Latest from Tom's Hardware in Amd-ryzen-5-1500x

CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy 2026: CPU Rankings

Jake Roach — Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:25:13 +0000

CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

In the album above, you can see our master charts for gaming, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance for CPUs. For games, all of our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE, and for applications, our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti FE. For applications, no compute is actively running on the GPU; it’s a glorified display output that shares a driver with our gaming GPU. You can find a full breakdown of the test benches we used at the end of this article.

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026
CPU / (MSRP)	Street Price	1080p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 7 9850X3D ($500)	$499	100%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D ($480)	$464	97%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D ($700)	$676	95.7%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D ($600)	$530	86.9%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D ($450)	$399	85.6%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D ($700)	$650	83.9%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D ($300)	$246	80.6%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i9-14900K ($550)	$469	78.2%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ($300)	$350	77.5%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 7 7900X3D ($600)	Out of Stock	77.1%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X ($650)	$520	76.9%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core i9-13900K ($590)	Out of Stock	76.8%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core i7-14700K ($410)	$340	76.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core i7-13700K ($410)	Out of Stock	75.8%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X ($500)	$439	73.9%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ($200)	$220	73.3%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K ($320)	$300	72.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 5 9600X ($280)	$188	72.6%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core Ultra 9 285K ($590)	$557	71.8%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X ($700)	Out of Stock	71%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core i5-13600K ($320)	$319	70.9%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 7700X ($400)	$249	70.6%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 7 265K ($400)	$284	70.3%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7900X ($550)	$299	69.2%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170W / 230W
Ryzen 5 7600X ($300)	$180	67.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 5 245K ($320)	$202	67.1%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i7-12700K ($410)	$285	65.8%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core Ultra 5 225 ($183)	$180	62.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i5-12600K ($290)	$185	60.8%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core i5-14400 ($220)	$250	58%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W

You can see the relative score for AMD and Intel CPUs above, measured against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is the fastest gaming CPU on the market, per our testing. So, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D offers 97.04% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 69.28% of the performance. You can set any CPU as a baseline for comparison with Bench, which is available in Tom’s Hardware Premium.

All of our gaming tests were run with the RTX 5090 FE at 1080p with a mixture of High and Ultra settings. We run each test multiple times — usually between three and five — and pick the median result. In other words, the results we use are real, recorded runs, not an average of several different runs. This is important as some games, such as Far Cry 6, show great CPU scaling but are otherwise inconsistent run-to-run.

In addition to consistent hardware (test benches at the end of this article), we use a consistent test image between platforms. That means the same GPU driver, the same Windows install, the game version, etc. We also tested with Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off, Resizable BAR turned on, and automatic overclocking features disabled. That includes the Intel Extreme power profile and AMD’s PBO, both of which aren’t covered under standard warranty.

For this refresh, we tested 17 games and then calculated a geometric mean of the results. A simple average would provide skewed results with such a large test pool. A geomean provides a more realistic view of how each CPU compares to the others.

Here are the games that we used for testing:

Counter-Strike 2
The Last of Us Part One
Cyberpunk 2077
Starfield
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Hogwarts Legacy
F1 24
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
Baldur’s Gate 3
Monster Hunter: Wilds
Final Fantasy XIV
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
Doom: The Dark Ages
Oblivion Remastered
Far Cry 6
Hitman 3
Minecraft RTX

We’re constantly evaluating new games to include in our test suite — see our recent stories on Resident Evil Requiem CPU scaling and Crimson Desert CPU scaling — but we maintain a list of tried-and-true benchmarks for our hierarchy rankings. We want to avoid including brand-new titles, which may see many updates, to keep our rankings as true to reality as possible. If you want more about the rationale behind our game choices, see our behind the scenes look at our CPU hierarchy testing.

Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	100%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	98.5%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 7 265K	96.8%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core i9-14900K	95.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	94%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Ryzen 9 9950X	93.3%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	93.2%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	92.8%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 5 245K	92.5%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i9-13900K	92.4%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X	92.2%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	90.8%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9700X / 105W TDP	90.6% / 90.5%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Core i7-14700K	90.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	89% / 88.9%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	87.6%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 225	87.3%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i7-13700K	86.7%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Core i5-14600K	85.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	85.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X	85.2%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	84%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 7700X	84%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core i5-13600K	82.4%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	79.7%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-12600K	78.6%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	77.3%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Core i5-14400	75.4%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	73.2%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Ryzen 5 7600X	71.5%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

We run hundreds of tests for each CPU, but only a small subset of those tests factor into our single-threaded rankings. We use the mp3 encoder LAME with a single thread (both standard and extended), Cinebench 2026 and 2024’s single-threaded test, the ray-traced renderer POV-ray, and WebXRT4, which runs a series of browser-based applications written in various languages.

The fastest chip in the pool here is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which scores 100%, with every other chip scored relative to it. The Core i9-14900K offers 95.4% of the single-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 5 9600X offers 89% of the performance, and so on.

Most real-world workloads aren’t strictly single-threaded, which is why we include it on a subset of the total tests we run. The goal is to see what relative performance looks like in lightly-threaded applications, as well as look into the overall architecture of different CPUs. Single-threaded performance exposes a lot about the architecture in a way that heavily-threaded applications tend to mask.

We’re, of course, looking at performance on a single core, favoring high clock speeds and IPC (instructions per cycle). However, single-threaded performance also says a lot about what’s going on elsewhere inside the CPU, from the speed of the IMC (integrated memory controller) to the fabric/ring speed. That’s why we see things like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforming the Core Ultra 9 285K, despite the latter sporting higher clock speeds.

Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	100%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9950X	96.8%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	95.6%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	88.7%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X	88%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	84.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Core i9-14900K	83.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core i9-13900K	81%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 265K	78.9%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	77%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X	76.7%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core i7-14700K	75.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	70.9%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i7-13700K	67.1%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	63.9%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	57%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	56.9%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 245K	55.8%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K	53.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	51.9%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-13600K	50.3%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 9700X / 105W TDP	47.2% / 53.2%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 7700X	46.8%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	44.5%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	39.7% / 41.7%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core i5-12600K	39.5%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core Ultra 5 225	38.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	33.1%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i5-14400	32.7%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X	31.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

Similar to single-threaded rankings, we use a subset of the total tests we run for CPU reviews in ranking multithreaded performance. Cinebench and POV-ray show up here again, this time using as many threads as possible, alongside VRay, four Blender tests, and Handbrake using various codecs. Although most applications will leverage multiple threads these days, we’re specifically looking at applications that will take as many threads as possible to maximize compute.

Compared to single-threaded workloads, heavily-threaded tasks are less concerned with clock speed and put a greater emphasis on interconnects and core-to-core latency. Core count is obviously important, as well, though it’s been somewhat undermined by Intel’s hybrid architectures over the last several generations.

Given that we’re spanning multiple nodes, core count alone isn’t indicative of higher multithreaded performance. Yes, higher core counts within the same generation will usually provide higher multithreaded performance, but a slew of other factors can increase performance, as well, from all-core and uncore frequencies to higher transistor density. Because of the wide swath of factors, you can see much more aggressive scaling with our multithreaded rankings compared to single-threaded rankings.

Integrated GPU Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

iGPU Performance relative to Ryzen 7 5700G
	1280x720	1920x1080
Ryzen 7 5700G B550-E	100%	100%
Ryzen 5 5600G	96.3%	96%
Ryzen 7 4750G	92.9%	94.1%
Ryzen 3 5300G	85.8%	87.2%
Ryzen 5 3400G	83.5%	84.1%
Ryzen 3 3200G	77.1%	78.1%
Intel UHD Graphics 750 32 EU (11600K, 11700K)	58.3%	~48.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 730 24 EU (i5-11400)	51.7%	42.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 630 24 EU (10600K)	36.0%	34.4%

Here's our list of gaming performance with integrated graphics on several of the leading APUs available. We've split this into two different price ranges, so be sure to flip through all of the performance charts. For a bit of commentary and analysis of these results, head to our Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 5600G, and Ryzen 3 5300G reviews. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it.

How to Benchmark your CPU

It’s important to know how to benchmark your CPU. It gives you a way to compare performance after an overclock or a CPU upgrade, and it allows you to check if you’re getting the full performance out of your system. Maybe a poor CPU cooler mount is limiting your performance, or maybe your BIOS settings aren’t optimal. Using benchmarks to compare your results lets you see where your rig stacks up, not only for leaderboard purposes, but also basic troubleshooting.

The key to benchmarking your CPU is consistency. The only variable that should change is your CPU, be it a new CPU or an overclock/undervolt. Before starting, make sure to close any applications running in the background. That’s not only to net peak performance, but also to avoid any inconsistencies between runs. Background apps can gobble up threads inconsistently, making it difficult to compare your results from run to run.

If you want more consistency, you can optionally run the following command before benchmarking in an elevated command prompt:

Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks

This will force Windows to perform the background tasks it normally does when your PC is idle. It’s not essential, but it’s a good sanity check to make sure there’s nothing interfering with your results.

For applications, you want to test the apps you actually use. If you use the Adobe suite, for example, you can download and use PugetBench for free and compare your results with Puget’s database. A lot of apps don’t have these easy-to-use benchmarking tools and databases, so you need to find a proxy. For instance, Procyon Office measures Microsoft Office performance, but a license costs nearly $1,600 per year. PCMark 10 Basic, which is free, measures open-source office applications. Below, we have some of our favorite free benchmarks for comparing CPU performance.

In games, you can take two approaches: manual or automated. Some modern games include built-in benchmarking tools, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom: The Dark Ages, and although they aren’t perfect, they’re easy to run and highly repeatable. The best way to measure CPU gaming performance, however, is manual benchmarking.

That involves finding a scene where you can go over a specific path repeatedly. That could be starting from a specific checkpoint that you can reload or resorting to a manual save where you start from the exact same position. Regardless, it’s important to avoid randomness in your testing. Keep the path consistent — for example, a walking path through a town — and try not to swing the camera around.

For measuring performance in games, you’ll need a performance monitoring tool. There are simple apps like Nvidia’s FrameView, which logs a ton of information but is a little cumbersome to deal with; it exports data to spreadsheets. CapFrameX is a good alternative, which uses the same backend as FrameView (Intel’s PresentMon), but comes with a user-friendly GUI and extra features like the ability to generate charts right in the app.

After you run your benchmarks, you need a comparison point. Databases like Puget are your best resources on that front. If you’re comparing results to reviews, forum threads, or other systems, keep in mind the variables that can influence performance. It’s not a good idea to compare performance with uncontrolled variables unless you have a wide swath of comparison points.

