In the lab: AMD’s Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 5 1400 CPUs

Testing of AMD's Ryzen 5 CPUs and friends continues apace in the TR labs, but one of the reasons you haven't seen our productivity benchmarks yet is that AMD offered to send over a couple more CPUs for us to put through our testing gauntlet. Say hello to the Ryzen 5 1600 and the Ryzen 5 1400.

For a refresher, here's how these non-X CPUs fit into the Ryzen 5 lineup:

Model Cores Threads Base clock Boost clock L3 cache XFR TDP Price
Ryzen 5 1600X 6 12 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 16MB Yes 95W $249
Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 65W $219
Ryzen 5 1500X 4 8 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz $189
Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz 8MB $169

We're excited to begin testing these parts as soon as we can. Stay tuned to see how the performance of AMD's budget six-core, 12-thread and four-core, eight-thread parts shake out.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
raddude9
Guest
raddude9

Are we going to see part 2 of the 1600X review as well? To me it looks like the 1600/1600X is at the price/performance sweet spot of the Ryzen line and while it was good to see the gaming scores I’m more interested to see the productivity results.

Bensam123
Guest
Bensam123

And goodbye i5… You can choose to OC yourself or buy it pre-OC’d. $30 can buy you a pretty nice cooler, although it’s entirely possible to OC with the stock cooler… Did it with the 1700 ant the Wraith that came with it.

K-L-Waster
Guest
K-L-Waster

I get where you’re coming from, but I can’t really see why someone would get an X model + a $30 cooler — from what I understand the Wraith coolers are actually quite good, probably better than any $30 3rd party coolers, so if you’re not in need of anything more than a $30 cooler offers you, why not just go with the non-X model and use the stock one?

To me the X models make more sense when you are planning to use more powerful cooling solutions like an AIO liquid cooler or equivalent.

Rza79
Guest
Rza79

Also test with a RX580!
It has been more than obvious for some time that nVidia’s DX12 codepath doesn’t play well with Ryzen.

BehemothJackal
Guest
BehemothJackal

Jeff, can you please include power consumption numbers in your review? I’ve noticed that it’s been real hard to find information on how Ryzen stacks up against Kaby Lake and others in that department.

It was always harped upon before, but somehow that category has been all but overlooked with the release of Ryzen. Thanks!

ronch
Guest
ronch

I’d go for the 1600X in all likelihood if I were buying this year, although those 65w models are interesting too solely for the low TDP. 10 years ago I got my Athlon 64 X2 4800 and it also had a 65w TDP. I wonder just how much faster the 1600 is compared to the X2 in both single and multi-threaded work.

Mr Bill
Guest
Mr Bill

I hope the upcoming power reviews explore the parameters of thermally limited versus power limited. AMD is suggesting that a better cooling solution will let you clock higher. But how much headroom can there be given the power envelope constraints?

Srush352
Guest
Srush352

About 3X single thread, 13x-multi thread.

willmore
Guest
willmore

Okay, understand the issue behind the 1500X being 2+2 so that it can have all the L3 enabled, but what about that 1400? Did they really disable half the L3 in each CCX along with half the cores? If so, that is one easy $20 upgrade right there–double the L3 and 300MHz more? Sure, that’s money well spent.

ImSpartacus
Guest
ImSpartacus

Wait, the 1500X and 1400 use separate CCXs?!

Oh fuck, that can’t be good.

I mean, I guess it’s an ok temporary stopgap until Raven Ridge, but Jesus.

Do we know what the 6C parts are? Are they always 3+3?

Redocbew
Guest
Redocbew

Yeah they’re always 3+3, and the 4C parts are 2+2. Not sure why they wouldn’t give the 1400 the full L3. I assume it’s the same core as the 1500X, so maybe just for segmentation. I dunno.

DreadCthulhu
Guest
DreadCthulhu

I would guess that the r5 1400 chips have a portion of the L3 cache that is actually defective, so disabling the half with a defect still lets AMD sell those chips.

derFunkenstein
Guest
derFunkenstein

Jeff indeed confirmed that when I asked about it in the 1600X/1500X comments:

[url<]https://techreport.com/discussion/31724/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-and-ryzen-5-1500x-cpus-reviewed-part-one?post=1031347[/url<]

meerkt
Guest
meerkt

Is there any rhyme or reason to the X models?

It seems to signify nothing more than a step up, similar to a higher number. As far as I can see there’s no special relation between # and #X, and X doesn’t signify any unique feature which isn’t there on non-X.

