AMD Ryzen 5 1500X 3.5 GHz

[W1zzard]

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]

Nice review.

 

[HD64G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

My 4670K shed a tear.

 

[W1zzard]

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]

Intel has the gall

 

[Captain_Tom]

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]

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

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Fixed!

Don't blame me

 

[Captain_Tom]

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]

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

 

[Captain_Tom]

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]

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]

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]

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