AMD's Ryzen 5 1400 Gaming Performance Leaked by Early Adopter

[Raevenlord]

Even though the NDA still isn't up on AMD's second volley of Ryzen-based CPUs, some lucky buyers are already running some of the upcoming Ryzen 5 processors after some sellers jumped the gun. Now, a YouTube video by user "Santiago Santiago." is making the rounds in which he compares gaming performance between the Ryzen 5 1400 (4-core, 8-thread part @ 3.2 GHz base, 3.4 GHz boost), Intel's i5 7400 (4-cores @ 3.0 GHz base, 3.5 GHz boost), and the Pentium G4560, a Kaby Lake dual-core CPU with Hyper Threading @ 3.5 GHz base clocks. The user even snapped a picture proving he has his hands on this chip.





AMD's Ryzen 5 1400 was also tested while overclocked to 3.8 GHz - which puts it on a somewhat level playing field with Intel's i5 7400, sometimes being bested by it (like in Battlefield 1) and sometimes besting it (like in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt). A Kingston HyperX Fury 2133@2666 MHz kit was used for both systems. Naturally, the 2-core, 4-thread Pentium G4560 trails both other tested processors by a fair margin in most games. The user has posted an index of sorts for the time slices on the YouTube video:

• OCing at 00:16
• Specs at 00:41
• Battlefield 1 DX12 at 01:18
• Fallout 4 at 04:03
• GTA 5 at 04:51
• Hitman DX12 at 06:49
• Just Cause 3 at 07:39
• Assassin's Creed Unity at 08:06
• The Witcher 3 at 08:57
• Rise Of The Tomb Raider DX12 at 10:02

Keep in mind that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance has seen multiple improvements as of late, though these improvements have been more dependent on game developers than on AMD itself. However, the company is looking towards BIOS updates that should improve Ryzen's support and handling of high-speed DDR4 memory (with some latency improvements to boot), which should also provide some measure of a performance improvement.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Caring1]

I'm interested how core scaling works on these, the R5 1600 has 50% more cores and basically the same speeds, will it equal an increase in performance around 50%.

 

[Keullo-e]

So it seems that I can be happy with my budget gaming rig featuring G4560.

 

[dj-electric]

I'm interested how core scaling works on these, the R5 1600 has 50% more cores and basically the same speeds, will it equal an increase in performance around 50%.

Absolutely not in gaming, thats for sure

 

[zelnep]

So it seems that I can be happy with my budget gaming rig featuring G4560.

sure you can - you have a weak ass GPU - it will always be a bottle neck for gaming (unless you play 600x480 or something) ... but that R5 price is only +100$ than G4560 and if you would do anything other with a PC then R5 would smoke that pentium (without braking the piggy bank - maybe just crakc it to get only one extra Benjamin out of there - that is it)..

 

[Keullo-e]

sure you can - you have a weak ass GPU - it will always be a bottle neck for gaming (unless you play 600x480 or something) ... but that R5 price is only +100$ than G4560 and if you would do anything other with a PC then R5 would smoke that pentium (without braking the piggy bank - maybe just crakc it to get only one extra Benjamin out of there - that is it)..

This GTX560Ti 448 is just a temporary card, probably getting a GTX970 this week. I had GTX780Ti few weeks ago and I sold it just because of that 970. But hey, at least this temporary card runs RE7 at 1080p60 with med/high settings

 

[Hugis]

2 been benched here

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/Rating/3919

the 1600 model

 

[ratirt]

This GTX560Ti 448 is just a temporary card, probably getting a GTX970 this week. I had GTX780Ti few weeks ago and I sold it just because of that 970. But hey, at least this temporary card runs RE7 at 1080p60 with med/high settings

That's weird. Why did you sell 780 TI for the 970?(hope you are not buying the 970) They are equal in performance so there's no improvement. I own a 780 Ti and my bro has a 970 and in some games my card's better. Overall they are same. Not sure what's the point for you to go 970 over 780 Ti? Consider going 980 maybe? That would kick things up a notch,

On the subject.
I know this R5 is an engineering sample but I honestly expect a bit more from it. I hope the clocks would be a bit higher than r7 family.