Also trying to copy Intel’s 3/5/7 notation makes no sense.

DoomGuy64
Guest
DoomGuy64

Binning. They clock better, and have higher boosts. Overclocking a non-x uses more juice to obtain the same clocks, and a good chunk don’t hit 4Ghz, but 3.9.

jihadjoe
Guest
jihadjoe

Some don’t even hit 3.9.

Siliconlottery’s [url=https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/1700a39g<]page on the 1700[/url<] says 77% can do 3.9, meaning if you buy a 1700 from a regular store there's a 23% chance you could end up with a dud that only does 3.8.

meerkt
Guest
meerkt

So a vague non-guaranteed more OC potential? Doesn’t sound like much.

DoomGuy64
Guest
DoomGuy64

It’s not at all vague or non-guaranteed. You have it reversed. The X versions are binned for higher clocks OOTB. Overclocking the non-X to get X clocks is what’s vague and non-guaranteed. Jihadjoe’s link to siliconlottery showed that only 77% of the 1700 non-x can reach 3.9. The only way you can reach high clocks 100% is to buy a chip that hits those clocks stock. Otherwise, it’s a gamble. AMD is binning their chips so that the better versions cost more. Plus, the X versions have a higher stock boost frequency. If you want a high clocked Ryzen CPU… Read more »

meerkt
Guest
meerkt

If it’s the official higher clocks you mean, how’s it different from any “higher number models” throughout the years?

1800X has higher clocks than 1700X which has higher clocks than 1700. Why not call it 1700, 1800, 1900?

K-L-Waster
Guest
K-L-Waster

Could be worse: they could have used some crazy metallic naming convention like some other company recently did….

[url<]https://techreport.com/news/31848/skylake-will-hit-datacenters-as-xeon-processor-scalable-family[/url<]

DoomGuy64
Guest
DoomGuy64

Because the X is associated with increased XFR, which means higher boost clocks. The non-x doesn’t boost as far, because they are lower binned CPUs. XFR is factory supported overclocking, which takes thermals into account. The “X” series are not only clocked higher, but boost further. Maybe around double the non-x. Manual overclocking does not use XFR, and requires more voltage and better cooling than a stock “X” Cpu. Buying a “X” cpu on the other hand, means you are getting a cpu that is factory supported to run at higher clocks, and it also “boosts” further than stock settings… Read more »

ronch
Guest
ronch

X means an SKU has XFR enabled. Not that it matters a lot though; it only affords 50-100MHz more turbo.

Jeff Kampman
Guest
Jeff Kampman

This is a mistaken idea. All Ryzen CPUs made so far have XFR enabled; the X models can just boost higher than non-X models.

ronch
Guest
ronch

Yeah, they can boost a little bit higher. But I sometimes think it’s more of a marketing gimmick. Something that’s present only in the higher models to make them look like they’re a bit more special. And I suppose they are, given how they have higher base clocks in the first place.

jihadjoe
Guest
jihadjoe

Check out [url=http://imgur.com/a/D0UBx<]this graph[/url<] compiling clockspeed vs voltage from /r/AMD users. The X cpus clock higher and at a lower voltage. If you want a chance to hit 4.1/4.2, or guarantee 4.0GHz you pretty much have to get an 1800X/1600X. Siliconlottery's data supports this as well. 77% regular 1700s can do 3.9 at 1.4V, but all 1700Xs can do 3.9 and at a lower 1.36V.

meerkt
Guest
meerkt

Heh. Interestingly, whoever made these graphs decided, in the second one, to call the 1700X “1750”:
[url<]http://i.imgur.com/PYFW78c.png[/url<]

Ninjitsu
Guest
Ninjitsu

Arma 3 plz :3

EDIT: I’m seriously interested in this from “should i spend money on this” point of view…

wingless
Guest
wingless

Overclock your RAM. AMD recently released info on how to better overclock the memory and CPU.

Chrispy_
Guest
Chrispy_

$169 is a hella low price point to be selling your octa-core dies for.

Ryzen’s good as a Broadwell-E competitor but for the mainstream stuff, selling large, expensive, disabled dies is not profitable. For every high-end part sold, there are ten mainstream parts sold and AMD’s yields can’t be that bad….

A native 4C/8T Ryzen can’t come soon enough, as far as AMD’s profitabilty is concerned. They’ve proven their architecture is not a dog, now they need to sell the i3 and i5 equivalents that end up in the lion’s share of all desktops sold.

