AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X challenges the Intel Core i5 family for quad-core supremacy. Can Ryzen overtake the latest Kaby Lake-based models in the $200 range?
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Review : Read more
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Review : Read more
- Status
Be careful, your fingerprint is visible on the CPU, someone could get enough of it from that photo to print and form a latex fingerprint that could be used to frame you for a crime, or depending on the finger and usage, be used for security breach or unlocking your phone.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,777
- 5,191
- 108,890
Cost per 1% low FPS might be a better metric: emphasize sustainability. Maybe a 35-45-20 blend of average-1%-0.1%.
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,106
- 17
- 31,965
<50w in the gaming loop is impressive
Great job overall by AMD, and would love to see a 'head-to-head' with an OC'd AM3+ rig (FX-6350 at 4.5GHz?)
Page 5 _ "Civilization VI Graphics Test" Heading
-- graphic says, "Resident Evil 7"
Great job overall by AMD, and would love to see a 'head-to-head' with an OC'd AM3+ rig (FX-6350 at 4.5GHz?)
Page 5 _ "Civilization VI Graphics Test" Heading
-- graphic says, "Resident Evil 7"
velocityg4
Glorious
- Nov 21, 2006
- 5,389
- 469
- 46,440
Why didn't you use the same CPU options for both the Workstation and gaming tests? It would have been helpful to know how an overclocked 1500x stands up against an i5-7500 in any use case. If someone is overclocking for gaming. They aren't likely to disable the overclock when working.
It sounds like Toms German and US labs need to communicate a bit more to set exact testing requirements for a review. That way the reader receives consistent data.
As it stands now. The review is haphazard. There are different data sources for gaming, workstation, temperature and power.
It sounds like Toms German and US labs need to communicate a bit more to set exact testing requirements for a review. That way the reader receives consistent data.
As it stands now. The review is haphazard. There are different data sources for gaming, workstation, temperature and power.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,582
- 650
- 91,240
Its a good showing , the only game that shows a really significant win for Intel is ROTR which is plainly intel biased (although not purposefully) from the results.
The 7600k results really don't interest me that much , I can understand why they're there as a comparison but the fact is the 7600k needs the addition of a $20-30 cooler to run even at stock on a cheaper b250 board - its pricepoint is completely different , to oc you can add another $30-40 for a z series comparative to a decent b350 board for the ryzen.
Once you've done that you're well past the ryzen 1600 pricepoint let alone the 1500x.
I agree though that the ryzen overclocking should have been done with the included spire - part if it's attraction / value for money aspect is the inclusion of a very good stock cooler.
The 7600k results really don't interest me that much , I can understand why they're there as a comparison but the fact is the 7600k needs the addition of a $20-30 cooler to run even at stock on a cheaper b250 board - its pricepoint is completely different , to oc you can add another $30-40 for a z series comparative to a decent b350 board for the ryzen.
Once you've done that you're well past the ryzen 1600 pricepoint let alone the 1500x.
I agree though that the ryzen overclocking should have been done with the included spire - part if it's attraction / value for money aspect is the inclusion of a very good stock cooler.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,777
- 5,191
- 108,890
[quotemsg=19633058,0,1031363]I agree though that the ryzen overclocking should have been done with the included spire - part if it's attraction / value for money aspect is the inclusion of a very good stock cooler.[/quotemsg]
From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.
From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.
neblogai
Distinguished
- Apr 8, 2007
- 908
- 3
- 19,365
When testing RoTR, please test on DX11, or use AMD card. There is an issue with Ryzen+ nVidia + DX12: nVidia GTX1060 + Intel i5 gains performance when going from DX11 to DX12, while nVidia+ Ryzen 1400 combination does not benefit from DX12. When a card like RX480 is used- gains are there, and even higher than GTX1060- so there is clearly an issue with the game in DX12, or nVidia driver.
You really should add something stressing that the Ryzen 5 1600 being on only $30 more in your conclusion. Since it is easily Over Clocked it would have similar single tread performance but with two more cores for only a bit more money.
I don't really see where any of the "X" Ryzen cpus make much sense from a value standpoint.
I don't really see where any of the "X" Ryzen cpus make much sense from a value standpoint.
It is not just you but I really feel using a GTX 1080 for a low\mid cpu is kind of useless info. It would make much more sense to use a Nvidia GTX 1060 or AMD Radeon 480/580 with this class of CPU. If you are going with a GTX 1080 than you are probably not going to match it with a low to mid level CPU.
I would really rather know what to expect with a mid-range video card. But again all the reviewers seem to do it this way. It may help compare relative performance across all cpus but I does not feel like relevant real word information.
