# AMD Ryzen 5 1500X 3.5 GHz



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

Today, AMD launched their Ryzen 5 processors. We review the $190 Ryzen 5 1500X, which promises to be a cost-effective alternative to sub-$200 Intel models. Thanks to integrated SMT-multithreading and various Boost technologies, overall performance is quite good.

*Show full review*


----------



## ps000000 (Apr 11, 2017)

Nice review.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 11, 2017)

Good review as usual for 1500X also. To add something to your conclusion: If you don't plan to change your pc every 1-2 years and you are on a budget and need your pc for anyhting that comes along and not just gaming, R5 is your only choice.  As for the platform's maturity it's a matter of 1-2 more bios updates from motherboard manufacturers now. In 2 months from now, nobody will bother with RAM speeds again.


----------



## ironwolf (Apr 11, 2017)

The "Ryzen 5 Market Segment Analysis" table on page one lists the Ryzen 5 1500X and the Ryzen 5 1600X as Ryzen 7...

EDIT: Looks like it is fixed.  Talk about fast service!


----------



## r9 (Apr 11, 2017)

And somebody said that Ryzen was not a gaming Cpu . Not bad considering only one or two of the games tested had been patcher for Ryzen and paired with nvidia poor driver optimization for Ryzen. Can't wait to see what can do on optimized games paired with Vega .


----------



## Nosada (Apr 11, 2017)

So the only reason for buying a high speed intel quad core seems to be when you combine a $600+ gpu with a $100 monitor?

Who even buys a setup like that >.<

PS: Dibs to TPU for not benching CPU's at 1024x768 in the original CounterStrike and then complaining about AMD's measly 8000fps vs Intel's 9000fps.


----------



## kruk (Apr 11, 2017)

I think that pairing all AMD systems with a midrange $100 B350 board and all Intel systems with a top end $200 Z170 board is just wrong and skews fair comparison ...


----------



## refillable (Apr 11, 2017)

Almost Identical performance for much less, just as I expected. Still tanks in certain titles, but not as bad as it was on the launch day. But I must say RottR is very very surprising here. 

Correction for the power consumption figures though, you clearly stated it consumes more power than its "Intel counterparts", but doesn't seem to be the case at all.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Apr 11, 2017)

My 4670K shed a tear.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

kruk said:


> I think that pairing all AMD systems with a midrange $100 B350 board and all Intel systems with a top end $200 Z170 board is just wrong and skews fair comparison ...


AMD provided the motherboards, which came with a BIOS using the new Agesa version. Tests on the X370 motherboards which have the 1001 Agesa only will yield incorrect performance numbers


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 11, 2017)

> Intel has the gall


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 11, 2017)

Honestly the bios/windows/games updates have clearly already give Ryzen some nice gains.   At this point it is completely fair to call gaming performance an overall wash between AMD and Intel (Intel wins 1080p, AMD narrowly wins 4K and *minimums*).


Another few months and Ryzen will likely completely match or beat Intel in gaming IPC.     Intel will have to respond.


----------



## TRWOV (Apr 11, 2017)

Some reviews report that the 1500X has 16MB of cache, is that so or what then?


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Apr 11, 2017)

Are R5 CPU´s REAL 2 core and 3 core CPU´s? Like FX "8 Core" being a 4 core chip? or this time they´re REAL 4 core and 6 core chips?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 11, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> Are R5 CPU´s REAL 2 core and 3 core CPU´s? Like FX "8 Core" being a 4 core chip? or this time they´re REAL 4 core and 6 core chips?



They are real buddy.

Although FX chips were "Real" too, not made of dreams lol.   Although I am sure AMD still has nightmares about em...


----------



## Aretak (Apr 11, 2017)

TRWOV said:


> Some reviews report that the 1500X has 16MB of cache, is that so or what then?


The 1500X has the full 16MB cache. It's only the 1400 which is cut down to 8MB (presumably they're harvested chips with faulty cache that's been disabled).


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Apr 11, 2017)

Aretak said:


> The 1500X has the full 16MB cache. It's only the 1400 which is cut down to 8MB (presumably they're harvested chips with faulty cache that's been disabled).



Which means the table on the first page is wrong


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Apr 11, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> They are real buddy.
> 
> Although FX chips were "Real" too, not made of dreams lol.   Although I am sure AMD still has nightmares about em...



lol, kk, but you know what i mean, REAL Quad core chips, bout time from AMD! this new chips remind me of the phenom 1060T


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 11, 2017)

XiGMAKiD said:


> Which means the table on the first page is wrong
> View attachment 86153



Fixed! 






Don't blame me


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 11, 2017)

SUPERREDDEVIL said:


> lol, kk, but you know what i mean, REAL Quad core chips, bout time from AMD! this new chips remind me of the phenom 1060T



Again.  They were real lol.


