AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz

[Disparia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[punani]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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

 

[Jism]

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]

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]

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]

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.