Best CPU Benchmarks You Can Run

Cinebench 2026 – Cinebench is the quintessential CPU benchmark, used almost universally in reviews, and it’s completely free to download and use.
Geekbench 6 – Geekbench has a number of issues, but it offers a massive database for comparing your system against other similar systems. And it’s free to download and run.
Blender – Blender has a benchmarking utility with a GUI that’s free to download, as well as a large database of results.
PCMark 10 Basic – The main PCMark 10 benchmark is free to use with the Basic edition, allowing you to test productivity performance with open-source office apps, as well as compare your scores with UL’s database.
Handbrake – Handbrake is a powerful, free, and open-source video transcoding tool, and it’s easy to run benchmarks with. Use any video file, make sure your settings are the same, and start a stopwatch to measure the time encoding takes. Lower is better.
WebXPRT 5 – WebXPRT runs a variety of web applications directly in your browser, for free, and with a database to compare results to. It takes a while to run, however.
JetStream 2 – JetStream is a faster browser-based benchmark, though it doesn’t have a database of results.
CPU-Z – CPU-Z isn’t a reliable benchmark for real-world performance, but it includes single- and multithreaded tests, it’s easy to run, and you’ll find results online almost as commonly as Cinebench results.
Y-cruncher – This test calculates Pi with digit extraction, and it’s accelerated with SIMD instructions like AVX. You can only run it from a command line, but it’s relatively straightforward.
PugetBench – Puget includes benchmarks for the biggest apps in the Adobe suite, as well as DaVinci Resolve. The benchmark itself is free, and Puget maintains a large database. You’ll need a license for the applications it tests, however.

2026 CPU Benchmarks Test System and Configuration

2026 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Intel LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake and Refresh)
Motherboard	ASRock Z890 Taichi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
Intel LGA 1700 (Raptor Lake, Alder Lake)
Motherboard	MSI MPG Z790 Carbon Wi-Fi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
AMD AM5 (Zen 5, Zen 4)
Motherboard	MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wi-Fi, Gigabyte Aorus X870E Elite X3D ICE
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-6000
All Systems
Gaming CPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition
Application GPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founder’s Edition
Cooler	Corsair iCue Link H150i RGB
Storage	2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus
PSU	MSI MPG A1000GS, Gigabyte UD1000GM PG5 V2
Other	Arctic MX-4 TIM, Windows 11 Pro, Alamengda open test bench

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

You can find our rankings of the most current-gen systems on the previous page. The results below are from our legacy benchmarks, using a different GPU and test systems than our current CPU benchmark rankings. However, this provides great historical context and also includes other previous-gen CPUs not included in our new test suite. You'll also find our even older legacy rankings further below. These date back over the last decade.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Rankings - Windows 10 and 11

Tom's Hardware

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Gaming CPU Benchmarks Ranking

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 11
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost GHz	TDP - MTP
$589 - Core i9-13900K	100.00%	100.00%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.0 / 5.8	125 / 253W
$409 - Core i7-13700K	96.09%	97.09%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125 / 253W
$365 - Ryzen 7 5800X3D	94.42%	97.45%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.5	105W
$319 - Core i5-13600K	90.03%	92.94%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125 / 181W
$474 - Ryzen 9 7900X	87.40%	90.52%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$569 - Ryzen 9 7950X	87.25%	90.27%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170 / 230W
$349 - Ryzen 7 7700X	87.13%	91.55%	Zen 4	8 /16	4.5 / 5.4	105 / 142W
$329 - Ryzen 7 7700	86.19%	88.88%	Zen 4	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.3	65 / 88W
$429 - Ryzen 9 7900	84.75%	88.46%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$249 - Ryzen 5 7600X	83.62%	88.44%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105 / 142W
$229 - Ryzen 5 7600	79.74%	85.97%	Zen 4	6 / 12	3.8 / 5.1	65 / 88W
$550 - Ryzen 9 5950X	72.04%	77.51%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
$350 - Ryzen 9 5900X	71.69%	78.95%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
$235 - Ryzen 7 5800X	70.90%	78.19%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
$210 - Ryzen 7 5700X	69.50%	76.65%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.6	65W
$165 - Ryzen 5 5600X	67.52%	74.68%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
$189 - Core i5-12400	66.62%	73.53%	Alder Lake	6 / 12 (6+0)	2.5 / 4.4	65 / 117W

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	CPU	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP	Buy
Intel Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	100% / 93.51%	100% / 95.86%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W	Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i9-11900K	92.48%	97.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-11900K
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR4 / DDR5	97.71% / 91.23%	99.8% / 97.30%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125 / 190W	Core i7-12700K
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	90.98%	93.18%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W	Ryzen 9 5900X
Intel Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	90.89% / 84.32%	96.94% / 92.33%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W	Core i5-12600K
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	90.22%	95.32%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W	Ryzen 9 5950X
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	88.71%	89.71%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5975WX
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	88.51%	91.79%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	86.85%	91.72%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 7 5800X
Intel Core i7-11700K	86.3%	92.0%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W	Core i7-11700K
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	86.12%	84.79%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5995WX
Intel Core i9-10900K	85.01%	91.5%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-9900K
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.6%	91.07%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W	Core i9-10850K
Intel Core i5-11600K	84.06%	90.43%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.9	125W	Core i5-11600K
Intel Core i5-11400	80.98%	87.77%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W	Core i5-11400
Intel Core i7-10700K	80.66%	87.88%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W	Core i7-10700K
Intel Core i9-10980XE	78.04%	84.04%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W	Core i9-10980XE
Intel W-3175X	76.93%	82.58%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 5700G*	76.61%	83.1%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	N/A
Intel Core i9-9900KS	76.12%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W	Intel Core i9-9900KS
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W	Intel Core i7-10700
Intel Core i5-10600K	75.42%	82.57%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-9700K	73.62%	81.12%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9900K / F	73.41%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W	Core i9-9900K
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	72.63%	78.58%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 3970X	72.44%	77.99%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W	AMD Threadripper 3970X
AMD Threadripper 3960X	72.07%	77.12%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	71.99%	76.76%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	71.78%	79.28%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 3990X	71.68%	77.94%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	71.67%	78.55%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 9 3900XT
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W	@B&HPhoto
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	105W	OEM only
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	71.43%	79.08%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 7 3700X
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	71.3%	78.67%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W	Ryzen 7 3800X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	70.62%	77.75%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	68.63%	75.59%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7960X	~	~	Skylake	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.2	165W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700K	68.47%	76.41%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	68.41%	75.60%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	67.63%	74.42%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3975WX
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	67.49%	74.6%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-9600K	67.06%	75.11%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	66.18%	69.28%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3995WX
Intel Core i5-8600K	65.84%	73.4%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700	65.57%	73.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W	Core i7-8700
Intel Core i7-8086K	65.05%	73.5%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W	Core i7-8086K
Intel Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F	64.85%	72.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-8400	63.96%	71.2%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W	@Newegg
Core i3-10100	61.88%	69.08%	Comet Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W	Core i3-10100
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	59.19%	66.55%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 4750G*	58.43%	66.46%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 7 4750G
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	57.75%	64.21%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i9-7980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.2	165W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7900X	~	~	Skylake	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	140W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	57.55%	65.33%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2990WX (GM)	~	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7820X	~	~	Skylake	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.3	140W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2950X (GM)	~	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 2700	~	~	Zen+	8 / 16	3.2 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1900X (GM)	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2600	~	~	Zen+	6 / 12	3.4 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7800X	~	~	Skylake	6 / 12	3.5 / 4.0	140W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.8 / 4.2	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1950X (GM)	~	~	Zen	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.0	180W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 1920X (GM)	~	~	Zen	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-9350KF	56.42%	65.19%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	55.54%	62.68%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W	OEM Only
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	53.86%	60.83%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.5 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-8100	~	~	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7500	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.4 / 3.8	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 3.9	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	~	Zen +	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.0 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8350K	53.84%	61.82%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W	Core i3 i3-8350K
Intel Core i3-9100	51.96%	60.1%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	49.99%	57.28%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600	~	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	48.81%	55.73%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8100	48.43%	59.7%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	45.96%	52.98%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	44.84%	50.67%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-7350K	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.2 / -	60W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G5600	~	~	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	42.16%	48.56%	Zen+	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7300	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.0 / -	51W	@BH&Photo
Intel Pentium G5600	37.52%	44.7%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Intel
Intel Pentium G5400	36.57%	43.31%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7100	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1400	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.2 / 3.4	65W	@Amazon
Intel Pentium G4620	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G4560	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 240GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1200	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.1 / 3.2	65W	@Amazon
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W	N/A
AMD A10-9700	~	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. We measured performance for the 1080p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Hitman 2, Far Cry 5, Project CARS 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We measured performance for the 1440p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Project CARS 3, Far Cry 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy - Windows 10
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	100% / 99.57%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	95.31%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR5 / DDR4	95.16% / 94.64%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Core i7-11700K	94.29%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	93.69%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	92.84%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-11600K	92.56% / 89.67%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	91.60%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125W / 190W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	89.25%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	89.19%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	88.92%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	88.48%	Zen 3	64 / 128	3.6 / 4.5	280W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	87.85% / 87.82%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i9-10900K	86.68%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	85.75%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.87%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	83.13%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Intel Core i5-11400	83.09%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-9900K	82.63%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
Intel Core i7-10700K	82.31%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	81.51%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i7-9700K	80.36%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	79.75%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	79.11%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	78.86%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	78.79%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	78.37%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	78.18%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	77.68%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Ryzen 7 4750G	77.2%	Zen 3	8 /16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	76.52%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	76.42%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	76.36%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
Intel Core i7-8700K	76.32%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	76.29%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-8086K	76.21%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	75.85%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	75.72%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	75.62%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i5-9600K	75.41%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	75.24%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	75.10%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
Intel Core i7-8700	74.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	74.20%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	73.02%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	71.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
Core i3-10100	70.80%	Coffee Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	69.53%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i3-9100	69.20%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	67.74%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	67.67%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	67.51%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 3.8	225W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	66.78%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i3-8350K / -8350KF	66.71%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i5-8400	66.03%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	64.86%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	63.62%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	61.99%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	60.90%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	60.79%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	60.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
Intel Core i3-8100	60.12%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	57.09%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5400	56.79%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These results are from our 2022 test bench. We calculate the above single-threaded CPU benchmark rankings based on a geometric mean of the Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME CPU benchmarks. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	Multi-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	112.53%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	100.0%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	97.59%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	93.14%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	82.59%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	75.74%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	64.76%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	59.95%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	53.58%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	47.32%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	45.89%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	43.06%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	38.69%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	38.66%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	38.39% / 38.11%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	36.01% / 37.07%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
Core i7-11700K	34.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W
Intel Core i9-10900K	33.79%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	33.48%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i9-10850K	33.38%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	29.73%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	29.11%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	28.77% / 28.77%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	2.7 / 3.8	125 / 190W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	28.49%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	28.25%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
Intel Core i7-10700K	28.17%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
Intel Core i9-9900K	27.78%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	27.47%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i5-11600K	26.79%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	26.15%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 4750G	26.06%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Intel Core i5-11400	24.46%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	23.33%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	2308% / 23.07%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i7-9700K	22.81%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	22.28%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	21.76%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	21.41%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	21.59%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	20.83%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W
Intel Core i7-8700K	20.23%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
Core i7-8700	20.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
Core i7-8086K	19.30%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	19.17%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	16.96%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i5-9600K	16.60%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	15.93%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	15.83%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	15.55%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	15.16%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	15.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i5-8400	14.76%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	14.17%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Core i3-10100	13.37%	Rocket Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	11.76%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0/4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	11.31%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i3-8350K	10.74%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i3-9100	10.70%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	10.56%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i3-8100	9.61%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	8.66%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	7.99%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	5.43%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G5400	5.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these benchmarks in Windows 10.