I would really rather know what to expect with a mid-range video card. But again all the reviewers seem to do it this way. It may help compare relative performance across all cpus but I does not feel like relevant real word information.
- Oct 17, 2011
- 3,166
- 8
- 24,965
They do that to eliminate any chance of GPU throttling affecting the game benchmarks. For example, take Battlefield 1 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html; GPUs tested with the i7-6700K): with that Skylake i7, both the GTX 1060 & RX 480 had well under 100 FPS average & ~80FPS minimum...well below the results for both the i7-7600K & the Ryzen chips when paired with a GTX 1080, which means that you most likely would have seen identical FPS for all of the chips, whereas the actual results show slight but definite differences in performance.
Similar results occur with Rise of the Tomb Raider (again with the i7-6700K, http://www.techspot.com/review/1209-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060/page4.html); again, neither the GTX 1060 nor RX 480 provide anywhere near the same performance with the i7-6700K, so the results of testing with Ryzen would have been even flatter than they are.
Similar results occur with Rise of the Tomb Raider (again with the i7-6700K, http://www.techspot.com/review/1209-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060/page4.html); again, neither the GTX 1060 nor RX 480 provide anywhere near the same performance with the i7-6700K, so the results of testing with Ryzen would have been even flatter than they are.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,582
- 650
- 91,240
^ what spdagoo says 100%.
This is a CPU test/comparison - to do that you have to ensure that the GPU plays no limitation in the results.
That means using the most powerful GPU you can
Those results show you what maximum fps the CPU's can achieve in games rather than the GPU.
In a CPU test this is exactly what you want.
As I said the only issue I have is using the noctua cooler for overclocking because it was unnecessary.
99% of buyers will stick with the wraith cooler atcthe end of the day.
This is a CPU test/comparison - to do that you have to ensure that the GPU plays no limitation in the results.
That means using the most powerful GPU you can
Those results show you what maximum fps the CPU's can achieve in games rather than the GPU.
In a CPU test this is exactly what you want.
As I said the only issue I have is using the noctua cooler for overclocking because it was unnecessary.
99% of buyers will stick with the wraith cooler atcthe end of the day.
Brian_R170
Honorable
- Jun 24, 2014
- 288
- 2
- 10,785
Has anyone published a comparison of the 1500X to 7700 or 7700K? Obviously, not in the same price category, but they are the most similar configuration in terms of cores/threads.
- Jul 27, 2011
- 42,358
- 722
- 104,940
[quotemsg=19632902,0,2466943]Be careful, your fingerprint is visible on the CPU, someone could get enough of it from that photo to print and form a latex fingerprint that could be used to frame you for a crime, or depending on the finger and usage, be used for security breach or unlocking your phone.[/quotemsg]
Someone's been watching too many episodes of Law & Order: SVU lately. :lol:
Someone's been watching too many episodes of Law & Order: SVU lately. :lol:
cryoburner
Judicious
- Oct 8, 2011
- 5,717
- 1,314
- 34,840
It's nice to see the review, though it has been three weeks since your review of the 1600X. What ever happened to "However, the 1500X is right behind. Ryzen 5 1600 and 1400 will follow in short order, too."
Is "short order" considered "within the next year or so"? : P
[quotemsg=19633201,0,125865]From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.[/quotemsg]
The heat sink of the 1400's Stealth cooler is only around half the size of the 1500X's Spire cooler. Maybe it's possible to manage a semi-decent overclock with the smaller cooler under the right conditions, but you can be pretty sure that it will make noticeably more noise to achieve that performance level, and I have doubts about it remaining stable under higher ambient temperatures. I found it a bit amusing that they would call it a "Stealth" cooler when its design will clearly make it more audible than the Spire that comes with the 1500X, 1600 and 1700.
Once Tom's finally gets around to reviewing the 1400, they really should test its Stealth Cooler against the Spire, noting not only their max stable overclock and temperatures, but also their sound data at various load levels. The Max could be tested as well, and maybe throw in a cheap tower cooler to see what the approximate price difference between a 1400 and 1500X could get you. A stock Intel cooler could also be tested on one or more Intel processors as a point of comparison. It could even be its own article if they wanted.
Is "short order" considered "within the next year or so"? : P
[quotemsg=19633201,0,125865]From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.[/quotemsg]
The heat sink of the 1400's Stealth cooler is only around half the size of the 1500X's Spire cooler. Maybe it's possible to manage a semi-decent overclock with the smaller cooler under the right conditions, but you can be pretty sure that it will make noticeably more noise to achieve that performance level, and I have doubts about it remaining stable under higher ambient temperatures. I found it a bit amusing that they would call it a "Stealth" cooler when its design will clearly make it more audible than the Spire that comes with the 1500X, 1600 and 1700.
