AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz

[Melvis]

How is this even relevant?
You concentrate way to much on the "it's 2017" and 1080p. This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications. The impact of GPU is therefore minimized. Simple as that.

Hows isnt it?
I concentrate on the now and the majority not something thats clearly not even relevant in todays market. Just read exactly what you just said, it makes no sense at all. "This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications." Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore. The market shows the majority uses 1080P, fact! Why even bother showing this type of benchmark if your going to "relate" this to gaming? when no one uses it, hello! Run a real CPU benchmark then if your going to show true CPU performance, not a res that no one ever uses anymore.

You're obviously an obvious intel shill. AMD users should hang on to their Phenoms, games don't need CPU power. /s

Looks over to my system specs < ummm clearly not. Get your heads out of the sand and into the future kids.

 

[notb]

Hows isnt it?
I concentrate on the now and the majority not something thats clearly not even relevant in todays market. Just read exactly what you just said, it makes no sense at all. "This is in fact a synthetic benchmark for checking how a CPU performs in gaming applications." Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore. The market shows the majority uses 1080P, fact! Why even bother showing this type of benchmark if your going to "relate" this to gaming? when no one uses it, hello! Run a real CPU benchmark then if your going to show true CPU performance, not a res that no one ever uses anymore.

1) I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people (if not most) play games at around 720p. Where did you get those "the market shows" data from?
2) I used the word "synthetic" because this benchmark is not meant to replicate real usage of today. The goal of this test is to check, how CPUs compare in a gaming load. Not "in 2017" or "in 1080p", but GENERALLY. It's not here to give you any meaningful results for the particular way to use your PC (much like proper synthetic benchmarks).
Games are very unique among other applications and it is important to check how a CPU copes with such a task.
However, GPUs bottleneck the system at high resolution (they flatten the results of faster CPUs): currently even a high-end GTX1080 is not enough to see a significant difference at 1440p.

Luckily, Ryzen 5 1400 is so slow that even your beloved 1080p is enough (as G4560 beats it in some titles). The "720p" was originally requested because of the more powerful CPUs we have today (to see any difference between e.g. 7700K and 1800X).

 

[infrared]

Sorry @Melvis , I have to agree with notb. I originally thought 1080p and higher resolutions would be best, based on my opinion that poorly coded games might skew the results at much higher fps.

At least W1zzard is doing 720P testing as well as, and not instead of the higher resolution tests. So there's really nothing to complain about. Look at whatever resolution game test results you want to draw your own conclusions

 

[Melvis]

1) I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people (if not most) play games at around 720p. Where did you get those "the market shows" data from?
2) I used the word "synthetic" because this benchmark is not meant to replicate real usage of today. The goal of this test is to check, how CPUs compare in a gaming load. Not "in 2017" or "in 1080p", but GENERALLY. It's not here to give you any meaningful results for the particular way to use your PC (much like proper synthetic benchmarks).
Games are very unique among other applications and it is important to check how a CPU copes with such a task.
However, GPUs bottleneck the system at high resolution (they flatten the results of faster CPUs): currently even a high-end GTX1080 is not enough to see a significant difference at 1440p.

Luckily, Ryzen 5 1400 is so slow that even your beloved 1080p is enough (as G4560 beats it in some titles). The "720p" was originally requested because of the more powerful CPUs we have today (to see any difference between e.g. 7700K and 1800X).

I think this thread here will cover everything

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654097

Majority rules!

 

[notb]

I think this thread here will cover everything

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654097

Majority rules!

I doubt you've thought this through.

Ummm sorry but this is 2017 and no one games at 720p anymore.

Have you seen the statistics few posts below the one you've linked?
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654104

 

[Melvis]

I doubt you've thought this through.

Have you seen the statistics few posts below the one you've linked?
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-or-1080p-1440p-4k.233110/page-4#post-3654104

It shows that Im right? that the majority do indeed use 1080P at over 49%, whats your point here? 720P will only decrease and at a rapid rate, 1366*768 is netbooks that play some silly basic games like candy crush or some shit, not really relevant now is it?

 

[notb]

It shows that Im right? that the majority do indeed use 1080P at over 49%, whats your point here? 720P will only decrease and at a rapid rate, 1366*768 is netbooks that play some silly basic games like candy crush or some shit, not really relevant now is it?

Just a moment ago you said that benchmarks should concentrate on what's important "today" or "in 2017". The statistics we're looking at are from May 2017. What is more "today" than that?
1) 1366x768 notebooks have been around for years and popularity of this resolution is clearly not "decreasing at a rapid rate". In fact even today this is still by far the most popular resolution in the sub-$500 notebook segment (so the one that will utilize cheaper Ryzen APUs).
2) Most 1080p notebooks don't have a GPU powerful enough for gaming at this resolution, so people play at 1366x768 anyway.

I'd say the discussion about 720p tests being relevant is finished at this point - unless you have something to add other than that appalling "candy crush" thing.

Now you can tell us what's really so wrong about 720p tests, that you can't simply click the "next page" button and forget about it. You're afraid of the digit "7"? Or maybe it has something to do with Col. Jessup after all?