Legacy 2023 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Hardware
AMD Socket AM4 (400- 500-Series)	AMD Ryzen 2000- 3000- 5000- series processors
	MSI MEG X570 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 1151 (Z490)	Intel Comet Lake processors
	MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)	Ryzen 1000-series processors
	MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium
	2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667
Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)	Intel Coffee Lake, Kaby Lake processors
	MSI Z270 Gaming M7
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 2066	Intel Skylake processors
	MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
All	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle
	2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
	EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W
	Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041.450)
Cooling	Corsair H115i

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks

Recognizing that a lot of older platforms are going to be paired with graphics subsystems multiple generations old, we wanted to define the top of our range to encourage balance between host processing and complementary GPUs. At this point, anyone with a Sandy Bridge-based Core i7 would realize a gain from stepping up to Coffee Lake or Kaby Lake, for example. And putting AMD's top FX CPUs next to a handful of Core i7s and those older Core i5s represents an upgrade to their status.

Currently, our hierarchy consists of 13 total tiers. The bottom half of the chart is largely outdated; you'll notice those CPUs dragging down performance in the latest games, whether you have one of the best graphics cards or not. If you own a CPU in that range, an upgrade could really take your experience to another level.

Really, it's the top five tiers or so that remain viable. And in that top half of the chart, an upgrade is typically worthwhile if it's a least a couple of tiers higher. Otherwise, there's just not enough improvement to warrant the expense of a fresh CPU, motherboard and RAM (not to mention the graphics card and storage solution you'd be considering as well).

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i9-7960X
Intel Core i9-7980XE
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i7-7740X
Intel Core i7-7700K
Intel Core i7-7820X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Intel Core i7-7700	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Intel Core i5-8400	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Intel Core i7-7800X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Intel Core i7-7700T	AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
Intel Core i7-6950X	AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Intel Core i7-6900K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Intel Core i7-6850K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Core i7-6800K	AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Intel Core i7-6700K	AMD Ryzen 5 1400
Intel Core i7 6700	AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
Intel Core i7-5960X	Ryzen 5 2400G
Intel Core i7-5930K
Intel Core i7-5820K
Intel Core i7-5775C
Intel i7-4960X
Intel Core i7-4930K
Intel Core i7-4820K
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i7-4790
Intel Core i7-4771
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-3970X
Intel Core i7-3960X
Intel Core i7-3930K
Intel Core i7-3820
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i5-7640X
Intel Core i5-7600K
Intel Core i5-7600
Intel Core i5-7500
Intel Core i5-7400
Intel Core i5 6600K
Intel Core i5-6600
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Core i5 6402P
Intel Core i5-6400
Intel Core i5-5675C
Intel Core i5-4690K
Intel Core i5-4670K
Intel Core i5-4590
Intel Core i5-4670
Intel Core i5-4570
Intel BX80646I54460
Intel Core i5-4440
Intel Core i5-4430
Intel Core i5-3570K
Intel Core i5-3570
Intel Core i5-3550

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-990X Extreme
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme
Intel Core i7-2600K
Intel Core i7-2600
Intel Core i7-965
Intel Core i5-3470
Intel Core i5-3450P	Intel Core i7-7700
Intel Core i5-3450	AMD FX-9370
Intel Core i5-3350P	AMD FX-8370
Intel Core i5-3330	AMD FX-8350 w/Wraith
Intel Core i5-2550K	AMD FX-8320
Intel Core i5-2500K	AMD FX-8300
Intel Core i5-2500	AMD FX-8150
Intel Core i5-2450P
Intel Core i5-2400
Intel Core i5-2380P
Intel Core i5-2320
Intel Core i5-2310
Intel Core i5-2300
Intel Core i3-7350K
Intel Core i3-7320
Intel Core i3-7300
Intel Core i3-7100

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-980
Intel Core i7-970
Intel Core i7-960
Intel Core i7-875K
Intel Core i7-870
Intel Core i3 6320
Intel Core i3 6300
Intel Core i3-6100	AMD FX-6350
Intel Core i3 6100T	AMD FX-4350
Intel Core i3-6098P	AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4360	AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4350	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980
Intel Core i3-4340	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975
Intel Core i3-4170
Intel Core i3-4160
Intel Core i3-4150
Intel Core i3-4130
Intel Core i3-3250
Intel Core i3-3245
Intel Core i3-3240
Intel Core i3-3225
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Core i3-3210
Intel Core i3-2130
Intel Core i3-2025
Intel Core i3-2120
Intel Core i3-2105
Intel Core i3-2100
Intel Pentium G4620
Intel Pentium G4600
Intel Pentium G4560
Intel Pentium G4500
Intel Pentium G4400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-8370E
	AMD FX-8320
	AMD FX-8120
	AMD FX-6300
	AMD FX-6200
	AMD FX-4300
	AMD FX-4170
	AMD Phenom II X6 1075T
Intel Core i7-950	AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition
Intel Core i7-940	AMD Phenom II X4 965
Intel Core i7-930	AMD Phenom II X4 955
Intel Core i7-920	AMD A10-7890K APU
Intel Core i7-860	Intel A10-7870K
Intel Core i5-3220T	AMD A10-7860K
Intel Core i5-2405S	AMD A10-7850K
Intel Core i5-2400S	AMD A10-7800
Intel Core i5-760	AMD A10-7700K
Intel Core i5-750	AMD A10-6800K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	AMD A10-6790K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	AMD A10-6700
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650	AMD A10-5800K
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650	AMD A10-5700
	Intel A8-7650K
	AMD A8-7600
	AMD A8-6600K
	AMD A8-5600K
	AMD A8-3870K
	AMD A8-3870
	AMD A8-3850
	AMD Athlon X4 880K
	Intel Athlon X4 870K)
	Intel A10-7870K
	AMD Athlon X4 750K
	AMD Athlon X4 740
	AMD Athlon X4 651K
	AMD Athlon X4 645
	AMD Athlon X4 641
	AMD Athlon X4 640

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-6100
	AMD FX-4130
	AMD FX-4100
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850	AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800	AMD Phenom II X6 1045T
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	AMD Phenom II X4 945
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	AMD Phenom II X4 940
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	AMD Phenom II X4 920
Intel Core i5-680	AMD Phenom II X3 740
Intel Core i5-670	AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition
Intel Core i5-661	AMD A8-6500
Intel Core i5-660	AMD A8-5500
Intel Core i5-655K	AMD A6
Intel Core i5-650	AMD A6
Intel Core i3-2120T	AMD A6-3670K
Intel Core i3-2100T	AMD A6-3650
	AMD Athlon II X4 635
	AMD Athlon II X4 630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	AMD Phenom II X4 910
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	AMD Phenom II X4 910e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600	AMD Phenom II X4 810
Intel Core i3-550	AMD Athlon II X4 631
Intel Core i3-540	AMD Athlon II X4 620
Intel Core i3-530	AMD Athlon II X3 460
Intel Pentium G3470
Intel Pentium G3460
Intel Pentium G3450
Intel Pentium G3440
Intel Pentium G3430
Intel Pentium G3420
Intel Pentium G3260
Intel Pentium G3258
Intel Pentium G3250
Intel Pentium G3220
Intel Pentium G2130
Intel Pentium G2120
Intel Pentium G2020
Intel Pentium G2010
Intel Pentium G870
Intel Pentium G860
Intel Pentium G850
Intel Pentium G840
Intel Pentium G645
Intel Pentium G640
Intel Pentium G630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300	AMD Phenom II X4 905e
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	AMD Phenom II X4 805
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	AMD Phenom II X3 710
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500	AMD Phenom II X3 705e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400	AMD Phenom II X2 565 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850	AMD Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750	AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition
Intel Pentium G620	AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition
Intel Celeron G1630	AMD Phenom II X2 545
Intel Celeron G1620	AMD Phenom X4 9950
Intel Celeron G1610	AMD Athlon II X3 455
Intel Celeron G555	AMD Athlon II X3 450
Intel Celeron G550	AMD Athlon II X3 445
Intel Celeron G540	AMD Athlon II X3 440
Intel Celeron G530	AMD Athlon II X3 435
Intel Celeron G3950	AMD Athlon II X3 425
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3900

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9850
	AMD Phenom X4 9750
	AMD Phenom X4 9650
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300	AMD Phenom X4 9600
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	AMD Phenom X3 8850
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	AMD Phenom X3 8750
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550	AMD Athlon II X2 370K
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540	AMD Athlon II X2 265
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6700	AMD Athlon II X2 260
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6600	AMD Athlon II X2 255
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E650	AMD A6-5500K
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6300	AMD A6
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5800	AMD A4-7300
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5700	AMD A4-6400K
Intel Pentium G9650	AMD A4-6300
	AMD A4-5400K
	AMD A4-5300
	AMD A4-4400
	AMD A4-4000
	AMD A4-3400
	AMD A4-3300
	AMD Sempron 2650
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9550
	AMD Phenom X4 9500
	AMD Phenom X4 9450e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	AMD Phenom X4 9350e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420	AMD Phenom X3 8650
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700	AMD Phenom X3 8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600	AMD Phenom X3 8550
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500	AMD Phenom X3 8450e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5400	AMD Phenom X3 8450
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5300	AMD Phenom X3 8400
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200	AMD Phenom X3 8250e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core G620T	AMD Athlon II X2 250
	AMD Athlon II X2 245
	AMD Athlon II X2 240
	AMD Athlon X2 7850
	AMD Athlon X2 7750
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9150e
	AMD Phenom X4 9100e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	AMD Athlon X2 7550
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320	AMD Athlon X2 7450
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400	AMD Athlon X2 5050e
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300	AMD Athlon X2 4850e/b
Intel Celeron E3300	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	AMD Athlon X2 6550
Intel Core 2 Duo E5500	AMD Athlon X2 6500
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2220	AMD Athlon X2 4450e/b
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200	AMD Athlon X2 4600+
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2210	AMD Athlon X2 4400+
Intel Celeron E3200	AMD Athlon X2 4200+
	AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Intel Celeron 1600	AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Intel Celeron G440	AMD Athlon X2 4050e
	AMD Athlon X2 2300 Black Edition

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
Intel Celeron E1500
Intel Celeron E1400
Intel Celeron E1200

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Is Down to Just $69

Niels Broekhuijsen — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 16:24:06 +0000

If you're working on a parts list for a budget PC build, you might want to consider AMD's first-gen Ryzen 1500X CPU, as it is now available on Amazon for just $69. It's this CPU's lowest price yet and one of the best after-Christmas tech sales right now. It was about time too because according to PCPartPicker, the chip was retailing for $145 up until today, which is far too expensive for what it is.

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X: was $145, now $69 @ Amazon
AMD's 1st-gen Ryzen CPU has four cores with a clock speed of 3.5 GHz that can boost up to 3.7 GHz. This is the lowest price ever for the 2017 CPU, after recently selling for a whopping $145. View Deal

This is a quad-core chip, which could be considered low by today's standards but is perfectly adequate for entry-level gaming systems. Many games still can't use the heavy core counts of today's most powerful chips, and you'll still be dependent on your graphics card's performance capabilities anyway.

In our AMD Ryzen 5 1500X review in 2017, we noted that if you're willing to do some tuning you can get comparable performance to Intel Core i5 CPUs. We also praised how it performs with multi-threaded applications and its unlocked ratio multiplier.

The four CPU cores run at a 3.5 GHz clock speed and can boost up to 3.7 GHz, although with enough CPU cooling capacity the chip can boost further up to 3.9 GHz. The 1500X has a 65 TDP and comes with a free Wraith Spire cooler.

For other CPU recommendations, check out our Best CPUs ranking.

Intel Core i3-8350K Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:00:01 +0000

Core i3 Goes Quad

While the Coffee Lake-based Core i7 and i5 CPUs benefit from 50% more cores, Intel's newest Core i3 CPUs enjoy an even more significant makeover. Previous i3s featured two Hyper-Threaded cores. But these Coffee Lake models come with four physical cores (and no Hyper-Threading), making them more capable in the tasks Core i3s once struggled with.

In fact, that jump from two to four cores puts Core i3 on the same level as prior Kaby Lake-based Core i5 CPUs. Better still, Intel's official pricing suggests the company now sells quad-core processors where its dual-core chips were once found. There's just one problem: shortages are causing prices to spike, negatively affecting Intel's value story. Hopefully that's rectified sooner than later.

The Core i3-8350K already has its work cut out: we weren't impressed by last generation's Core i3-7350K, which was too expensive, required a premium Z270-equipped motherboard for overclocking support, and didn't include a cooler. Now Intel has to hope the -8350K fares better in the face of limited availability and higher cost. Unfortunately, the company's continued insistence that a Z-series motherboard is needed for overclocking won't help the value equation. Doubly so since you still don't get a thermal solution.

Active Cores	Base Frequency	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i5-8600K	3.6 GHz	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz
Intel Core i5-8400	2.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.8 GHz
Intel Core i3-8350K	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	-
Intel Core i3-7350K	4.2	4.2	4.2	-	-

As with older Core i3s, the Coffee Lake models do not include Turbo Boost technology. If you aren't overclocking, this means the -8350K runs at up to 4 GHz, regardless of workload, whereas Core i5 and i7 models accelerate to higher clock rates based on the number of active cores. Moreover, the new Core i3s are limited to DDR4-2400, while Core i5 and i7 give you official access to DDR4-2666.

Specifications

Core i3-8350K's extra cores impose a few other changes. For instance, L3 cache jumps to 8MB. Compare that to Core i3-7350K's 4MB or the 6MB found on Core i5 (Kaby Lake). The -8350K is also Intel's first 91W Core i3. Previously, Core i3-7350K set the high bar with its 65W TDP. It's only a shame that, as with all K-series processors, you're on the hook for your own thermal solution.

The -8350K does come with UHD Graphics 630, which becomes more relevant as we descend Intel's product stack in search of value. The thing is, we don't imagine many folks shopping for unlocked CPUs plan on using on-die graphics engines. GeForce GTX 1060 or Radeon RX 580 cards are more probable in the enthusiast-on-a-budget space.

Intel lists the -8350K at a recommended $168 to $179, similar to its dual-core -7350K. Of course, after a few months of availability, the -7350K started showing up around ~$30 less than its MSRP, where the CPU still sits today. It'd be great to see Coffee Lake CPUs hit their recommended prices sooner than later. Unfortunately, Core i3-8350K starts around $230. Pairing it up to the least-expensive Z370 motherboard, hovering around $120, pushes this chip into six-core Ryzen 5 1600 territory, with its bundled cooler and B350 motherboard support.

The Core i3-8350K also faces another (somewhat unexpected) competitor in Intel's 6C/6T Core i5-8400, which sells for just a few dollars more. We're plenty impressed with the well-rounded -8400 in both games and applications, even if you can't really tune it. The quad-core -8350K won't be able to match an i5 in heavily threaded workloads. But its unlocked multiplier should be better suited to gamers aiming for higher frequencies. We have the relevant contenders lined up for testing, so let's get to it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Benchmark Comparisons

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, MCE & How We Test

Overclocking

Intel borrowed the AVX offset feature from its high-end processors, introducing it to mainstream CPUs during the Kaby Lake generation. Densely-packed AVX workloads are power-hungry, and thus generate far more heat than non-AVX tasks. The offset is responsible for pulling frequency back when the processor executes AVX instructions, allowing you to achieve higher overclocks without worrying about AVX workloads causing instability.

The feature came in handy for our Core i3-8350K overclocking efforts. We dialed in a 5 GHz clock rate at 1.32V and passed numerous non-AVX stress tests. But we couldn't achieve stability with AVX-enabled utilities unless we exceeded our preferred limit of 1.35V. Adjusting the AVX offset to -2 set a 4.8 GHz ceiling in AVX workloads. That proved to be Prime95-stable for extended periods.

Since Core i3-8350K doesn't come with a bundled heat sink and fan, we used our Corsair H115i for testing. Temperatures remained under 70°C with the beefy thermal solution, so heat wasn't a problem as we overclocked. Of course, your mileage may vary, especially if you top Core i3-8350K with a more value-oriented cooler.

We also have several overclocked Ryzen models in our test pool. These chips are famously sensitive to memory performance, so we attempted to test all overclocked AMD CPUs at a 3200 MT/s data rate. Ryzen 5 1400 was the only processor that fell short, stabilizing at 2933 MT/s.

Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this option for our stock CPU testing to reflect Intel's specifications.

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. Pricing should also end up similar. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the manufacturer's website.

Comparison Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

AMD Ryzen 5 1400

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8400, i3-8350KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666, 2933, and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8400, i3-8350KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666, 2933, and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

Four cores and a high clock rate benefit the Core i3-8350K in VRMark, particularly after overclocking. The -8350K even challenges the 65W Core i5-8400 at stock settings. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 is the closest contender from AMD's camp.

We expected Core i3-8350K to trail the beefier processors during 3DMark's Fire Strike and Time Spy tests, and it does. The -8350K may fall behind much of its competition, but it leapfrogs Core i3-7350K and i5-7400 by a large margin.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales well with core count, so we find Ryzen 5 1600 up top after some tuning. Intel's stock six-core Core i5-8600K isn't far behind.

Core i3-8350K easily dispatches the Core i3-7350K in its default configuration, even after we tune Intel's Kaby Lake model. The -8350K responds well to overclocking too, though, and squeaks by the Core i5-8400.

If we could find the Core i3-8350K anywhere close to its MSRP, the chip would do battle at Ryzen 5 1500X's price point. AMD's 1500X beats the -8350K at stock settings. However, the tables turn once we start tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Our Civilization VI AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game, and it tends to favor a mixture of high frequency and core count.

Core i3-7350K performs well in this test, though the i3-8350K leads once we start overclocking. Notably, Core i5-8600K offers nearly the same performance as an overclocked i3, but accomplishes this at its stock frequency. The Ryzen 3 1300X also performs well, beating out more expensive CPUs.

The Kaby Lake-based -7400 languishes at the bottom of the group due to its 3.5 GHz peak Turbo Boost frequency.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i3-8350K is impressive during the Civilization VI graphics benchmark at stock clocks rates, where it essentially ties the Core i5-8600K and surpasses the Core i5-8400. Tuning provides a nice boost that catapults Core i3 ahead of everything else in our test pool. It seems this title responds exceptionally well to four physical cores, even if the -8350K encounters higher frame time variance in the beginning seconds of our benchmark.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Core i3-7350K's bottom-dwelling performance serves to hammer home the -8350K's step up: it provides a 20% advantage over its predecessor at stock settings. Tuning the Kaby Lake-based chip doesn't do much to close the gap, either.

Ryzen 5 1500X can't match the Ryzen 5 1600 when we lock them to the same frequency, showing that Battlefield responds well to higher core counts, among other factors.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Warhammer 40,000: DoW III benchmark scales well with execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.

Intel's Core i3-8350K falls beneath the i5-8600K and i5-8400 at stock settings, and the tuned Ryzen 5 1600 also proves to be a formidable competitor.

Overclocking the Core i3-8350K unleashes a big speed-up, though, that reminds us of what we saw from Intel's Core i5-8600K. We don't have the overclocked -8600K in this batch of results, but it does outperform the -8350K with 122.8 FPS.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Core i3-8350K falls behind the higher-end Coffee Lake models at stock settings, but overclocking changes that completely.

The Ryzen models aren't as competitive in this benchmark, even after overclocking.

A huge performance difference between the stock Core i3-7350K and -8350K is striking. This certainly isn't the generational step forward we're used to from Intel.

Hitman (2016)

The -8350K falls beneath AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 at stock settings, but overclocking sees the two chips switch places.

Core i5-8400 and -8600K profit greatly from their 6C/6T designs, carving out a lead over the lesser-equipped Core i3-8350K. Meanwhile, the older Core i3-7350K finds itself near the bottom of our chart; tuning does provide a considerable boost, though.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

This title is about as single-threaded as it gets, so clock rates and IPC throughput tend to affect frame rates most.

Core i3-7350K takes a big lead over the Coffee Lake-based processors in both stock and overclocked configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

Core i3-8350K performs surprisingly well in Project CARS, even beating the 6C/6T Core i5-8400. This could be because the -8350K features a stock 4 GHz clock rate, while Core i5-8400's base 2.8 GHz is pushed up to 4 GHz via Turbo Boost and may not benefit fully from its peak frequency bin.

Surprisingly, the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 trails Intel's overclocked Core i3-7350K.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to prefer simultaneous multi-threading disabled. That plays well to the Core i5 and i3 models, which don't feature Hyper-Threading.

Intel's processors clump together at the top of the chart with nearly identical frame rates. But a bit of tuning helps the Core i3-8350K break through that 101 FPS ceiling.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a thorn in AMD's side. Even after recent game updates, which helped fix the most glaring issues, our test pool separates into two distinct tiers with the Intel processors up top and AMD processors below. We've seen this play out through most of our game testing with Coffee Lake-based CPUs.

Of course, while Intel wins when we look at raw performance, AMD still has a compelling value story, particularly in the application testing...

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Most of the Adobe Suite responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput, favoring Intel's CPUs. InDesign scales well with core count, but Intel's Coffee Lake models cling on to a lead nonetheless.

Web Browser

The web browsing tests are largely organized into per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput clearly matter most. These results mirror what we found in Adobe's suite: mainly, Intel's Coffee Lake processors offer higher performance.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, under warm- and cold-start conditions. Intel's Core i3-8350K scores well in the test, though the -7350K's 4.2 GHz clock rate also facilitates impressive performance. It even beats Core i5-8400.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world usage. As you might imagine, cores and cache play a big role in determining the outcome of this benchmark. The Ryzen 5 1600 leads the default-configured CPUs, and overclocking improves its standing. A stock Ryzen 5 1500X leverages its eight threads to beat the stock Core i3-8350K, but they switch places after overclocking. Surprisingly, the Core i5-8400's two extra cores don't translate to a big lead over the -8350K.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 tops the chart again, though the overclocked -8350K lands in second place. It's not as fast at Intel's factory-set frequency, and AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X even scores a win over the stock -8350K. Similar to what we saw in the video conferencing test, Core i3-7350K shows us the liability of its dual-core design in heavily-threaded workloads.

A spreadsheet-heavy test emphasizes clock rates most, though we do see the impact of a less successful memory overclock from our tuned Ryzen 5 1400. It might be surprising to see Ryzen 3 1300X on top of the other Ryzen CPUs at stock settings, but it and the 1500X have the highest boost frequencies (4.7 GHz) of our AMD models.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Core i3-8350K performs well, as expected, during the single-threaded Cinebench test. But it isn't nearly as impressive when the workload spreads out over more cores. We do observe a big performance speed-up compared to Intel's Kaby Lake models, including the quad-core Core i5-7400. And the overclocked -8350K is surprisingly competitive with AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X after overclocking. However, the stock 1500X offers more performance due to its higher thread count.

Heavily-threaded workloads are AMD's forte these days, so its Ryzen 5 1600 fares unsurprisingly well in our rendering tests. Even at stock settings, the Ryzen 5 1600 leverages its 12 threads to lead almost all of the threaded benchmarks. On the flip side of the coin, Ryzen 5 1600 rocks the third-lowest boost frequency among our Ryzen line-up, so the stock configuration loses steam during the lightly-threaded tests. The value of AMD's unlocked multiplier is undisputed. But even after overclocking, we're still trading quite a bit of single-threaded performance to gain the impressive performance in rendering applications.

Core i5-8400 provides a solid mix of performance in both lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads.

Encoding & Compression

LAME responds well to higher frequencies, as evidenced by the tight grouping of overclocked models at the top of the chart. Core i3-7350K leads the group at stock settings, with Core i3-8350K close behind. Intel's Core i5-8400 trails most of the test pool, suggesting that it might not be hitting its peak Turbo Boost frequency consistently through our benchmark.

AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 dominates the compression and decompression workloads, but all of the Ryzen processors excel in our integer-heavy decompression workload after tuning. Core i5-7400's relatively low 3.5 GHz ceiling hinders performance significantly during the 7-Zip workloads.

A quick reminder: we tested the overclocked -8350K with a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, which is particularly important in the HandBrake and y-cruncher tests. There's a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, and it's likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Core i3-8350K is surprisingly adept in both workloads, even challenging the Ryzen 5 1500X at stock frequencies during the x264 test run. A quick glance at Core i3-7350K again speaks volumes of the huge step forward Intel took with Coffee Lake.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. Despite a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, the tuned -8350K offers stellar AVX performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Dramatic changes to the Core line-up are a boon to PC enthusiasts, and there is little to complain about in the performance department. Intel's Core i3-8350K gives us twice as many cores at a supposedly comparable price point versus the previous generation. But considering we didn't like that last model much, the -8350K would need to be exceptional to earn our affection.

In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

It's hard to beat an overclocked Core i3-8350K for gaming unless you have the cash for a pricier Core i5 or i7. In fact, the i3-8350K is surprisingly competitive with those more expensive Coffee Lake-based models if you spend some time overclocking. And Core i3-8350K destroys Kaby Lake in everything. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 provides the biggest challenge from AMD, but it's only able to go up against the stock -8350K. Overclocking propels this chip into a league of its own. The less expensive Ryzen 5 1500X also makes a compelling case for enthusiasts willing to turn the overclocking dials, but its much lower stock performance isn't as attractive.

The Core i3-8350K is surprisingly agile in our application suite. We recorded impressive performance in lightly-threaded applications, and observed competitive results in the multi-threaded workloads, too. Of course, any threaded benchmark is going to go Ryzen 5 1600's way. But Intel's quad-core Core i3 does help close distance that Kaby Lake lost to Ryzen, so the losses in heavily-threaded workloads aren't as pronounced.

And that's the issue we have right now with Ryzen 5 1600. You gain some performance in productivity workloads, as expected from a 6C/12T processor, but you lose quite a bit of single-threaded speed in other applications. Core i3-8350K presents a more balanced profile.

Speaking of balanced, the Core i5-8400 is our biggest winner here. You can drop it into a cheaper B-series platform, once those arrive, and get a really good mix of performance across the board. It also comes with a bundled cooler. You won't get the extreme gaming performance available from an overclocked Core i3-8350K, but you're going to gain a lot of flexibility in other workloads. Software is undoubtedly evolving to utilize multi-core architectures more extensively, so the two extra cores should come in handy down the road.

We weren't particularly fond of Intel's Core i3-7350K. Its high-end motherboard requirement and lack of a bundled cooler were out of touch for this value-sensitive segment. Core i3-8350K suffers from the same problems, compounded by limited availability leading to insane premiums. Even at Intel's MSRP, you're only a few bucks away from the six-core -8400 that comes with a thermal solution and drops into a cheaper motherboard.

Given what we've seen from Coffee Lake, it's time to steer you clear of Kaby Lake. But Intel won't let us. The lack of any meaningful Coffee Lake availability is causing severe price gouging, making it difficult for us to recommend anything from Intel's line-up right now. Should the Coffee Lake models fall to where they're supposed to be, they'll represent a big step forward in computing power for your dollar.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i5-8400 Review: Six Cores On A Budget

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Meet Intel's Core i5-8400

There's no doubt that AMD's Ryzen processors challenged Intel's position in the desktop PC market this summer. Seemingly in response (though we all know this stuff is planned way in advance), the Coffee Lake-based Core i7 and i5 CPUs landed with six cores each. That was a first for Intel's mainstream platform.

The Core i5 series typically offers enthusiasts the best performance for their dollar. But with those two extra cores, Intel's highest-end Core i5 is now faster than Core i7-7700K in most games, and even in some applications. This means the Coffee Lake Core i5s basically replace last generation's Core i7s. Talk about a huge step forward. Now the mid-range chips can backstop top-end GPUs without becoming bottlenecks.

For more information on Coffee Lake's impact in the mainstream space, check out our Intel Core i5-8600K Review. Today, though, we're focusing on the less expensive, but multiplier-locked, Core i5-8400.

Active Cores	Base Frequency	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i5-8600K	3.6 GHz	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz
Intel Core i5-8400	2.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.8 GHz
Intel Core i5-7400	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz	3.4 GHz	3.3 GHz	-

Like the more expensive Core i5-8600K, Intel's -8400 features six cores without Hyper-Threading. Aside from its locked multiplier, the key differences boil down to clock rates, thermal design power, and price. A 2.8 GHz base frequency is the lowest of all Coffee Lake-based processors, including Intel's Core i3 models. That's because the company had to squeeze into the -8400's 65W TDP, while Core i5-8600K gets a 95W rating, allowing the same silicon to accommodate a 3.6 GHz base.

On the surface, a lower clock rate looks bad for performance. But remember that Intel's Turbo Boost technology accelerates frequencies within certain parameters. This allows the -8400 to go quite a bit faster in workloads that don't tax all of the -8400's cores. As you can see in the table above, the 8400's multi-core Turbo Boost bins get a lot more aggressive than Core i5-7400's. And they only trail the -8600K by 300 MHz.

Core i5-8400 drops into a LGA 1551 interface, but as we know from our previous Coffee Lake reviews, it isn't backward compatible with 200-series motherboards. That means you'll have to step up to a 300-series motherboard, even though that means getting no new features in the process. Worse, a rushed launch means the Z370 chipset is your only option for now. Cheaper B- and H-series motherboards, which will cost a lot less, arrive at the beginning of next year. The Core i5-8400 is a locked processor anyway, so the reason most enthusiasts would have had for spending extra (overclocking) doesn't apply here.

Intel cites a $182 recommended customer price, which is the same as its Kaby Lake-based Core i5-7400. That'd be a great value for 50% more cores. However, poor supply means that the -8400 is popping in and out of stock, selling for as little as $200 when the big shops receive a shipment. When they run out, smaller vendors run the price up closer to $260. That's Ryzen 5 1600X territory. AMD also has an advantage in that you can plug its Ryzen chips into B350-based motherboards selling for as little as $80. At least the competing models both include bundled coolers; we don't always get such a luxury in the high-end space, where you're often expected to supply your own thermal solution.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Benchmark Comparisons

MORE: All CPUs Content

How We Test

Test Notes

MSI motherboards, like many others, feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. For all practical purposes, this is the same as overclocking. The feature only applies to K-series processors, though, so it isn't a factor in our Core i5-8400 testing.

We paired our sample with a Z370-based motherboard, which does support faster memory. Sticking with Intel's official specification, we used DDR4-2666 modules to represent the data rates you'll have access to once B- and H-series motherboards surface.

As far as we can tell on our MSI motherboard, Intel isn't allowing BCLK adjustments. That means the Core i5-8400 locks us down to stock settings.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

AMD Ryzen 5 1400

Test Systems

We introduced our new test system and methodology in How We Test Graphics Cards. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.

Only our CPU, memory, motherboard, and cooling subsystem are different. The table below summarizes the hardware we used to generate our data.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 WorkstationAMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7400MSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The Core i5-8400 performs well in VRMark, even besting overclocked Ryzen 5 CPUs. Intel's previous-gen Core i5-7400 trails quite a ways back, helping illustrate the -8400's Turbo Boost binning and core count advantage. The -8400 also competes well against the pricier Core i5-8600K, particularly in light of its substantial base frequency deficit. Then again, the -8600K isn't overclocked, and that's what it was designed for.

The -8400 also challenges Core i5-8600K in the DX11 and DX12 CPU tests. Not surprisingly, it easily trounces the Core i5-7400 with up to 60% more performance. More interesting, perhaps, is that Core i5-8400 beats the Core i5-7600K by a fair margin.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation also scales well with core count. Although many enthusiasts associate this game with AMD (Mantle, anyone?), remember that it didn't run well on Ryzen processors at first. A series of patches subsequently rectified the most glaring issues we identified in our early reviews.

Given the strong performance of AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X, we might surmise that it's AMD's simultaneous multi-threading technology allowing the chip to shine.

Again, Core i5-8400 is within striking range of its more expensive K-series counterpart, and it easily outmaneuvers its predecessor.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test tends to favor a mixture of physical cores, clock rate, and IPC throughput.

Core i5-8400 essentially ties the Kaby Lake-based -7600K and easily rocks the Core i5-7400. AMD's Ryzen processors trail due to their lower frequencies.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

AMD's unlocked ratio multipliers bring great value to the desktop. The 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X trails the -8400 by quite a ways in stock form. However, overclocking makes it competitive. The 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600X fares much better out of the box, and then jumps into a commanding lead after some tuning.

This workload again demonstrates the -8400's generational improvement over Kaby Lake-based chips with fewer cores at lower clock rates.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Both the Core i5-8600K and -8400 appear graphics-bound in our 1920x1080 benchmark. There's more of a delta between the other contenders, though.

Core i5-8400 offers 17% more performance than the -7400. That's a significant outcome, given the two chips' similar price points.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Warhammer 40,000: DoW III benchmark scales well with increased execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.

Strangely, Core i5-8400 beats the more expensive Core i5-8600K. This outcome doesn't make much sense, given the specifications in front of us. Clock rates and dissimilar TDPs are the only differences between them, and Core i5-8600K has the advantage in both.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

The Core i5-8400 averages 17%-higher frame rates compared to Core i5-7600K. That's a solid jump, but it pales in comparison to the 26% lead over Core i5-7400.

AMD isn't quite as competitive in this title, though we still think overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X CPUs are good complements to the mid-range graphics cards most enthusiasts will pair with them.

Hitman (2016)

Hitman finds the Core i5-8400 ahead of everything except for Intel's higher-end Core i5-8600K.