Once Tom's finally gets around to reviewing the 1400, they really should test its Stealth Cooler against the Spire, noting not only their max stable overclock and temperatures, but also their sound data at various load levels. The Max could be tested as well, and maybe throw in a cheap tower cooler to see what the approximate price difference between a 1400 and 1500X could get you. A stock Intel cooler could also be tested on one or more Intel processors as a point of comparison. It could even be its own article if they wanted.
- Feb 24, 2015
- 839
- 262
- 19,360
[quotemsg=19633778,0,582021]It's nice to see the review, though it has been three weeks since your review of the 1600X. What ever happened to "However, the 1500X is right behind. Ryzen 5 1600 and 1400 will follow in short order, too."
Is "short order" considered "within the next year or so"? : P
[quotemsg=19633201,0,125865]From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.[/quotemsg]
The heat sink of the 1400's Stealth cooler is only around half the size of the 1500X's Spire cooler. Maybe it's possible to manage a semi-decent overclock with the smaller cooler under the right conditions, but you can be pretty sure that it will make noticeably more noise to achieve that performance level, and I have doubts about it remaining stable under higher ambient temperatures. I found it a bit amusing that they would call it a "Stealth" cooler when its design will clearly make it more audible than the Spire that comes with the 1500X, 1600 and 1700.
Once Tom's finally gets around to reviewing the 1400, they really should test its Stealth Cooler against the Spire, noting not only their max stable overclock and temperatures, but also their sound data at various load levels. The Max could be tested as well, and maybe throw in a cheap tower cooler to see what the approximate price difference between a 1400 and 1500X could get you. A stock Intel cooler could also be tested on one or more Intel processors as a point of comparison. It could even be its own article if they wanted.[/quotemsg]
Sorry about the delay, we've had a bit of a hectic schedule lately with multiple GPU releases and Optane articles. 1600 and 1400 are very much on the radar.
Is "short order" considered "within the next year or so"? : P
[quotemsg=19633201,0,125865]From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.[/quotemsg]
The heat sink of the 1400's Stealth cooler is only around half the size of the 1500X's Spire cooler. Maybe it's possible to manage a semi-decent overclock with the smaller cooler under the right conditions, but you can be pretty sure that it will make noticeably more noise to achieve that performance level, and I have doubts about it remaining stable under higher ambient temperatures. I found it a bit amusing that they would call it a "Stealth" cooler when its design will clearly make it more audible than the Spire that comes with the 1500X, 1600 and 1700.
Once Tom's finally gets around to reviewing the 1400, they really should test its Stealth Cooler against the Spire, noting not only their max stable overclock and temperatures, but also their sound data at various load levels. The Max could be tested as well, and maybe throw in a cheap tower cooler to see what the approximate price difference between a 1400 and 1500X could get you. A stock Intel cooler could also be tested on one or more Intel processors as a point of comparison. It could even be its own article if they wanted.[/quotemsg]
Sorry about the delay, we've had a bit of a hectic schedule lately with multiple GPU releases and Optane articles. 1600 and 1400 are very much on the radar.
- Feb 24, 2015
- 839
- 262
- 19,360
[quotemsg=19633201,0,125865][quotemsg=19633058,0,1031363]I agree though that the ryzen overclocking should have been done with the included spire - part if it's attraction / value for money aspect is the inclusion of a very good stock cooler.[/quotemsg]
From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.
[/quotemsg]
I agree that factoring in the HSF is a relevant data point, but in this case, I was also attempting to highlight restricted pricing flexibility primarily at the silicon level. The Zeppelin die restricts AMD's pricing flexibility a bit.
From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.
[/quotemsg]
I agree that factoring in the HSF is a relevant data point, but in this case, I was also attempting to highlight restricted pricing flexibility primarily at the silicon level. The Zeppelin die restricts AMD's pricing flexibility a bit.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,582
- 650
- 91,240
[quotemsg=19633689,0,373149]I too find it a bit mysterious that THG didn't mention anything about the 1600. A measly $30 more gets you 2 extra cores and a beefy cooler, giving it a clear win in absolute value.[/quotemsg]
The cooler wiht the 1500x & 1600 are exactly the same.
]Theyre also exactly the same as the cooler with the 8 core ryzen 1700 albeit missing the controllable led lighting.
The cooler wiht the 1500x & 1600 are exactly the same.
]Theyre also exactly the same as the cooler with the 8 core ryzen 1700 albeit missing the controllable led lighting.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Bought a new GPU but it's black screen even though the fans is spinning- Started by CleaViolet
- Replies: 4
-
-
Question Need help with understanding whether or not I should be worried
- Started by rcsverige
- Replies: 15
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram