AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz

[W1zzard]

The most affordable Ryzen part at the moment, the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 quad-core processor, is endowed with features you find only on Intel processors twice its price. We're interested to see where that leaves competing Intel parts within its price range.

Show full review

 

[Captain_Tom]

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.


Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p. Read up and stop tricking noobs:

 

[Chaitanya]

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.


Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p. Read up and stop tricking noobs:

How else do you think they are going to suck up to intel overlords? even in 1600 review they compared it to quad core chips and then complained about higher power consumption and lower gaming performance.

 

[IceScreamer]

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.

 

[Mathragh]

Is the "Highly Recommended" award image at the end of the conclusion there on purpose?

The whole latter part of the conclusion (and score) reads like this chip isn't actually that good of a buy, and doesn't give the impression that a reward is warranted.

Thanks for the writeup regardless!

 

[Chaitanya]

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.

Here is the real problem that CPU costs 170$ and in that price range only CPUs Intel is selling are dual core i3s(here is a link for CPU from Intel that cost 170$ or less https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...eRange=0 170&bop=And&Order=PRICED&PageSize=60). And now they are comparing this entry level CPU to CPUs that cost twice as much(i7-7700k and 6700k(when it was released) and complaining that :

• Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts

I have noticed similar con list for R5-1600 review where a hex core CPU was compared to quad core CPUs and then con list contained:

• Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips
  
• Higher power draw than Intel CPUs

Compared to this Techgage did a much better job of comparing new CPUs in CPU oriented tasks.

 

[scheilinkin]

Waaaaaaait a minute, where`s FX8350 in these tests?
This is now totally useless to me. I want to know if it`s OK for me to go from FX8350 to R5 1400, I dont really care for Intel CPU`s.

 

[Assimilator]

So much crying from AMD fanboys who don't understand the how and why of certain tests, and make no effort to educate themselves.

@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.

 

[IceScreamer]

Here is the real problem that CPU costs 170$ and in that price range only CPUs Intel is selling are dual core i3s(here is a link for CPU from Intel that cost 170$ or less https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671 600565702 601294614 8000&IsNodeId=1&LeftPriceRange=0 170&bop=And&Order=PRICED&PageSize=60). And now they are comparing this entry level CPU to CPUs that cost twice as much(i7-7700k and 6700k(when it was released) and complaining that :

I have noticed similar con list for R5-1600 review where a hex core CPU was compared to quad core CPUs and then con list contained:

Compared to this Techgage did a much better job of comparing new CPUs in CPU oriented tasks.

If the gaming performance is in line with the i3 then that's that, no point discussing it.
A CPU review should not be tailored to a specific CPU (apart from maybe enterprise-consumer), so if a cheaper CPU nets you better performance in a specific scenario (in this case gaming) then there is no point discussing it. R5 1400 excels in productivity tasks and lacks in gaming performance, period.

 

[buzzi]

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.

Same for me!

 

[bug]

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.


Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p. Read up and stop tricking noobs:

There was a poll and a lengthy discussion where it was made clear 720p results are still relevant. Will you let it rest?

If nothing else, this shows how fast a CPU can run a game should you manage to remove the GPU bottleneck. That is important.
It can be argued that in this particular case it's 4k results that are irrelevant, because no one expects to game at 4k with a cheap CPU. But we're not going to pick and choose resolutions for each review, are we?

 

[trog100]

oddly enough its not a likely scenario but it would seem that at 4 K a cheap cpu does perfectly fine.. which kind of proves the old adage that where gaming is concerned the gpu is king..

but basically the 1400 is a fail.. for a small amount more the 1500 makes tons more sense..

comparing the overclocked 1400 to a stock 1500 is also a nonsense.. anybody that overclocks a 1400 will do exactly the same to a 1500.. back to square one..

trog

 

[oxezz]

Nice and detailed review as always, still ryzens are a bit overpriced at the moment in my country.
Are they gonna releasing lower models ? Like R3 maybe..?

Waaaaaaait a minute, where`s FX8350 in these tests?
This is now totally useless to me. I want to know if it`s OK for me to go from FX8350 to R5 1400, I dont really care for Intel CPU`s.

Same situation here looking for a cheap and "future proof" upgrade.

 

[bug]

oddly enough its not a likely scenario but it would seem that at 4 K a cheap cpu does perfectly fine.. which kind of proves the old adage that where gaming is concerned the gpu is king..

but basically the 1400 is a fail.. for a small amount more the 1500 makes tons more sense..

comparing the overclocked 1400 to a stock 1500 is also a nonsense.. anybody that overclocks a 1400 will do exactly the same to a 1500.. back to square one..

trog

Yeah, well, this particular CPU may not be the best bang for the buck, but it still kind of redefines what you can get for less than $200.
I'm not sure it's what I'd buy one (it loses in music encoding or office stuff, which is something I do way more often then 3D rendering or video transcoding, power draw isn't exactly stellar), but this is not a bad CPU by a long shot.

 

[birdie]

It's the first Ryzen review at TPU where the summary is not filled to the top with extreme AMD affection. Me like.

As for 720p gaming - it's the exact scenario where games are CPU limited, not GPU limited (I would have added 1080Ti for a good measure), so it makes perfect sense.

Also, just recently I built a system with Intel Core i5 7400, because with all things considered, the competing Ryzen CPUs don't have an iGPU and cost significantly more in my country (Ryzen 1600 is 20% more expensive) and Ryzen motherboards are at least 80% more expensive than H110 motherboards.

 

[Caring1]

Good lord when will you guys stop benching games at 720p?! This tests nothing...

Get off your high horse, 720p is the best way to test CPU load and ensure the GPU isn't taking the load. If you knew anything about CPU tests you wouldn't have questioned it.

 

[zzzaac]

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.


Meanwhile it's 11% weaker than the 7700K in 1440p. Read up and stop tricking noobs:

Why am I not surprised that you linked AdoredTV?.

Seems like every rebuttal for a Ryzen review, there's always a link to AdoredTV somewhere.

And do "Noobs" really read TPU?, just wondering....

 

[meirb111]

if you want an amd cpu buy the ryzen 1600 ,the 1400 and 1500x are not worth their price.

 

[Sempron Guy]

nice array of old single threaded games

 

[bug]

nice array of old single threaded games

There's nothing stopping you from grabbing a Ryzen today and waiting till games get written to uses all those cores
And single threaded? Really?

 

[creativeusername]

It would be nice to see the gaming benchmarks with the 1400 overclocked, overclocking makes a huge difference in gaming benchmark for the minimum frame rate.

 

[Basard]

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.

 

[Freez]

- We have a problem, sir.
- What's wrong?
- Ryzen looking too good overall.
- Add 720p game test.
- Genius!
P.S. As retro gamer, can i ask add 480p test?

 

[P4-630]

Can I compare my i5 6500 with a i5 7500 with the fps in gaming @ 1440p?
Or should I compare it with the i5 7400?

 

[IceScreamer]

Can I compare my i5 6500 with a i5 7500 with the fps in gaming @ 1440p?
Or should I compare it with the i5 7400?

Split the difference.