We don't need to break out the percentages to illustrate Coffee Lake's improvements (but we will anyway). Core i5-8400 jumps ahead of the -7600K by 40%, and it beats the -7400 by an astounding 54%.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

The -7600K and -7400 feature higher base frequencies than their Coffee Lake-based counterparts, and that's an advantage in games that don't benefit much from Turbo Boost. Shadow of Mordor falls into that category, so the Kaby Lake models take small leads over the newer Core i5-8600K and -8400.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

Given the results we've seen in other threaded titles, our results in Project CARS aren't surprising. Intel's Coffee Lake models establish a quantifiable lead over Kaby Lake-based chips.

An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X is also competitive, though it's a lot more expensive than Core i5-8400. Of course, you could always go for the Ryzen 5 1600, which offers similar performance as the 1600X after overclocking. But it'd still trail the Core i5-8400.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to like when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading.

Both Coffee Lake-based Core i5s are tied, likely due to a graphics-imposed bottleneck.

The overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X beat Intel's Kaby Lake processors. Then again, the -7600K is overclockable itself, so it'd offer additional performance if we pushed beyond stock settings.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider shows three Core i5s essentially tied for first place, likely due to a graphics bottleneck.

The Core i5-7400 shows us its less attractive side, kicking out several disturbing frame time outliers that manifest as visible stuttering.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

DTP, Office & Multimedia Performance

DTP and Presentation

Adobe’s Creative Cloud gives us a look at real-world single- and multi-threaded performance. As such, it's more interesting to us than synthetic benchmarks for productivity testing.

After Effects CC is the classic example of a workload that prizes parallelism, so core count trumps clock rates.

As long as some cores go underutilized, though, Coffee Lake usually wins thanks to its higher frequencies.

Strangely, under InDesign CC, the Core i5-8400 repeatedly falls behind Intel's Core i5-7400. The same happens when we test the K-series SKUs. This is likely a result of lower Turbo Boost frequencies, handing the advantage over to Kaby Lake's higher base clock rates.

Encoding and Multimedia

The new Core i5-8400 keeps up with other processors in its class. However, the pricier Ryzen 5 1600X takes the lead once we overclock it.

Taxing high-quality settings allow AMD to close the gap, and Ryzen 5 1600X now beats the Core i5-8400 in stock form. Again, though, it's also more expensive. The difference, of course, is that AMD gives you freedom to overclock. A tuned 1600X better-justifies the price premium.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

2D & 3D Workstation Performance

2D Performance

Our GDI/GDI+ tests are used to test two different output methods that can be found in older applications and printing tasks. Today, they (or at least a modified version of them) are commonly used to display the graphical user interface). Theses are also great benchmarks for direct device write throughput and memory performance when handling gigantic device-independent bitmap files.

Synthetic 2D Benchmarks

We take a look at direct device write throughput first. The graphics driver makes heavy use of CPU cycles for this task, but doesn’t spawn many threads. As a result, high clock rates and IPC throughput are favored, both of which are strengths of Intel's Coffee Lake design.

We up the ante by introducing memory to the mix. This is done with the help of the only remaining 2D hardware function: generating the graphics output in memory and then copying it to the output device all at once. The benchmark’s the same as before. We just plot a bitmap in memory, as opposed to sending the information directly to the monitor. This pushes the CPUs, since they’re no longer platform-bound.

The results prove interesting: frequency still rules, but AMD is more competitive. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X takes the lead over Core i5-8400, and the -7600K beats Intel's -8600K.

AutoCAD 2016 (2D)

Even though AutoCAD does use DirectX, ultimately it just duplicates every single draw function in software. The software doesn't scale well over additional cores though, so IPC throughput is usually more important. That makes Core i5-8400's lead over the -7400 more impressive, showing just much higher Turbo Boost frequencies in lightly threaded workloads can improve performance.

3D Performance

Most professional development applications have been optimized and compiled with Intel CPUs in mind. This is reflected in their performance numbers. Still, we include them in order to motivate developers to focus their efforts on AMD’s Ryzen processors as well. This would give users more than one choice. The same goes for an emphasis on multi-core processors, at least where that’s feasible and makes sense.

AutoCAD 2016 (3D)

Clock rate trumps core count. Intel’s Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake land fairly close to each other, with clock rate determining the winner. AutoCAD’s performance turns out to be close to that of older games, since it uses DirectX and isn’t really optimized to take advantage of multiple cores.

Performance scales enormously with frequency because the graphics card finally gets used properly.

Cinebench R15 OpenGL

Frequency is (almost) everything in the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark. Intel's Core i5-8400 is on similar footing with the older four-core Core i5-7600K.

SolidWorks 2015

SolidWorks 2015 also emphasizes clock rate, and it typically doesn't utilize more than four cores.

Creo 3.0

Creo 3.0 paints the same picture: lots of cores don't improve performance when it comes to drafting using real-time 3D graphics output. The Core i5-8400 continues to beat the previous-generation -7600K, wrecking Intel's Core i5-7400 in the process.

Blender and 3ds Max (Real-Time 3D Preview)

The Blender and 3ds Max real-time 3D previews yield similar results. Mainly, frequency is everything.

The 3ds Max results aren’t based on time to completion. Rather, this benchmark generates a composite index based on CPU performance during a set time period.

Catia V6 R2012

This is one of the graphics benchmarks that has been optimized time and again (it’s part of the free SPECviewperf 12 suite). However, it still provides a fairly good measure of CPU performance, with an emphasis on clock rate.

Maya 2013

At the risk of beating a dead horse, our chart paints a picture we've seen several times already. The real-time 3D output numbers don’t tell the entire story, though, as we'll see during final rendering.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

CPU Computing & Rendering Performance

CPU Performance: Workstation

Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance. However, software packages like SolidWorks don’t scale perfectly based on core/thread count. Consequently, even quad-core processors keep up if they run at high-enough frequencies and support SMT.

This is also seen in a direct comparison between the Core i5-7600K and Core i5-8400. The latter does not benefit much from its extra cores and larger aggregate cache.

Frequency is all that counts in Creo 3.0. Compared to Intel's Core i5-7600K, the company's -8400 only derives small advantages from its two additional cores.

Clock rate and core count both matter in 3ds Max 2015, so the Core i5-8400 lands slightly behind Intel's Core i5-8600K.

Though an overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X is close on Coffee Lake's heels, the -8400 costs less and facilitates higher performance.

The CPU Composite benchmark makes extensive use of rendering, though, so AMD's Ryzen 5 appears much stronger. Now it's an overclocked 1500X going up against (and beating) Core i5-8400. A lack of Hyper-Threading support likely hurts Intel here.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic rendering

Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.

When it comes to pure rendering, the Core i5-8400 offers best-in-class performance. It is only challenged by AMD's pricier Ryzen 5 1600X.

The console variant of LuxRender confirms that none of Intel's Core i5s can compete with the Ryzen 5 1600X, stock or overclocked.

Last, but not least, we take a look at Blender in several different workloads.

The first one, with a sample size of 200 pixels, confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks: Core i5-8400 trails the Ryzen 5 1600X by a big margin. In fact, a stock 1600X has little trouble beating the Core i5-8600K by more than 20%.

The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering. Ryzen 5 takes a big lead over Core i5.

The Core i5-8600K pushes upwards as the amount of pure rendering decreases. The rest of the results look similar, though, and Core i5-8400 suffers from its lack of Hyper-Threading.

This trend intensifies as our benchmark incorporates tasks other than photorealistic rendering. Core count isn't the sole determiner of performance; IPC throughput factors in as well. The Core i5-8600K even leads, followed by Intel's Core i5-8400.

Ryzen 5 1600X jumps to the front once again. Core count matters, of course, but operating frequency is also a critical variable.

Intel’s Core i5-8400 offers acceptable performance in semi-professional applications, so it's more than just a gaming CPU. However, the Core i5 series lacks Hyper-Threading support, which is apparent in highly parallelized workloads. Those tasks tend to favor AMD's Ryzen chips.

Then again, this throws the potent six-core chips right where Intel wants them. If they fared too well, Core i5 would cannibalize sales of the pricier Core i7s.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Cooling & Temperature

Power Consumption In Detail

At idle, the differences in power consumption between Intel's CPUs are fairly marginal. All of them end up just about where we'd expect.

AMD's Ryzen processors draw significantly more power because their idle clock rates are higher.

Core i5-8400's average power consumption in applications that combine 2D and 3D loads (like AutoCAD) is in line with the performance we observed.

Gaming paints a more balanced, but very similar picture.

Intel's Core i5-8400 falls squarely within its TDP class.

The finishing order changes dramatically once we fire up an AVX-heavy stress test with all cores running at their top Turbo Boost bins.

This benchmark breaks Intel's rated TDP if the motherboard doesn't quickly rein in power consumption. Otherwise, Core i5-8400 hits values well above its thermal design power, as illustrated in our chart.

Temperatures

Core i5-8400 can easily be cooled by a heat sink/fan or compact closed-loop liquid cooler, despite Intel's continued use of thermal paste between the die and heat spreader.

Pricier thermal solutions offer little advantage in cooling Core i5-8400. This is illustrated by the high delta between Intel's die and IHS, which results from that thermal paste the company uses.

The Core i5-8400 is relatively easy to cool, even with a standard heat sink and fan.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Intel's Core i5-8400 is the cheapest modern six-core CPU, if you believe the company's recommended customer price. That's quite the feat, given AMD's competitive Ryzen 5 family. Although the -8400 ships with the Coffee Lake line-up's lowest base clock rate, that frequency is offset by more aggressive Turbo Boost bins. As such, lightly-threaded apps spin up nicely, while parallelized workloads benefit from six physical cores working together.

Given Core i5-8400's pedigree, most of us are probably here to learn more about the chip's gaming alacrity. We plotted its performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement.

Newer titles are often optimized to extract more performance from CPUs with more than four cores. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. So, curious whether the latest Intel and AMD many-core processors contribute affect frame rates in a positive way, we're including a chart that breaks out the newer games on their own.

CPUs below the $200 threshold are our key focus, and in its price class, Intel's Core i5-8400 provides the best gaming performance in spite of its locked multiplier. Even when we include a stock ~$215 Ryzen 5 1600, the Core i5-8400 holds its lead. It's only after shining a spotlight on the newer games using an overclocked 1600 that AMD carves out an advantage. Then again, processors in this price range are typically paired to mid-range graphics cards (rather than GeForce GTX 1080s), so you might not see much difference between the comparable AMD and Intel chips.

More important, Core i5-8400 wrecks the Core i5-7400. It's also faster than a stock Core i5-7600K. It can't quite match a Core i7-7700K, like the -8600K, but you're still getting a ton of value, given the similar price point as Core i5-7400.

Moving on to the application charts, Core i5-8400 distances itself from other processors in its price class, beating the previous-gen -7600K in threaded workloads as well. That's downright compelling progress from one generation to the next. Of course, stepping up ~$30 and overclocking a Ryzen 5 1600 should get you similar performance as a Ryzen 5 1600X. And in that case, you'll definitely outperform the Core i5 in heavily-threaded workloads. The compromise is lower performance in lightly-threaded apps and a higher price tag.