 

[Shamalamadingdong]

That's weird. Why did you sell 780 TI for the 970?(hope you are not buying the 970) They are equal in performance so there's no improvement. I own a 780 Ti and my bro has a 970 and in some games my card's better. Overall they are same. Not sure what's the point for you to go 970 over 780 Ti? Consider going 980 maybe? That would kick things up a notch,

On the subject.
I know this R5 is an engineering sample but I honestly expect a bit more from it. I hope the clocks would be a bit higher than r7 family.

It's not an engineering sample. As you can see it's shipping in a retail box. Stores are getting stock early and for some reason are shipping it before the launch date.
The die is the same. That's why you're not really seeing improvements in clock speeds. They're essentially broken R7 chips.

 

[Vayra86]

It's not an engineering sample. As you can see it's shipping in a retail box. Stores are getting stock early and for some reason are shipping it before the launch date.
The die is the same. That's why you're not really seeing improvements in clock speeds. They're essentially broken R7 chips.

They are but the TDPs do suggest there is a lot more wiggle room for clocks than we see now. It had really hoped/half expected R5 to clock to 4.2 at least.

 

[ratirt]

It's not an engineering sample. As you can see it's shipping in a retail box. Stores are getting stock early and for some reason are shipping it before the launch date.
The die is the same. That's why you're not really seeing improvements in clock speeds. They're essentially broken R7 chips.

We all know that they are shipping in a retail box. I'm not talking about the box but the processor that Santiago guy tested which appears to be a sample not retail. Anyway if it is an engineering sample that would mean it will get higher clocks if not, well..... I expected a bit more out of the R5 than what's been shown. That's just my opinion. Maybe the BIOS updates will bump performance slightly? Still be slightly I guess. Can't expect radical performance boosts after BIOS updates but who knows.

 

[Caring1]

Anyway if it is an engineering sample that would mean it will get higher clocks if not, well.....

I just wanted to correct this point.
E.S. may or may not run at the rated speeds of the end product, generally from what I have seen they run a bit slower and can be missing some of the instruction sets

 

[ratirt]

Well if that turns out to be true then the R5 family would be actually slower than R7. I always thought that this 4c/8t would be the best to compete with the I7 7700 with games since of the higher clock rates achievable by the R5. guess I was wrong. Maybe that will be reserved for the 6c/12t? but if 4c/8t wont reach 4.5 Ghz for example then what chance 6c/12t has? I guess I will have to wait for official benches. Although from what I've seen so far, honestly, I expected a bit more than that. bummer.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

This is promising for APUs based on a quad core zen CPU. Imagine this thing with a 640 core iGPU. Would make for some sweet miniITX boxes.

 

[Shamalamadingdong]

Well if that turns out to be true then the R5 family would be actually slower than R7. I always thought that this 4c/8t would be the best to compete with the I7 7700 with games since of the higher clock rates achievable by the R5. guess I was wrong. Maybe that will be reserved for the 6c/12t? but if 4c/8t wont reach 4.5 Ghz for example then what chance 6c/12t has? I guess I will have to wait for official benches. Although from what I've seen so far, honestly, I expected a bit more than that. bummer.

I can imagine AMD investing money into producing a smaller die later on (perhaps on the next iteration of Zen next year) or perhaps they'll position their desktop APUs to hit 4+ GHz. Right now they have to do everything within a budget. That means one die with whatever quality GloFo can pump out and then harvest them and see where they can fit in their stack.

It sucks to be so financially constrained but that's why we have to hope 2017 will fill up AMD's coffers for a strong return to form in 2018 and 2019. Don't get me wrong. 2017 will likely be an excellent year for AMD (the best they've had in the last decade probably) but the outcome of 2017 will determine if they can expand their operations for the next few years. Hopefully they can, so that we see them release a more comprehensive stack of products for both the CPU and GPU market.

 

[pantherx12]

They are but the TDPs do suggest there is a lot more wiggle room for clocks than we see now. It had really hoped/half expected R5 to clock to 4.2 at least.

Tdp is just thermal design power.

So having a lower tdp on the same type of chip just means they've designed it ( I. E they've lowered clocks and voltage or disabled cores, sometimes all 3) to fit within that tdp.

