crush or some shit, not really relevant now is it?



Just a moment ago you said that benchmarks should concentrate on what's important "today" or "in 2017". The statistics we're looking at are from May 2017. What is more "today" than that?
1) 1366x768 notebooks have been around for years and popularity of this resolution is clearly not "decreasing at a rapid rate". In fact even today this is still by far the most popular resolution in the sub-$500 notebook segment (so the one that will utilize cheaper Ryzen APUs).
2) Most 1080p notebooks don't have a GPU powerful enough for gaming at this resolution, so people play at 1366x768 anyway.

I'd say the discussion about 720p tests being relevant is finished at this point - unless you have something to add other than that appalling "candy crush" thing.

Now you can tell us what's really so wrong about 720p tests, that you can't simply click the "next page" button and forget about it. You're afraid of the digit "7"? Or maybe it has something to do with Col. Jessup after all?


----------



## bug (Jun 3, 2017)

Funny how low-res gaming was never brought up on TPU until AMD started sucking at it.
Personally, I don't get this "don't test X" mind set. If it's a review, I want it to include everything and the kitchen sink. It's the only way I can pick and choose what is relevant for me.


----------



## notb (Jun 3, 2017)

bug said:


> Funny how low-res gaming was never brought up on TPU until AMD started sucking at it.


Well... until Ryzen came along CPUs weren't really covered by TPU staff. We were getting checks on how new Intel flagship improves GPU utilization and - from time to time - how far behind AMD is at the moment.
Similarly, there weren't that many CPU topics on the forum. They didn't even get a separate section.

It all changed with Ryzen. Suddenly everyone jumped on the CPU topic and everyone expect reviewers to finally tell us which brand is best. TPU has reviewed all Ryzen 5 and the top 1800X (testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).
And because it's impossible to tell in high-res games, a new test was needed. 720p is a nice option.

I don't think "720p gaming" is a topic on TPU anyway. It's still a geek site after all.  People interested in a more sensible approach to gaming have other sites.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bug (Jun 3, 2017)

notb said:


> Well...* until Ryzen came along CPUs weren't really covered by TPU staff*. We were getting checks on how new Intel flagship improves GPU utilization and - from time to time - how far behind AMD is at the moment.
> Similarly, there weren't that many CPU topics on the forum. They didn't even get a separate section.
> 
> It all changed with Ryzen. Suddenly everyone jumped on the CPU topic and everyone expect reviewers to finally tell us which brand is best. TPU has reviewed all Ryzen 5 and the top 1800X (testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).
> ...



You sure about that? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_2500K_GPU/4.html


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 4, 2017)

notb said:


> (testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).


I have the 1700 reviews coming up soon



bug said:


> You sure about that? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_2500K_GPU/4.html


That was an IGP-only review I did, many years ago. The reason why we do proper CPU reviews now is because AMD dumped a ton of Ryzen CPU samples on me without asking, so I was like "let's see how difficult CPU reviews can be, could be something fun for a change". Lots of learning and benchmarking was involved, but I'm quite happy with the results so far


----------



## bug (Jun 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I have the 1700 reviews coming up soon
> 
> 
> That was an IGP-only review I did, many years ago. The reason why we do proper CPU reviews now is because AMD dumped a ton of Ryzen CPU samples on me without asking, so I was like "let's see how difficult CPU reviews can be, could be something fun for a change". Lots of learning and benchmarking was involved, but I'm quite happy with the results so far


Come on, the site is littered with CPU reviews. Gaming wasn't so detailed, but it was there in the past.

And going back to the resolution discussion, Anandtech also benches at 720 (with low quality even) and 1080: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/6
HardOCP ups the ante and goes for 640x480: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/09/intel_kaby_lake_core_i77700k_ipc_review/4

Are they trying to show you real world gaming situations? Hell no. There are CPU reviews and as such they're meant to show how the CPU does.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 4, 2017)

Compare the ratio of GPU/CPU reviews of the site, a couple of Phenom II, some Intels, they have started doing ir regularly right now with Ryzen.

Testing a CPU at 720 is an excellent way of benching processors, but it's by no mean an indicative of gaming performance, for that you have to look at 1080 and higher resolutions, 1600x900 if you want. The only people that play games at lower resolutions are notebook users, and that is 1366x768, not 1280x720.


----------



## notb (Jun 4, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> The only people that play games at lower resolutions are notebook users, and that is 1366x768, not 1280x720.



"The only people" sounds like if it's a tiny minority, while it's actually a HUGE part of the market. Notebooks dominate the PC industry. Also while many offer 1080p, they're not powerful enough to play games at this resolution. As a result people will go for a smaller pixel count.

It's also true for desktops. A hugely popular 1080p card could become unusable at this resolution in games released 3 years from now. People buying RX460 or 1050Ti today will end up limited to 720p at some point. 

As for the 1366x768 vs 1280x720 - many games don't support the former, while 1280x720 is just an aggregate from 1440p and a desktop standard few years back - hence pretty much ubiquitous.


----------



## kruk (Jun 5, 2017)

720p benchmarks show how far the CPU could push the *current benchmarked games* on a much faster GPU, however, it's by no mean a indication of it's performance in future games.

I'm not against 720p benchmarks, but they should *not be used* to project CPU performance in future gaming applications.


