AMD Ryzen 5 Series Lineup Leaked

[btarunr]

Over 12 hours ahead of its unveiling, Guru3D accidentally (timezone confusion) posted some juicy details about AMD's exciting Ryzen 5 desktop processor lineup. What makes these chips particularly exciting is that they occupy several sub-$250 price points, and offer the kind of gaming performance you'd expect from the larger 8-core Ryzen 7 series chips, since not a lot of games need 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen 5 series will launch with two 6-core, and two 4-core SKUs, all four of which feature SMT (simultaneous multi-threading), and unlocked base-clock multipliers.

The Ryzen 5 series is topped by the Ryzen 5-1600X, priced at USD $249. This 6-core/12-thread chip features the full 16 MB of L3 cache available on the 14 nm "Summit Ridge" silicon, and backs it with clock speeds of 3.60 GHz core and 4.00 GHz TurboCore, with the XFR (extended frequency range) feature enabling higher clocks depending on the effectiveness of your CPU cooling. This chip could be AMD's power move against the Intel Core i5-7600K. Next up, is the Ryzen 5-1600 (non-X), priced at $219. This chip lacks the XFR feature, and comes with slightly lower clocks out of the box, with 3.20 GHz core, and 3.60 GHz TurboCore. You still get an unlocked base-clock multiplier, which Intel's $220-ish competitor to this chip, the Core i5-7500, sorely lacks.



The Ryzen 5 quad-core lineup is what could wreck Intel's dual-core Core i3 lineup, and the bottom end of its quad-core Core i5 lineup, if these chips can sustain the gaming performance of its bigger siblings. These chips are carved out by disabling an entire CCX complex, leaving you with 4 cores, 8 threads (enabled by SMT), and 8 MB of L3 cache (which is still higher than Intel's 6 MB on the quad-core Core i5 parts). The lineup is topped by the Ryzen 5-1500X, priced at $189. In addition to XFR, you get clock speeds of 3.50 GHz core, with 3.70 GHz TurboCore. The most affordable Ryzen part for now, will be the Ryzen 5-1400, priced at $169. You get clock speeds of 3.20 GHz core, with 3.40 GHz TurboCore. The entire AMD Ryzen lineup, including each of the four SKUs being launched later today, will feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, making overclocking a breeze.

The Ryzen 5-1600X, Ryzen 5-1600, Ryzen 5-1500X, and Ryzen 5-1400 will be available in stores from April 11, 2017.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[ixi]

I hope that r5 1400 can clock easy to 4Ghz at least, would be better even at 4.5Ghz. Price is nice .

 

[Hotobu]

I hope that r5 1400 can clock easy to 4Ghz at least, would be better even at 4.5Ghz. Price is nice .

4.5 GHz? an ~ 30% gain....no.

 

[P4-630]

Would R5 1600 (x) prove to be a good upgrade to my i5 6500 for gaming?....
Intel still seems to be the better one in gaming.

 

[Manu_PT]

Good luck trying to stabilize good overclocks on this platform. And no, don´t tell me it will be easier with 4 cores because people already tried it on current R7 CPUs. This chipset is too bad.

 

[theGryphon]

4.5 GHz? an ~ 30% gain....no.

Even if they OC'd to 4.2GHz, these 4-core parts would be gamers' choice and should sell like hot cakes.

 

[RejZoR]

Leaked? I've had most of the info about them on 4th March:
https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/the-amd-ryzen-paradox/

With the chart from game-debate.com page which probably had it days before I got it from there. Only thing that deviates is the price with $10 difference. But still...

 

[Vayra86]

If R5 clocks like R7, I'll pass.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Good luck trying to stabilize good overclocks on this platform. And no, don´t tell me it will be easier with 4 cores because people already tried it on current R7 CPUs. This chipset is too bad.

'scuse me, but what are you smoking? The quad cores will be half the chip of the R7's, so it should be much easier to overclock. The chipset has nothing to do with overclocking, it's just a glorified PCIe bridge with some connectivity. If anything, the limitation is in the SoC part inside the CPU. Disabling four cores on an R7 is not the same as the quad core R5's.
And no, I'm not expecting 4.5GHz, but these chips might break 4.1GHz.

 

[ironwolf]

Leaked? I've had most of the info about them on 4th March:
https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/the-amd-ryzen-paradox/

With the chart from game-debate.com page which probably had it days before I got it from there. Only thing that deviates is the price with $10 difference. But still...

More than just deviations in the pricing, the model # on some of them changed. Again, minor but still of notable change.