ImSpartacus
Guest
ImSpartacus

Do you figure Raven Ridge will replace the Zeppelin quads?

I mean, the 1400 seems to go for about $150ish in frequent deals.

[url<]https://slickdeals.net/f/10082668-amd-ryzen-5-1400-4-core-cpu-processor-153-free-shipping?src=SiteSearchV2Algo1[/url<] [url<]https://slickdeals.net/f/10041376-amd-ryzen-5-1400-am4-processor-150-frys?src=SiteSearchV2Algo1[/url<]

jts888
Guest
jts888

I do.

It’s not just the extra cores, it’s all the unused ethernet, SATA, and xGMI controllers, the GMI controllers and PHYs, the AES-128 blocks on the memory controllers for encrypted VMs, etc. Zeppelin will make a mean Broadwell-E competitor and a really robust 16c MCM HEDT chip, but it’s [i<]really[/i<] bloated for low-end desktops. Raven Ridge can't come soon enough, but like everyone says, you gotta wait for Vega first...

ImSpartacus
Guest
ImSpartacus

And after those leaked Vega benchmarks showing 1.4 Gbps HBM2, people are beginning to wonder if the rumors of SK Hynix’s struggle to get their HBM2 past 1.6 Gbps could be legit. That’s be a complete disaster for Vega if it can’t use 2.0 Gbps memory.

jts888
Guest
jts888

It would be disastrous if true, but I’m inclined to disregard those rumors since MI25 enterprise cards are already in the wild and a development that serious would have been already leaked.

The more charitable explanation for Hynix not advertising 2 Gbps modules is that AMD may have bought time-limited exclusive rights during the Vega’s pre-launch and early post-launch window.

ImSpartacus
Guest
ImSpartacus

Do we have a confirmation that the MI25 parts are “in the wild” in any significant numbers?

So far, the only confirmed example of hbm2 is GP100, whose Samsung-sourced memory runs at 1.4 Gbps. I thought that was intentional underclocking, but maybe it wasn’t.

I generally agree that AMD is using its relationship to get whatever sk hynix can produce. And as a worst case, they’ll just paper launch a $700 Titan-esque part that uses every available 2 Gbps stock until things improve and amd can continue to roll out the Vega 10 Pro parts as stock improves.

MOSFET
Guest
MOSFET

I have no idea what it means, but on [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813144046&ignorebbr=1<]this Newegg product page[/url<] for a sweet-looking MSI B350 mATX mobo, there is this: * 7th Gen A-series/ Athlon processors support a maximum of 2400 MHz.

1sh
Guest
1sh

Agreed.
There are benchmarks showing a Ryzen 7 1800x with one CCX disabled trading blows with a Core i7 7700K clock for clock in some games.

[url<]http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/3/[/url<]

chuckula
Guest
chuckula

Cool story bro.

I found a real review site that came to a different conclusion: [url<]https://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/13[/url<]

1sh
Guest
1sh

Techreport never tested the ryzen 7 1800x with 1 ccx disabled. You missed the point…

Redocbew
Guest
Redocbew

Can we please stop treating disabling a CCX like it’s some kind of solution? Talk about missing the point, ugh.

Waco
Guest
Waco

Yeah, there’s no magic about disabling cores. It doesn’t suddenly make things go faster except in rare edge cases…

Pancake
Guest
Pancake

I think you’re missing the point. The point of disabling a CCX is to explore further if there are any effects from bouncing threads between clusters. It’s not about finding a “solution”. It’s about further understanding the architecture.

Edit: I don’t read Thai(?) and have no idea if the site linked by 1sh is complete bollocks. But that wasn’t my point…

Redocbew
Guest
Redocbew

I agree that’s how it first came up, but that’s not how it was presented here.

1sh
Guest
1sh

Bingo. I should have clarified that from the beginning.
Of course, I would like to see that test replicated by a reputable site like TR.

DoomGuy64
Guest
DoomGuy64

So, you are advocating for AMD to throw away defective dies? Or implying that AMD is disabling good CPUs? That’s not very efficient. The whole point of selling disabled chips is to make money off defective dies. This is only unprofitable if AMD was disabling good chips on purpose, which they’re not, or they really shouldn’t be doing.

BobbinThreadbare
Guest
BobbinThreadbare

Every CPU maker disables good cores. There’s only so many people who buy the higher priced chips.

NTMBK
Guest
NTMBK

And why is this worse than Intel wasting half an i7 die on an unused IGP?