----------



## bug (Jun 5, 2017)

kruk said:


> 720p benchmarks show how far the CPU could push the *current benchmarked games* on a much faster GPU, however, it's by no mean a indication of it's performance in future games.
> 
> I'm not against 720p benchmarks, but they should *not be used* to project CPU performance in future gaming applications.


This.
They're like a synthetic benchmark: how fast can a CPU go while handling a specific (in this case gaming) workload.


----------



## zimcomp (Jun 13, 2017)

Im just wondering   in almost all games from top to bottom  you have a 6 fps difference  
with my limited budget  im just wondering if  its   better to get a   better  processor or graphics card 


I've always believed that a balance system  was best but looking at  some of these figures for FPS its hard  to justify  the £300  difference between  a  low end  Ryzen cpu and  the  top end one 
if i took the budget of £500  for a cpu  and  spent £200  on a cpu  and  with the  remaining  £300   spent it  on a extra  8gb of memory and  upped my budget for my  graphics card  from £200  to £400

Im wondering if i will get better performance


----------



## bug (Jun 13, 2017)

zimcomp said:


> Im just wondering   in almost all games from top to bottom  you have a 6 fps difference
> with my limited budget  im just wondering if  its   better to get a   better  processor or graphics card
> 
> 
> ...


Well, you thought right. It's just that these days you can't build an all around balanced PC, you need to build one balanced around your needs. While that requires a bit of research, it's also a tinkerer's dream 
So enjoy.


----------



## Shirley Marquez (Jun 15, 2017)

Has it been confirmed that the 1400 uses a 2x2 configuration rather than 4x1? I'd have thought the latter would make more sense for the reduced cache configuration; it would provide a use for the chips where one of the core clusters was defective and would allow for a die redesign where the second cluster was omitted altogether. Perhaps they'll use those for the Ryzen 3...


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 15, 2017)

I think the single CCX design is reserved for the APUs, with the extra space dedicated to the IGP.


----------



## bug (Jun 15, 2017)

Shirley Marquez said:


> Has it been confirmed that the 1400 uses a 2x2 configuration rather than 4x1? I'd have thought the latter would make more sense for the reduced cache configuration; it would provide a use for the chips where one of the core clusters was defective and would allow for a die redesign where the second cluster was omitted altogether. Perhaps they'll use those for the Ryzen 3...


Not again. Yes, 4x1 would be better for performance, but AMD needs to salvage as many chips as possible (just like Intel). So these are 2x2.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 30, 2017)

notb said:


> Just a moment ago you said that benchmarks should concentrate on what's important "today" or "in 2017". The statistics we're looking at are from May 2017. What is more "today" than that?
> 1) 1366x768 notebooks have been around for years and popularity of this resolution is clearly not "decreasing at a rapid rate". In fact even today this is still by far the most popular resolution in the sub-$500 notebook segment (so the one that will utilize cheaper Ryzen APUs).
> 2) Most 1080p notebooks don't have a GPU powerful enough for gaming at this resolution, so people play at 1366x768 anyway.
> 
> ...



Your just trying to justify what your trying to say when your only making yourself look silly, you provided info that proved and showed that in fact 1080P IS by far the most used Res today.

1) 1366x768 notebooks are budget lower end machines (under $1000) and are only on laptops because well that exactly, budget. I just spent the last 2weeks with a friend of mine looking at getting a laptop for his wife and I can tell you this much, the 1366x768 res is terrible! and when you have all the laptops lined up at your local shop you can see clearly what is a 1080P screen compared to the 13366x769 screen, stands out by a mile! First thought was by my friend (he has no clue on computers) was that screen looks crap, dont want that laptop, and we are talking about 50-60 laptops we looked at, not 1 or 2 and he could clearly see the difference.
2) Again your coming back to "gaming" hello!!! this isnt all about farking gaming! This is about getting with the times and realising what is been used the most NOW and is only going to increase from now on, I bet you this time next yr 1080P will be even higher in % and the 1366x768 res will be cut in half because its 2017, no one wants a 15yr old res anymore!

I think this discussion was over as soon as you proved my point actually, you gave a link that showed CLEARLY that the most used res TODAY is 1080P, and its only going to go up! and so will 1440P/4k, so I have no idea why your trying to justify your comment with false info, its honestly making you look stupid! So Id suggest you give up. You saw a "bigger" but not the most percentage res and decided to roll with it to try to prove your point, and in turn you actually proved my point even more! and made your self look pretty childish.

In fact, go out today and go find a brand new 1366x768 Monitor for a PC, not a crappy laptop that mum uses to play some facebook game on or budget steam/free game on, you be very hard pressed to find one and in fact I dont think I have even seen one come into work for over 8yrs now, the lowest i see is 1680x1050, or 1600x900, but nothing ever that low when it comes to PC monitors and guess what, this whole review and discussion was for PC, NOT laptop where you got your magical "bigger" but less 1366x768 res from and decided to run with it   Get with the damn times !


----------



## horsemama1956 (Sep 2, 2017)

I just built Ryzen 5 1400 setup and I am not seeing the i3 performance comparison at all. Games liken BF1, Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, Forza run so much better than an i3 can run them. I only run my CPU at 3.6Ghz with memory at 2933Mhz.

I opted for the 1400 over the 1600 because in Canada there is a $100+ difference and I intend on moving to 2560x1440 60hz in the coming weeks as well as the next iteration of Ryzen which will hopefully have higher clocks.

Seems like the ideal chip for budget setups for 60 fps with solid single threaded performance and really nice multi.


----------