 

[bug]

Funny how low-res gaming was never brought up on TPU until AMD started sucking at it.
Personally, I don't get this "don't test X" mind set. If it's a review, I want it to include everything and the kitchen sink. It's the only way I can pick and choose what is relevant for me.

 

[notb]

Funny how low-res gaming was never brought up on TPU until AMD started sucking at it.

Well... until Ryzen came along CPUs weren't really covered by TPU staff. We were getting checks on how new Intel flagship improves GPU utilization and - from time to time - how far behind AMD is at the moment.
Similarly, there weren't that many CPU topics on the forum. They didn't even get a separate section.

It all changed with Ryzen. Suddenly everyone jumped on the CPU topic and everyone expect reviewers to finally tell us which brand is best. TPU has reviewed all Ryzen 5 and the top 1800X (testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).
And because it's impossible to tell in high-res games, a new test was needed. 720p is a nice option.

I don't think "720p gaming" is a topic on TPU anyway. It's still a geek site after all. People interested in a more sensible approach to gaming have other sites.[/QUOTE]

 

[bug]

Well... until Ryzen came along CPUs weren't really covered by TPU staff. We were getting checks on how new Intel flagship improves GPU utilization and - from time to time - how far behind AMD is at the moment.
Similarly, there weren't that many CPU topics on the forum. They didn't even get a separate section.

It all changed with Ryzen. Suddenly everyone jumped on the CPU topic and everyone expect reviewers to finally tell us which brand is best. TPU has reviewed all Ryzen 5 and the top 1800X (testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).
And because it's impossible to tell in high-res games, a new test was needed. 720p is a nice option.

I don't think "720p gaming" is a topic on TPU anyway. It's still a geek site after all. People interested in a more sensible approach to gaming have other sites.

You sure about that? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_2500K_GPU/4.html

 

[W1zzard]

(testing 1700(X) was pretty pointless).

I have the 1700 reviews coming up soon

You sure about that? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_2500K_GPU/4.html

That was an IGP-only review I did, many years ago. The reason why we do proper CPU reviews now is because AMD dumped a ton of Ryzen CPU samples on me without asking, so I was like "let's see how difficult CPU reviews can be, could be something fun for a change". Lots of learning and benchmarking was involved, but I'm quite happy with the results so far

 

[bug]

I have the 1700 reviews coming up soon


That was an IGP-only review I did, many years ago. The reason why we do proper CPU reviews now is because AMD dumped a ton of Ryzen CPU samples on me without asking, so I was like "let's see how difficult CPU reviews can be, could be something fun for a change". Lots of learning and benchmarking was involved, but I'm quite happy with the results so far

Come on, the site is littered with CPU reviews. Gaming wasn't so detailed, but it was there in the past.

And going back to the resolution discussion, Anandtech also benches at 720 (with low quality even) and 1080: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/6
HardOCP ups the ante and goes for 640x480: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/09/intel_kaby_lake_core_i77700k_ipc_review/4

Are they trying to show you real world gaming situations? Hell no. There are CPU reviews and as such they're meant to show how the CPU does.

 

[GoldenX]

Compare the ratio of GPU/CPU reviews of the site, a couple of Phenom II, some Intels, they have started doing ir regularly right now with Ryzen.

Testing a CPU at 720 is an excellent way of benching processors, but it's by no mean an indicative of gaming performance, for that you have to look at 1080 and higher resolutions, 1600x900 if you want. The only people that play games at lower resolutions are notebook users, and that is 1366x768, not 1280x720.

 

[notb]

The only people that play games at lower resolutions are notebook users, and that is 1366x768, not 1280x720.

"The only people" sounds like if it's a tiny minority, while it's actually a HUGE part of the market. Notebooks dominate the PC industry. Also while many offer 1080p, they're not powerful enough to play games at this resolution. As a result people will go for a smaller pixel count.

It's also true for desktops. A hugely popular 1080p card could become unusable at this resolution in games released 3 years from now. People buying RX460 or 1050Ti today will end up limited to 720p at some point.

As for the 1366x768 vs 1280x720 - many games don't support the former, while 1280x720 is just an aggregate from 1440p and a desktop standard few years back - hence pretty much ubiquitous.

 

[kruk]

720p benchmarks show how far the CPU could push the current benchmarked games on a much faster GPU, however, it's by no mean a indication of it's performance in future games.

I'm not against 720p benchmarks, but they should not be used to project CPU performance in future gaming applications.

 

[bug]

720p benchmarks show how far the CPU could push the current benchmarked games on a much faster GPU, however, it's by no mean a indication of it's performance in future games.

I'm not against 720p benchmarks, but they should not be used to project CPU performance in future gaming applications.

This.
They're like a synthetic benchmark: how fast can a CPU go while handling a specific (in this case gaming) workload.

