AMD Ryzen 5 Series Lineup Leaked

[Captain_Tom]

The only question I have is if the 1400 or 1500X can reach 4.5 GHz.

 

[dj-electric]

The only question I have is if the 1400 or 1500X can reach 4.5 GHz.

Did a typical 7350k ever beat a typical 7700k in avarage clocks? Did a g3258 ever did it to 4790k?

Modern day cut down cpus are proven to have a max oc like the four core parts. This is just how it works, a binned cut down cpu is an oxymoron.

This isnt the 45nm era, unfortunately.

People should stop hoping four core ryzen parts will get to 4.5ghz and come back down to earth where architectural limitations exist across all parts

 

[Captain_Tom]

Did a typical 7350k ever beat a typical 7700k in avarage clocks? Did a g3258 ever did it to 4790k?

Modern day cut down cpus are proven to have a max oc like the four core parts. This is just how it works, a binned cut down cpu is an oxymoron.

This isnt the 45nm era, unfortunately.

People should stop hoping four core ryzen parts will get to 4.5ghz and come back down to earth where architectural limitations exist across all parts

I'm not saying it will, but hope hurts know one. It's not like I am betting money on it happening lol.

But I don't think your examples are complete. Everyone knows the i3's and Pentiums typically overclocked to i5 or higher levels. Sure they rarely got ahead of the i7's, but beating the i5's was nice.

I would expect the 4-cores to reach at least 4 GHz, and maybe 4.2. We will see.

 

[Grings]

still everyone has to mention the 7700k, even though it costs the same/more than the r7 1700

these will cost less than locked i5's

Did a typical 7350k ever beat a typical 7700k in avarage clocks? Did a g3258 ever did it to 4790k?

Modern day cut down cpus are proven to have a max oc like the four core parts. This is just how it works, a binned cut down cpu is an oxymoron.

This isnt the 45nm era, unfortunately.

People should stop hoping four core ryzen parts will get to 4.5ghz and come back down to earth where architectural limitations exist across all parts

counterpoint: x99 chips, the more cores the slower max overclock

 

[dj-electric]

still everyone has to mention the 7700k, even though it costs the same/more than the r7 1700

these will cost less than locked i5's



counterpoint: x99 chips, the more cores the slower max overclock

Counter counterpoint.
X99 chips dont have cut down versions based on the exact way they are built. They have way more pcie lanes and a pretty hefty cache pool and quad memory controllers. It makes complete sense for them to not push as high

 

[Dethroy]

Why does this article imply the non-X models don't support XFR?

 

[deu]

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

The assumption that all gamers overclock to get close to NO FPS boost in most games! I understand that if you overclock then its "better" but if you're a gamer most people dont give 10 F's about overclocking! Almost all of my mates have 3570/6600/6700K/7700K and NOONE overclocks; that + most uses stock / 212 EVO cooling level so noone is getting near the 4,7 Ghz anyway. most want a sufficient CPU and a 1060+ GFX to the least money possible. a 1600X will be more future proof than a 7600K so imo 1600/1600X will become a value for money gaming CPU. If you put streaming into the equation it should completly wreck the 7600K

 

[dorsetknob]

This isnt the 45nm era, unfortunately.

Or a 32nm Westmere good for a 45% overclock

 

[Mistral]

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.

If you already have an i5 6500 you might as well keep it for now and grab Ryzen next year, when more games benefit from such a beast.

That said, I will absolutely grab a 1600X this year to replace my 920 build.

 

[Kanan]

I'm sure Ryzen will clock higher in a later revision when the manufacturing (with Ryzen) is more mature than now. But it's questionable at least that these 4/6 Core parts will, I'd say unlikely as it's too early. Simply look at the names of the Ryzen CPU's, there's a lot of room in the numbers for more models with higher clocks, I bet they are already planned and they are working on it.

 

[Melvis]

If R5 clocks like R7, I'll pass.

I have a sneaky suspicion that no matter what AMD Ryzen CPU you get they all wont OC any better then the current 8 core 1700/1700x/1800x CPU's. You might get maybe an extra 200MHz over the 8cores but I cant see anything more then that. I think it comes down to the architecture of the CPU its self. I think we will only see higher clocks once Zen 2.0 is out we might then start seeing base clocks at 4GHz but for now on this arch I think there is a limit and wont see high clock speeds for a good yr from now. The CPU's are still fast, the IPC is there just not the clock speeds......yet.

 

[Hotobu]

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.

They will compete with the 7700K the same way R7 does with the 69xx. On price. The price to performance of Ryzen is simply not debatable at this point. If someone is going for the best of the best on performance that's a separate argument, but at these prices there is zero reason to buy Intel if $/performance has significant weight in in the purchase decision.

 

[notb]

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.

And if someone spent $400 on his 1080p LCD a week ago? Is it fine then?

 

[rruff]

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).

With that sort of "logic" I can *prove* that a Pentium beats anything made by AMD.

The people buying 7700Ks for gaming already have a budget that includes the best GPU. They're just looking for the best CPU to go with it.

 

[TheLostSwede]

'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.

I have to apologise, I was way wrong here, apparently the quad core are the same chips using 2+2 cores. AMD must be mad to do things this way or the yields suck.

Why does this article imply the non-X models don't support XFR?

All Ryzen CPU's have XFR, it just boosts differently, i.e. 100MHz vs. 50MHz for X and non X models.