Intel's hasty launch means we're stuck pairing mainstream CPUs to higher-end Z370 motherboards until early next year. That's not a great option when you're dealing with a multiplier-locked CPU. Fortunately, the least-expensive Z370-based platforms sell for a reasonable $120. We're far less enthused about Coffee Lake supply issues causing prices on Core i5-8400 and other models to soar through the roof. Many retailers are selling the -8400 for $200 and higher. Hopefully, Intel can address this issue sooner than later. At least you get a bundled heat sink and fan as a consolation prize.

Overall, the Core i5-8400 offers incredible value to gamers on a budget, providing you can find the chip selling for Intel's recommended customer price. As supply stabilizes, you should be able to get your hands on an affordable hexa-core CPU that frees up funds for a faster graphics card than you would have purchased before. Balance is a beautiful thing to PC builders, and Coffee Lake delivers in spades.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:00:01 +0000

AMD Attacks Core i3

Fresh from a successful roll-out of mainstream Ryzen 7 and 5 CPUs, AMD's attack on Intel now extends down into the low-end with its Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 processors, which the company is making available today.

Intel's Core i3s are a staple of the high-volume mainstream market. They make up the most popular brand for budget-oriented builds by far. AMD is looking to shake that up with true quad-core processors that sell for even less than two Hyper-Threaded cores. As if a resource advantage wasn't already compelling enough, Ryzen 3 also enables unlocked multipliers. Intel is ill-prepared to fend off such a combination.

Although there is an unlocked Core i3-7350K at the top of Intel's Core i3 family, it isn't particularly popular. The chip is relatively expensive, and it unfortunately requires a pricey Z270-based motherboard for overclocking support. In comparison, AMD lets you overclock Ryzen 3 on cheaper B350-based platforms.

Right out of the gate, Ryzen 3 should sell for $130, going up against Intel's almost-$150 Core i3-7300, while the $110 Ryzen 3 1200 undercuts the Core i3-7100 at just under $120. In threaded workloads, the quad-core Ryzens should enjoy an advantage against Intel's dual-core models. Of course, AMD doesn't give you integrated graphics like Intel does, but for enthusiasts building cheap gaming PCs, the HD Graphics engine isn't much of a draw anyway.

Ryzen 3 1300X & 1200

The quad-core 1300X is AMD's first Ryzen processor that doesn't feature simultaneous multi-threading, so it only schedules four threads at a time, like Core i5. Still, when it's up against Intel's two Hyper-Threaded cores, the 1300X boasts a notable resource advantage.

AMD arms Ryzen 3 1300X with a 3.4 GHz base frequency that jumps as high as 3.9 GHz under lightly-threaded tasks. The -1300X also offers a 3.6 GHz clock rate with all cores active. Meanwhile, Intel keeps its Core i3-7300 operating at a static 4.0 GHz clock rate.

The quad-core Ryzen 3 1200 has a 3.1 GHz base frequency that scales to 3.45 GHz via XFR. It does battle against the Core i3-7100's static 3.9 GHz.

Ryzen 3's unlocked multipliers play a key role in overcoming Core i3's higher clock rates. You'll need a capable cooler to push these chips hard, though. Both AMD and Intel bundle their lower-end CPUs with heat sink/fan combos. But in a nod to the overclockers out there, AMD includes Wraith Stealth coolers with both Ryzen 3 models.

Although the 65W-rated Stealth doesn't feature a copper base or the LEDs found on AMD's higher-end thermal solutions, it does handle Ryzen 3's heat output deftly enough to facilitate XFR-triggered frequencies. This gives you an extra 200 MHz. We were even able to overclock the 1300X to 3.9 GHz within a reasonable temperature range. The fan also blows down onto the motherboard, which provide additional cooling around the socket. If you need more bling, AMD recently announced that it now offers the LED-equipped Wraith Max separately.

Like all other Ryzen chips, the 3-series CPUs drop into any Socket AM4 motherboard. But most will find a home on boards equipped with the B350 chipset, which has provisions for overclocking and offers plenty of connectivity options. Unlike Intel, AMD plans to utilize its current socket until 2020, so upgrading to future Ryzen models shouldn't require a new motherboard.

If you'd like more detail on the architecture Ryzen 3 is built on, check out Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips and our Ryzen 7 1800X launch coverage. In brief, AMD uses two quad-core building blocks in a single Zeppelin die to create all of existing Ryzen-branded products. That means that each processor actually has eight cores, but AMD disables some of them (and, in this case, 8MB of cache) to create a segmented product stack. For Ryzen 3, the company symmetrically disables half of the cores on each CCX, creating a 2x2 array.

Ryzen Memory Support	MT/s
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Four-DIMM	1866
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Four-DIMM	2133
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Two-DIMM	2400
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Two-DIMM	2677

According to AMD, it plans to keep selling its older FX-series CPUs. We suspect they'll receive a deep price cut, though. FX-6300 should serve the sub-$100 market, while AMD's A-series APUs and Athlon surface today with Excavator and Polaris cores for AM4 motherboards.

We've updated our gaming suite along with new motherboard firmware (AGESA 1.0.0.6), graphics and chipset drivers. That necessitated an entire retest of our test pool. Due to time constraints, we'll circle back with more in-depth application testing in the upcoming Ryzen 3 1200 review. For now, let's take a look at Ryzen 3's gaming performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Test Setup

	Ryzen 3 1300X	Ryzen 5 1500X	Ryzen 5 1400
Cores / Threads	4C / 4T	4C / 8T	4C / 8T
Base Clock Frequency	3.4 GHz	3.5 GHz	3.2 GHz
All-Core Boost	3.6 GHz	3.6 GHz	3.4 GHz
Two-Core Boost	3.7 GHz	3.7 GHz	Unknown
XFR Maximum	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz	Unknown
L3 Cache	8MB	2x 8MB	8MB
L2 Cache	512KB per Core	512KB per Core	512KB per Core
L1 Cache	64KB per Core	64KB per Core	64KB per Core
CCX Config	2x2	2x2	2x2
TDP	65W	65W	65W
MSRP	$130	$190	$170

Test System & Settings

We’re testing Ryzen 3 1300X the same way that we tested the Ryzen 5 CPUs, using an inexpensive MSI B350 Tomahawk motherboard that sells for around $100. This motherboard does allow for overclocking as long as the CPU supports it. Spoiler alert: we got Ryzen 3 1300X up to 4 GHz in the German lab and 3.9 GHz in the U.S.. The systems stayed stable for prolonged periods of time at these levels.

One particularly interesting feature offered by MSI's B350 Tomahawk is a temperature sensor in the socket area. You'll hear more about this later, since we gathered some interesting measurements to compare against AMD’s Tclt values.

The B350 Tomahawk is a Socket AM4 motherboard based on the B350 chipset. It has four DDR4 slots and supports up to 64GB of memory. Our configuration only required two slots, yielding 16GB (2x 8GB of DDR4-3200). The motherboard has one PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, one PCIe 2.0 x4 slot, two PCIe 2.0 x1 slots, as well as two older PCI slots. There’s also an integrated 7.1-channel audio codec, as well as gigabit Ethernet, four SATA 6Gb/s ports, an M.2 connector, and the usual USB 3.0 Type-C and USB 3.0 ports.

Comparison Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 1400

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

Intel Core i3-7300

Test System & Methodology

We introduced our new test system and methodology in How We Test Graphics Cards. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.

The only components that have changed since we published the article linked above are the CPU, system memory, motherboard, and cooling solution. The hardware currently used in our lab includes:

Test Equipment & Environment
System	Germany - AMD Ryzen 3, 5 and 7- MSI B350 Tomahawk- Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7500- MSI Z270 Gaming 7- AMD FX-8370- Asus Sabertooth 990FX- 16GB (2x 8GB) G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4 3200 (CL15-15-15-35)- 1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)- 2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)- be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power Supply Unit (PSU)- Windows 10 Pro (Creators Update)- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)- Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)U.S.- Ryzen 5 1500X, 1400, Ryzen 3 1300X- MSI B350 Tomahawk- Intel Core i3-7300, i3-7300, Pentium G4620, G4650- MSI Z270 Gaming 7- 16GB (2x 8GB) G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4 @ 2933 (Ryzen 3 1300X, 1400) and 3200 (Ryzen 5 1500X) (CL15-15-15-35)- EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE- 1TB Samsung PM863- SilverStone ST1500, 1500W- Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	Germany- Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller- Alphacool Eisblock XPX- Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (Used when Switching Coolers)U.S.- Corsair H115i- Corsair H100i v2- Arctic MX4
Monitor	- Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	- Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods - Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	- Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) - Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable - Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply - 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function - 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100kHz, DC) - 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500MHz) - 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	- 1x Optris PI640 80Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect - Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Noise Measurement	- NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) - Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones) - Creative X7, Smaart v.7 - Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) - Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm - Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) - Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

AMD lists Ryzen 3 and its Ryzen 5 1400 as "VR Ready," while the higher-end Ryzen models are considered "VR Ready Premium." In VRMark at stock settings, we see the distance between the premium Ryzen 5 1500X and AMD's other CPUs. Frequency adjustments allow Ryzen 3 1300X to overtake the other contenders, including AMD's more expensive Ryzen 5 1400. And as we expected, Ryzen dominates its Intel competition.

We also see the benefit of AMD's core count advantage; Ryzen manhandles the Core i3 and Pentium processors in our threaded physics, CPU, and API tests. Meanwhile, the DX11-based single-threaded API metric favors Intel by a convincing margin due to its architecture's superior IPC throughput and higher clock rates.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title. Even beefy 10-core processors can't push past 60 FPS in the game's CPU benchmark, so it's not surprising to see overclocked budget-friendly chips struggling to hit 30 FPS.

Even still, this game rewards AMD with a convincing win against Intel. Stock Ryzens fall into a predictable hierarchy based on core count and SMT capabilities. To that end, the quad-core Ryzen 5 1400 beats the 1300X thanks to enabled SMT functionality.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Quad-core processors without SMT provide the best results in Civilization VI's AI test, which measures available computational horsepower during a turn-based strategy gaming session.

Ryzen 5 1400 suffers from its mundane 3.2 GHz base clock, but its counterparts take a convincing lead over the Intel processors. A stock Ryzen 3 1300X put on a great show, though after a bit of tuning it becomes stellar.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Core i3 and Pentium models struggle through Civ's graphics test, ceding the top spots to Ryzen models.

Pushing the Ryzen 3 1300X to 3.9 GHz using AMD's stock cooler proved easy, and you can see how we were rewarded. Only the Ryzen 5 chips prove quicker.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

We expected Intel's Core i3 to excel in DirectX 11-based benchmarks due to their higher clock rates. Unfortunately, Intel doesn't enable Turbo Boost or overclocking at these price points. A stock Ryzen 3 1300X lands averages within 1.7 FPS of the Core i3-7300. If only the -7300 had an unlocked multiplier, it might have held its ground against the 1300X at 3.9 GHz.

This isn't a hollow victory, either. The Ryzen 3 1300X provided a smoother gaming experience.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War III exposes a bigger delta between the stock 1300X and Core i3-7300. But again, tuning grants the lead to Ryzen.