But no, they are not in modules.  They are are traditional cores, and they even have hyperthreading.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 11, 2017)

Now we know what to expect from the APUs, I say they are strong enough for a 768 shaders IGP.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Now we know what to expect from the APUs, I say they are strong enough for a 768 shaders IGP.



I mean it's equal to a 7700K in 4K, and only 10% weaker in 1080p.   An APU with this CPU inside could handle a GPU as powerful as the Titan XP if it's in 4K lol. 

Even if it's (likely) clocked lower at around 3.2 - 3.5 GHz, it would do fine with a Fury X or 1080.  Only thing limiting the iGPU will be how big AMD can make it...


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 12, 2017)

I expect AMD will remove the L3 cache to make room for the IGP, like with current APUs. That, and lower frequencies to accommodate a 65W APU should take some of the performance away.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I expect AMD will remove the L3 cache to make room for the IGP, like with current APUs. That, and lower frequencies to accommodate a 65W APU should take some of the performance away.



I mean we just don't know.   It made little difference for the piledriver APU's.

I would say 10% performance loss at most.  Still in at least i5 territory, and that means again that frankly a Titan XP would work fine in 99% of games.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 12, 2017)

I hope they can reach at least 1024 shaders @ 1GHz, 2TFLOP IGP sounds nice.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I hope they can reach at least 1024 shaders @ 1GHz, 2TFLOP IGP sounds nice.



Ikr?   1024 @ 1.2 would put it 20%+ above the PS4S, and if it was $200 it would be a steal!   Heck if it used Vega who knows how strong it might be.


But the current rumors I am reading point to 704 SP @ 1200 MHz unfortunately.  Keep in mind it has to use DDR4, and thus there is only so high they can go.

Now the HBM version?  Yeah I hope it is a $300 APU as strong as a 580!


----------



## Melvis (Apr 13, 2017)

I think this CPU pretty much made the i5 7600/k obsolete. 

Im liking what I am seeing so far.


----------



## Lionheart (Apr 13, 2017)

Nice review & CPU. CPU-Z reporting only 2 core 4 threads?


----------



## TooQik (Apr 13, 2017)

Overall a reasonable review.

I would like to ask why the 7700K was omitted from the Power Consumption graphs especially given it was used as a yard stick in all other tests?


----------



## rruff (Apr 14, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> AMD provided the motherboards, which came with a BIOS using the new Agesa version. Tests on the X370 motherboards which have the 1001 Agesa only will yield incorrect performance numbers



Any idea if the motherboards account for the some or all of the system power difference? Thinking about idle primarily since the CPUs should be near zero at idle.


----------



## drade (Apr 19, 2017)

So this is a good gaming budget CPU paired with a 1070?


----------



## medi01 (Apr 19, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I expect AMD will remove the L3 cache to make room for the IGP, like with current APUs. That, and lower frequencies to accommodate a 65W APU should take some of the performance away.



That L3 cache is what makes it outperform Intel in multithreading, despite lacking a bit on single threaded load, to my knowledge. L2 blocks get evicted into shared L3, so other cores might grab things that neighbor was working on.




drade said:


> So this is a good gaming budget CPU paired with a 1070?


Absolutely.
And, if you can, I'd say you should... wait for Vega, even if you are locked on nvidia (say bought overpriced adaptive sync monitor or just stick with the brand) as it might impact pricing on 1070 too.  
Oh, and Volta might be announced sooner, which also might have impact.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Apr 21, 2017)

What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).

Any Intel Platform - is almost guaranteed to not accommodate a new or significantly revised micro-architecture... beyond the mere "tick".  In order to enjoy a "tock", one MUST purchase a new motherboard (if historical precedent is maintained).

AMD AM4 Platform - is almost guaranteed to, AT LEAST, accommodate Ryzen "II" and quite possibly Ryzen "III" processors.  And, in such cases, only a new processor and BIOS update will be necessary to do so.

This is not an insignificant point of differentiation.


----------



## DoItAllMike (Apr 27, 2017)

What were the clocks on the ram for the Ryzen?
Was the full 3200mhz achieved or not?


----------



## rruff (Apr 27, 2017)

Rash-Un-Al said:


> What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).



Motherboard features seem to advance more than CPUs lately. The way things have been going, there is little reason to upgrade a CPU unless it's 5+ years old. And then it probably doesn't make sense to keep your old board.


----------



## Slipshuggah (May 6, 2017)

1500x is a good CPU, but I think ryzen 5 1600 is best buy in terms of price/performance. I've noticed one interesting fact throughout the tests - 7500 sometimes outperforms 7600k and 7700k. How can this be explained?


----------