DoomGuy64
Guest
DoomGuy64

It’s Chuckula level trolling, because there’s no way AMD is wasting good 8 core chips to sell as quads. This level of assumption is beyond rational theorizing. Sure, if it was true, but there’s no proof to back up these whackjob claims. It’s more like pass whatever he’s smoking, because that is some good stuff. PUI bare minimum. AMD isn’t selling quad cores 10x the rate of the 8 cores. Intel has all the OEMs on a leash selling their stuff, AMD builds are still APUs, and enthusiasts aren’t going to buy out the quads. If anything, the 6-8 cores… Read more »

Anonymous Coward
Guest
Anonymous Coward

Actually… if AMD’s yields were fantastic, they might be able to produce such an abundance, perhaps [i<]especially[/i<] before there are big OEM orders, that they disable parts purely as market segmentation, until they have a native 4-core die available with a GPU. If they can choose between a low margin chip and no sale, I imagine they'll go for low margin.

DreadCthulhu
Guest
DreadCthulhu

I don’t think Zeppelin is all that expensive of a die. Remember that the Polaris in the RX480/580 is a slightly large die (232 mm² vs ~200 mm²) manufactured at the same Global Foundries fab, and AMD can package that Polaris on a PCB + 4 GB of rather fast RAM, and still make a profit selling it at $200. I wonder what the die sizes of Raven Ridge is going to be – sure it will have half the cores, and probably strip out some of the server stuff, but it is also going to include an iGPU, which… Read more »

ronch
Guest
ronch

I’d rather that AMD makes a native 4-core die but I suppose they’ve done the math and maybe it makes more sense to just stick with one die and let binning do all the work?

ImSpartacus
Guest
ImSpartacus

Raven Ridge is the platform closest to that. One CCX and a smallish Vega-based gpu.

ET3D
Guest
ET3D

I don’t see the problem with profitability. The Ryzen die is smaller than the Radeon RX 480 die, and I’m sure that AMD isn’t losing money on that, even thought it’s sold at $200 at the card level, which includes a full board+cooler+RAM, and is sold by OEM’s, which adds to the price. So I imagine that AMD is making quite a bit of profit even at $169.

Besides, I think that many people would consider the extra $50 for a 1600 worth it over a 1400. I’d be interested in seeing some sales figures.

dodozoid
Guest
dodozoid

Are you sure you can just easily calculate chip manufactoring price by its area?
I gues there are differences in chip design such as number of metal layers, differences in complexity (much higher in cpu vs. gpu) would decrease yields and so on…

Anonymous Coward
Guest
Anonymous Coward

You mention yield as a cost contributor. The Ryzen 1500X and 1400 are, as I’m sure you know, the result of reducing waste due to imperfect yields, its a question of extracting value from the waste product of making the higher margin parts. AMD also has the option of throwing away imperfect dies, but selling them at these prices is apparently a better option.

It will be interesting to see if they continue to sell 50% disabled dies a year from now, once they have a native 4-core part (with GPU).

dodozoid
Guest
dodozoid

By yields here, I meant something like misaligned layer or something rendering the whole chip unusable. Not sure if that actualy happens in reality.
Anyone here who has deeper understanding of IC manufactoring process?

ET3D
Guest
ET3D

I don’t really know, but I’m sure that there is rationale behind the prices. People often find it easy to criticise corporate decisions but don’t have real numbers to back it. I’m sure that AMD has given pricing some thought, and that it’s still making a decent profit here.

derFunkenstein
Guest
derFunkenstein

Well, it’s smaller than a Polaris die, which sells for $169 in the RX 570, and includes a whole bunch of GDDR5 memory, voltage regulation hardware, and much larger PCB.

Chrispy_
Guest
Chrispy_

That is a very valid point.

I guess it’s all relative and shows just how profitable Intel has been in the CPU sector :\
Just because they’re not making anywhere [i<]near[/i<] as much profit per chip as intel does [i<]not[/i<] mean that they're not still making good profits. Realistically, the price covers R&D more than anything else, right?

derFunkenstein
Guest
derFunkenstein

Yeah, the R&D and whatever they’re paying Intel for licensing (for which AMD should be in a good position, considering their ownership of x86-64) should be the brunt of what’s left. My “analysis” above didn’t really account for any of that, and it’s still possible they’re not priced well. They’re certainly priced to sell, though.

KarVi
Guest
KarVi

Well, I was wondering when Part II was comming.

Nice to see work is still ongoing. Looking forward to the review.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This