So if you got a 65w 1700 and ran it at same clocks and voltages as an 1800x it will be equivalent to 95w tdp.

Similar concept applies when over clock only you are now running beyond the thermal design power but you'll still end up with 140w+ cpu when you run more voltage through to get your overclock.


In Amds case I belive their tdp rating is based on rating of the heatsink required to cool the processor adequately.

So typically they would sell a 65w tdp with a heatsink capable of dissipating 65w of heat effectively.

That's why when actual power draw is measured its always higher than what the tdp is, because say the cpu is drawing 150w total most of that energy will be used for running the transistors how ever some of the energy is wasted as thermal energy ( since we can't make things 100% efficient) that's why we need bigger heatsinks or watercooling when overclock as wires in cpu are so small extra voltage "leaks" and that leakage turns into heat. The more volts you put in the more leaky things get which is why managing the heat output gets more and more difficult.

 

[TheMailMan78]

This GTX560Ti 448 is just a temporary card, probably getting a GTX970 this week. I had GTX780Ti few weeks ago and I sold it just because of that 970. But hey, at least this temporary card runs RE7 at 1080p60 with med/high settings

Why would you sell a 780ti for a 970? In most games that's a downgrade.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Why would you sell a 780ti for a 970? In most games that's a downgrade.

We don't all have sugar mommas. Some of us got to pay the bills.

 

[TheMailMan78]

We don't all have sugar mommas. Some of us got to pay the bills.

I aint got no sugar mama. I pay my own bills and the wifes. I support 5 people on one pay check. Its called hustling.

 

[intelzen]

We don't all have sugar mommas. Some of us got to pay the bills.

either 780ti or 970 is terrible value right now - there is only two variants about these gpu's right now
1) if you have one - sell it and with that money buy NEW gtx 1060 (or rx 470 or rx480 - depending on stupidity level of your used card buyer) - and with spare 30$ pay your bills or buy a pink dildo for that sugar momma.
2) if you do not have one (780ti or 970) - do not even think about buying - do with that money the same as from "1)"

 

[TheMailMan78]

either 780ti or 970 is terrible value right now - there is only two variants about these gpu's right now
1) if you have one - sell it and with that money buy NEW gtx 1060 (or rx 470 or rx480 - depending on stupidity level of your used card buyer) - and with spare 30$ pay your bills or buy a pink dildo for that sugar momma.
2) if you do not have one (780ti or 970) - do not even think about buying - do with that money the same as from "1)"

1060 bro? really. No.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

The CPU utilization numbers of the Ryzen processors are pretty bad (bottom of the screen). What's up with that?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

The CPU utilization numbers of the Ryzen processors are pretty bad (bottom of the screen). What's up with that?

Most games right now max out at either 4 or 6 cores, usually 4 cores. So on a chip with 4 cores/8 threads including Ryzen it will saturate the 4 cores first and background processes will likely get dropped on any free threads. This will show 50% to 60% utilization.

The Intel chips in this comparison are 4 cores and 2 cores/4 threads which means a game will likely fully saturate the entire chip with no headroom left.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Most games right now max out at either 4 or 6 cores, usually 4 cores. So on a chip with 4 cores/8 threads including Ryzen it will saturate the 4 cores first and background processes will likely get dropped on any free threads. This will show 50% to 60% utilization.

The Intel chips in this comparison are 4 cores and 2 cores/4 threads which means a game will likely fully saturate the entire chip with no headroom left.

Am I mistaken to think that this new "gamer mode" in the Windows 10 update might change some of this? Or is it on the games level?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Am I mistaken to think that this new "gamer mode" in the Windows 10 update might change some of this? Or is it on the games level?

I don't think so. From the little I know about the "game mode" is it is suppose to temporarily lower the priority of windows tasks to "background" and some other tweaks to minimize their utilization of the CPU while gaming. While it sounds all nice, I think it will end up being a placebo affect at best and a trick to move people toward their Game store at worst. I remember programs back in the XP and Vista days that claimed the same thing that usually ending with no real world changes and a lot of "benchmarks" show 1 to 4 FPS better. This will be the same.