 

[sweet]

Counter counterpoint.
X99 chips dont have cut down versions based on the exact way they are built. They have way more pcie lanes and a pretty hefty cache pool and quad memory controllers. It makes complete sense for them to not push as high

Counter counter counterpoint

We haven't known if Ryzen 4 cores are cut-down parts...

 

[Dethroy]

All Ryzen CPU's have XFR, it just boosts differently, i.e. 100MHz vs. 50MHz for X and non X models.

I know.

Next up, is the Ryzen 5-1600 (non-X), priced at $219. This chip lacks the XFR feature

 

[lanlagger]

With that sort of "logic" I can *prove* that a Pentium beats anything made by AMD.

The people buying 7700Ks for gaming already have a budget that includes the best GPU. They're just looking for the best CPU to go with it.

you are sure? because I see many people with 1070's and even 1060's (or rx 480's) but with a pride post that they have 6700K or 7700K on a hefty AIO's

 

[Vayra86]

you are sure? because I see many people with 1070's and even 1060's (or rx 480's) but with a pride post that they have 6700K or 7700K on a hefty AIO's

Sadly the vast majority isn't the smart majority. There is no smart majority. Most people just get stuff recommended to them and many of those invest budget in the wrong way. Pairing a 1070 with a 7700K for example, is nearly 40/60% budget split between CPU and GPU, while the 33% cheaper i5-K is the go-to CPU for that segment, which even allows you to put in a 1080 now. Net result will be a better gaming rig.

 

[Vya Domus]

I have to apologise, I was way wrong here, apparently the quad core are the same chips using 2+2 cores. AMD must be mad to do things this way or the yields suck.

How did you expect them to do it ? They had to make them symmetrical so that the funky scheduling doesn't get even more exaggerated. The six cores parts were going to be either 3+3 or 4+2 , so keeping them coherent is the best way to go about doing this.

 

[TheLostSwede]

How did you expect them to do it ? They had to make them symmetrical so that the funky scheduling doesn't get even more exaggerated. The six cores parts were going to be either 3+3 or 4+2 , so keeping them coherent is the best way to go about doing this.

The six cores will be 3+3, but the four core parts will be 2+2, rather than 4+0, which is not great news imho. I think most people expected a true 4 core part, not half a chip.

 

[Vya Domus]

The six cores will be 3+3, but the four core parts will be 2+2, rather than 4+0, which is not great news imho. I think most people expected a true 4 core part, not half a chip.

Great news or not they have done this in order to maintain consistency in terms of how they behave. If developers know that all the cores/treads are distributed in a certain way on every chip , it's easier to optimize their code.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

And if someone spent $400 on his 1080p LCD a week ago? Is it fine then?

In short, depends on what they got. It is still only 60 Hz or 75 Hz, then no. If its 144 Hz IPS 10-bit color depth with G-Sync, then yes.

The assumption that all gamers overclock to get close to NO FPS boost in most games! I understand that if you overclock then its "better" but if you're a gamer most people dont give 10 F's about overclocking! Almost all of my mates have 3570/6600/6700K/7700K and NOONE overclocks; that + most uses stock / 212 EVO cooling level so noone is getting near the 4,7 Ghz anyway. most want a sufficient CPU and a 1060+ GFX to the least money possible. a 1600X will be more future proof than a 7600K so imo 1600/1600X will become a value for money gaming CPU. If you put streaming into the equation it should completly wreck the 7600K

You do know the default turbo freq. of the 7700K is already 4.5 GHz. A 200 MHz boost is not even that big a deal. A 212 EVO can handle that without issue. Pushing a 5 GHz clock on it would require some work. So even if by you scenario with no OC, that is 700 MHz more clock over the turbo speed of the 1800X (all cores at stock only runs at around 3.8 GHz without an overclock). You can argue this until you are blue in the face. Every test done by every site, reviewer, youtuber, etc. shows the same thing. Right now and for the next 2 or 3 years, games care more about clock speed. Even the terrible dual-core HT 7350K puts up good numbers is most titles. The only exceptions being AotS which everything sucks at and GTA 5.

LOL, except the 1700X/1800X already beat it in some titles, and that's before we've seen any optimization 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 generalization 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.

Intel fanboy??? I have never owned an Intel CPU. The only non-AMD CPU I have ever owned was a VIA C7. And I recall it coming close in a few games and only beating the 7700K in heavily multi-threaded games during 4K test which was a GPU bottleneck. And even those were in margin of error.

I am a realist and will be buying a Ryzen CPU. I also have no bias. I am just being realistic. And games is what we were talking about Jr.

 

[Slizzo]

The six cores will be 3+3, but the four core parts will be 2+2, rather than 4+0, which is not great news imho. I think most people expected a true 4 core part, not half a chip.

Where are you getting the 2+2 info from? The 4 core parts have 8MB of L3 which indicates that only one CCX is active. The 6 core parts retain 16MB L3 due to them being 3+3 (8MB cache per CCX).

 

[Vya Domus]

Where are you getting the 2+2 info from? The 4 core parts have 8MB of L3 which indicates that only one CCX is active. The 6 core parts retain 16MB L3 due to them being 3+3 (8MB cache per CCX).

Only the 1400 has 8MB of L3 cache , the 1500X has all 16 MB so this one is definitely 2+2, this either means the 1400 is a 4+0 , which would be odd , or they just simply disabled half of the cache (not sure if possible though).