 

[zimcomp]

Im just wondering in almost all games from top to bottom you have a 6 fps difference
with my limited budget im just wondering if its better to get a better processor or graphics card


I've always believed that a balance system was best but looking at some of these figures for FPS its hard to justify the £300 difference between a low end Ryzen cpu and the top end one
if i took the budget of £500 for a cpu and spent £200 on a cpu and with the remaining £300 spent it on a extra 8gb of memory and upped my budget for my graphics card from £200 to £400

Im wondering if i will get better performance

 

[bug]

Im just wondering in almost all games from top to bottom you have a 6 fps difference
with my limited budget im just wondering if its better to get a better processor or graphics card


I've always believed that a balance system was best but looking at some of these figures for FPS its hard to justify the £300 difference between a low end Ryzen cpu and the top end one
if i took the budget of £500 for a cpu and spent £200 on a cpu and with the remaining £300 spent it on a extra 8gb of memory and upped my budget for my graphics card from £200 to £400

Im wondering if i will get better performance

Well, you thought right. It's just that these days you can't build an all around balanced PC, you need to build one balanced around your needs. While that requires a bit of research, it's also a tinkerer's dream
So enjoy.

 

[Shirley Marquez]

Has it been confirmed that the 1400 uses a 2x2 configuration rather than 4x1? I'd have thought the latter would make more sense for the reduced cache configuration; it would provide a use for the chips where one of the core clusters was defective and would allow for a die redesign where the second cluster was omitted altogether. Perhaps they'll use those for the Ryzen 3...

 

[GoldenX]

I think the single CCX design is reserved for the APUs, with the extra space dedicated to the IGP.

 

[bug]

Has it been confirmed that the 1400 uses a 2x2 configuration rather than 4x1? I'd have thought the latter would make more sense for the reduced cache configuration; it would provide a use for the chips where one of the core clusters was defective and would allow for a die redesign where the second cluster was omitted altogether. Perhaps they'll use those for the Ryzen 3...

Not again. Yes, 4x1 would be better for performance, but AMD needs to salvage as many chips as possible (just like Intel). So these are 2x2.

 

[Melvis]

Just a moment ago you said that benchmarks should concentrate on what's important "today" or "in 2017". The statistics we're looking at are from May 2017. What is more "today" than that?
1) 1366x768 notebooks have been around for years and popularity of this resolution is clearly not "decreasing at a rapid rate". In fact even today this is still by far the most popular resolution in the sub-$500 notebook segment (so the one that will utilize cheaper Ryzen APUs).
2) Most 1080p notebooks don't have a GPU powerful enough for gaming at this resolution, so people play at 1366x768 anyway.

I'd say the discussion about 720p tests being relevant is finished at this point - unless you have something to add other than that appalling "candy crush" thing.

Now you can tell us what's really so wrong about 720p tests, that you can't simply click the "next page" button and forget about it. You're afraid of the digit "7"? Or maybe it has something to do with Col. Jessup after all?

Your just trying to justify what your trying to say when your only making yourself look silly, you provided info that proved and showed that in fact 1080P IS by far the most used Res today.

1) 1366x768 notebooks are budget lower end machines (under $1000) and are only on laptops because well that exactly, budget. I just spent the last 2weeks with a friend of mine looking at getting a laptop for his wife and I can tell you this much, the 1366x768 res is terrible! and when you have all the laptops lined up at your local shop you can see clearly what is a 1080P screen compared to the 13366x769 screen, stands out by a mile! First thought was by my friend (he has no clue on computers) was that screen looks crap, dont want that laptop, and we are talking about 50-60 laptops we looked at, not 1 or 2 and he could clearly see the difference.
2) Again your coming back to "gaming" hello!!! this isnt all about farking gaming! This is about getting with the times and realising what is been used the most NOW and is only going to increase from now on, I bet you this time next yr 1080P will be even higher in % and the 1366x768 res will be cut in half because its 2017, no one wants a 15yr old res anymore!

I think this discussion was over as soon as you proved my point actually, you gave a link that showed CLEARLY that the most used res TODAY is 1080P, and its only going to go up! and so will 1440P/4k, so I have no idea why your trying to justify your comment with false info, its honestly making you look stupid! So Id suggest you give up. You saw a "bigger" but not the most percentage res and decided to roll with it to try to prove your point, and in turn you actually proved my point even more! and made your self look pretty childish.

In fact, go out today and go find a brand new 1366x768 Monitor for a PC, not a crappy laptop that mum uses to play some facebook game on or budget steam/free game on, you be very hard pressed to find one and in fact I dont think I have even seen one come into work for over 8yrs now, the lowest i see is 1680x1050, or 1600x900, but nothing ever that low when it comes to PC monitors and guess what, this whole review and discussion was for PC, NOT laptop where you got your magical "bigger" but less 1366x768 res from and decided to run with it Get with the damn times !

 

[horsemama1956]

I just built Ryzen 5 1400 setup and I am not seeing the i3 performance comparison at all. Games liken BF1, Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, Forza run so much better than an i3 can run them. I only run my CPU at 3.6Ghz with memory at 2933Mhz.

I opted for the 1400 over the 1600 because in Canada there is a $100+ difference and I intend on moving to 2560x1440 60hz in the coming weeks as well as the next iteration of Ryzen which will hopefully have higher clocks.

Seems like the ideal chip for budget setups for 60 fps with solid single threaded performance and really nice multi.