 

[Slizzo]

'scuse me, but what are you smoking? The quad cores will be half the chip of the R7's, so it should be much easier to overclock. The chipset has nothing to do with overclocking, it's just a glorified PCIe bridge with some connectivity. If anything, the limitation is in the SoC part inside the CPU. Disabling four cores on an R7 is not the same as the quad core R5's.
And no, I'm not expecting 4.5GHz, but these chips might break 4.1GHz.

Only other thing to take into consideration is that these are built on LPP, so they may still be clock limited compared to Intel's 14nm process.

 

[lanlagger]

to those that will ask and talk about - "but how is 1080 gaming"...answer is: definitely better than with 7700K - you will buy at least 100$ cheaper cpu (tough if your only concern is gaming - I would go even lower) and cheaper mobo (though Z270 vs B350 is not so much difference as it was vs X99 platform, but still there is difference) and with that spare money you could actually buy a gtx 1080 (that is the "choice" of all reviewers in this spring) and that will push more frames than any lower GPU (even though AMD CPU might trim few frames here and there).

 

[Xaled]

as she did with 7xxx series, Fury and Ryzen 7. i hope Lisa Su doesnt screw everything again. (with overpricicng or overhyping)

 

[alucasa]

"Leaked" my butt.

Announced, you mean.

 

[Evo85]

That 1600X will be mine!

 

[hojnikb]

'scuse me, but what are you smoking? The quad cores will be half the chip of the R7's, so it should be much easier to overclock. The chipset has nothing to do with overclocking, it's just a glorified PCIe bridge with some connectivity. If anything, the limitation is in the SoC part inside the CPU. Disabling four cores on an R7 is not the same as the quad core R5's.
And no, I'm not expecting 4.5GHz, but these chips might break 4.1GHz.

You can expect similar frequency ceiling as ryzen7 parts, because max frequency is ultimately limited by process type (lpp) rather than architecture. So anything above 4.1-4.2 will either require unsafe amounts of voltage or a different process node entirely.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

If you are at 1080p and 75 Hz or less monitor, you should not be wasting money on $300+ CPUs and $400+ GPUs. Playing a game on a 5 year old $120 monitor with $700+ spent on two parts is just bad business.

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

I am really looking forward to see how the Ryzen 5 performs and overclocks. I hope it won't beat my 7700K in games otherwise I will be very sad as I've just bought this platform last week.

 

[brian111]

"Leaked" my butt.

Announced, you mean.

"Over 12 hours ahead of its unveiling, Guru3D leaked..."

Unless I'm missing something I'd say that is leaking.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I am really looking forward to see how the Ryzen 5 performs and overclocks. I hope it won't beat my 7700K in games otherwise I will be very sad as I've just bought this platform last week.

It won't. The average 7700K OCs to 4.7 GHz. Nothing is going to touch it in gaming for a while.

 

[alucasa]

"Over 12 hours ahead of its unveiling, Guru3D leaked..."

Unless I'm missing something I'd say that is leaking.

Intentional leak is a form of hyping and an announcement.

People love leaks. Official announcements are for the suckers, or so we are led to believe.

 

[Xaled]

Intentional leak is a form of hyping and an announcement.

People love leaks. Official announcements are for the suckers, or so we are led to believe.

the problem is not with leaks or intentional leaks. the problem is with the misleading
information.

 

[Evo85]

It won't. The average 7700K OCs to 4.7 GHz. Nothing is going to touch it in gaming for a while.

I'll bet it gets damn close. Frequency isn't everything man.

 

[NBH]

Surely for gaming these chips will perform just like the R7 chips with core frequencies at 4ghz max which has already been proven it cant compete with the 7700k.

They need to do a chip with less cores but higher clocks to compete for gaming.

But I guess these will be OK for people who do a bit of encoding etc, personally though I would buy the R7 1700 and be done with it.

 

[atomicus]

It won't. The average 7700K OCs to 4.7 GHz. Nothing is going to touch it in gaming for a while.

LOL, except the 1700X/1800X already beat it in some titles, and that's before we've seen any optimisation from devs or motherboard manufacturers in BIOS, plus Windows 10 SMT issue, so who knows what will happen in the near future. Yes, the 7700K is going to remain at the top of the charts in some games no matter what, but it's spitting distance in others, and beaten in some as mentioned. To say it "won't be touched" is a grossly inaccurate generalisation and pure Intel fan-boyism/propaganda/fake news/BS (take your pick). I'm not taking anything away from the 7700K, it's a fine choice for a pure gaming rig, but Ryzen is right there with it and arguably far better future proofed with those extra cores.