The stock 1300X trailed Intel's -7300 in our average frame rate result. However, it also registered a 21.5ms 99th percentile measurement compared to the 7300's 21.4ms. That means they offered a very similar gaming experience, despite the 4.4 FPS delta.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

We measure performance during Grand Theft Auto V's F-16 flight sequence with the built-in benchmark.

Grand Theft Auto V tends to be Intel-friendly, but Ryzen 3 hands the Core i3 another defeat. After some tuning, the -1300X even beats AMD's six-core Ryzen 5 1500X, essentially matching the 4C/8T 1400 up at 3.9 GHz.

The Pentiums languish at the bottom of our chart, while the $117 Core i3-7100 has a tough time justifying its slight advantage over the $91 G4620.

Hitman (2016)

Hitman's Glacier engine scales well with core/thread count, giving the SMT-capable Ryzen models easy wins. The Core i3s triumph over a stock Ryzen 3 1300X, though overclocking propels the new Ryzen into a more compelling position.

Notice in the frame time chart that the 1500X and 1400 offer much lower frame times (green and blue lines at the bottom), highlighting this title's preference for extra threads.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor debuted in 2014, and like most older DX11 titles, it is primarily single-threaded. That means it naturally favors Intel's higher frequencies and IPC throughput. The Core i3-7300 establishes a convincing lead, which Ryzen 3 1300X simply cannot overcome (even after overclocking).

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS & Far Cry Primal

Project CARS

Project CARS is a CPU-intensive title that promotes parallelism by breaking tasks into smaller chunks and spreading them among available cores.

Even though the Ryzen 5 1400 can work on eight threads at a time, it loses to Intel's dual-core Core i3 CPUs. In fact, the Ryzen 3 1300X easily outperforms AMD's 1400.

Intel's decision to add Hyper-Threading to its Pentium family, which many enthusiasts perceived as preparation for the Ryzen onslaught, pays dividends in this title. Meanwhile, those Core i3s remain convincing.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 tends to respond well to high clock rates and IPC throughput, but it also responds well when SMT is disabled.

As the only processor in our line-up without SMT, the 1300X delivers solid stock performance and a great experience after overclocking.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider has long been a thorn in Ryzen's side due to architectural eccentricities. Recent game patches have cleared up most of the inexplicable anomalies, thankfully.

The Ryzen 3 1300X competes readily with Intel's Core i3-7100 but lags the -7300 by a decent margin. Surprisingly, Ryzen 5 1400 shows up at the bottom of our chart, and a stock 1300X even outperforms the 1500X. Both Ryzen 5 processors feature the same basic design. However, they feature SMT, perhaps suggesting that Rise of the Tomb Raider isn't too fond of AMD's specific implementation.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

That large frame time spike in the benchmark's early section is a scene transition. The Pentiums and AMD's Ryzen 5 1400 suffer most during this passage, and we indeed observed severe hitching with those processors during every test run.

This section of the game clearly favors Intel's processors, which all lead AMD's line-up.

Ryzen 5 1400 performs poorly (again), and even overclocking does little to improve its standing against the rest of the field. Surprisingly, the Ryzen 3 1300X struggles the least during the scene transition. Physical cores win again.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Temperature & Noise (Stock Cooler)

Tctl Sensor Readings Leave Many Open Questions

One of the lessons learned during the Ryzen 7 launch was that AMD's temperature sensor output has its share of problems. The company configured some of the models to report an additional 20°C on top of the actual temperature in order to guarantee adequate cooling. We’re still puzzled by this choice. Read more about this in our Ryzen 5 1600X coverage.

We’re primarily using Alphacool's Eiszeit 2000 Chiller with its 1/4” threads and powerful pump yet again. We’re also employing the stock cooler to determine the remaining temperature differences in a more real-world setting.

Temperature vs. Power Consumption

Our cooling solution operates completely independently from the waste heat put into it during all of the tests. Once again, this allows us to plot the Tctl values against actual power consumption.

In order to compensate for various jumps and delays, we use a tool that we programmed ourselves to generate different loads over time and distribute them as evenly as possible among the different threads. The results of our efforts confirm what we’d suspected:

Below 20 to 25W, the temperatures are complete nonsense. However, there are large differences between AMD’s Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 when it comes to interpreting their Tctl sensor readings. We were somewhat surprised to see that there doesn’t seem to be an offset for the Ryzen 3 1300X. Then again, this could also be due to the motherboard’s new BIOS, though.

It’s our suspicion that the Tctl values are calculated by the CPU internally, and that its division gets less accurate with decreasing core count. All of the values look much too high to us. Consequently, we'll use a corrected difference that's based on our comparison curves.

Implications For Air Cooling

The Ryzen 3’s stock cooler gives us a more practical look at operating temperatures, and we manually set it to the speed it reached during our first stress test. Two sharp bends are still apparent in the line graph, even though the overall curve has a much steeper slope. We weren’t able to detect any meaningful leakage currents.

Corrected Temperature Results With Water Cooling

We now take the predicted differences, or deltas, for the three disciplines we test into account.

Stock Cooler Noise Level

The Ryzen 3 processor fits squarely into the 70W category. Even a simple aluminum block doesn’t have a hard time dealing with this level of waste heat. Depending on your motherboard and fan profile, the cooler should only generate between 33 to 36 dB(A). This is a solid result; it's not loud at all.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Our power consumption results are based on the sensor readings provided by MSI's motherboard. We use adjusted averages and a special low-pass filter that discards brief peaks and valleys for these runs. The displayed sections show a two-minute window, but the bar graphs include the full 15 minutes that are necessary for precise measurements. We didn't have the i3 and Pentium models in the German lab, but we do have enough comparative data to provide a good sense of the power consumption trends of the Ryzen 3 1300X.

Power Consumption Of The Individual Ryzen 3 Processors

Only during the stress test does AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X encounter a significant power consumption increase. Even then, the differences aren’t that large, and almost completely in line with the performance gains.

Power Consumption Comparison For All CPUs

The differences between AMD's Ryzen CPUs at idle are extremely small. It takes a 15-minute test to measure such slight variations reliably. This lends credence to our hypothesis that the models with disabled resources aren't fused off electrically.

It's anyone's guess if there's a way to reactivate those pieces of on-die hardware, though we suspect AMD took measures to make sure it doesn't happen.

Working with a lightly threaded AutoCAD project doesn’t produce any large differences, either.

It takes more taxing workload for the higher-end Ryzen model to start drawing notably more power.

The same can be said for our stress test results.

Our findings confirm what we’ve found through our other Ryzen CPU reviews. Ryzen 3 isn’t significantly more efficient at idle and under low loads than Ryzen CPUs with more active cores or threads. This leads us to two conclusions. First, the new chip's quality isn’t worse to the point that it causes lower efficiency and higher power consumption. Second, deactivating parts of the chip doesn’t improve efficiency. In other words, the disabled parts are still, and permanently, supplied with power.

Compared to Intel's equivalent offerings, the power consumption demonstrated by AMD's Ryzen family is acceptable to good. The only exception is idle power consumption. AMD’s efficiency is really no better or worse than Intel's so long as the software you're using (including the operating system) supports Ryzen's power-saving features.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD is hitting hard with Ryzen 3. The quad-core models aren't as aggressively segmented as Intel's Core i3 family, so you get unlocked ratio multipliers, a competent Wraith Stealth cooler, and a lower cost to entry. And it isn’t like overclocking Ryzen 3 1300X requires much effort; we used a B350-based motherboard and the stock thermal solution for a quick and easy jump to 3.9 GHz.

In comparison, Intel's only overclockable Core i3 is pricey on its own, and that's before you factor in an expensive Z270-based motherboard or third-party heat sink/fan.

The following price efficiency chart uses a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement and plot against price. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. Ryzen's extra cores could enable more performance in the future as software evolves to utilize them better, so we also include a chart with newer games that exploit host processing resources more thoroughly.

At stock settings, Ryzen 3 1300X only lags the more expensive Core i3-7300 by an average of 2.2 FPS across our suite. That shrinks to a negligible 1.75 FPS when we focus on newer games. You probably won't be using a GTX 1080 with Ryzen 3 either, so graphics bottlenecks will pop up more readily than what we saw. The story changes when we apply an overclock. Suddenly, Ryzen 3 1300X takes the lead any way you dice up the results.

Intel recently slipped two new -7120 and -7340 models into its Core i3 line-up, but we don't know what they'll cost yet. Using their positioning in Intel’s product stack as a guide, the -7340 will likely battle Ryzen 5 1400, while the -7120 takes on the Ryzen 3s. We don’t expect Core i3-7120 to change our position much: it only offers 100 MHz more than the -7100 and it'll probably cost more. Intel does give you HD Graphics 610 and 630 across its Pentium and Core i3 line-ups, which is an advantage over the Ryzen models. So, if you're only doing office work and don't plan on buying an add-in GPU, Intel's the way to go.

However, enthusiasts looking for a speedy chip should strongly consider the Ryzen 3 1300X. It's an excellent value that leaves room in your budget for other high-performance devices. It also gives you spare cores for productivity applications. AMD has solidified its AM4 motherboard ecosystem, so the platforms are stable, and we can confidently recommend them. We’ll follow up with in-depth application testing, but initial signs are positive. After all, it isn’t hard to imagine that quad-core models will best Intel's dual-cores offerings in most productivity applications.

Make no mistake, you’ll see the Ryzen 3 1300X on our Best CPUs list soon. We'll circle back with application testing in the Ryzen 3 1200 review. Meanwhile, the Coffee Lake processors can’t come soon enough for Intel.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Extreme Overclocking: 10 Ryzen CPUs Under LN2

Jean Michel "Wizerty" Tisserand — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction

AMD's Ryzen processors offer a compelling price/performance ratio right out of the box. But despite their many overclocking-friendly knobs and dials, most enthusiasts struggle to take the CPUs beyond 4 GHz. Given that we know the ins and outs of extreme overclocking, though, we have a solution. It's time to break out the liquid nitrogen!

Allow us to take you on a cryogenic journey, where we'll explore Ryzen's behavior when it's cooled to -196°C. Our experiment will allow us to correlate frequency scaling to temperature, voltage, and core count. We also have some tips on hardcore modding, such as lapping (sanding smooth) the processor.

Note that we previously published an article on overclocking Ryzen using air and water cooling. Check out How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs for more.

If, after reading through everything, you have questions about your own overclocking endeavors, don't hesitate to ask them in our comments section. We'll be keeping an eye out in order to help however possible.

Test Configuration

We don't want to limit our quest to just one sample, or even one model. Thanks to AMD's generosity, we were able to get our hands on every SKU in the Ryzen family. Here's what we have access to for today's overclocking adventure:

2x Ryzen 7 1800X
1x Ryzen 7 1700X
3x Ryzen 7 1700
1x Ryzen 5 1600X
1x Ryzen 5 1600
1x Ryzen 5 1500X
1x Ryzen 5 1400

The processors used for this test are different than the chips used for our previous article on overclocking with air and water cooling. Therefore, we expect to see different results.

In the interest of truly torturing these CPUs, we surrounded ourselves with some of the best hardware available for testing:

The motherboard we're using is Asus' Crosshair VI Hero, equipped to facilitate extreme overclocking. The only feature it's missing is a second BIOS, which could have come in useful for recovering from a corrupted configuration.

This ROG-series motherboard is armed with two sticks of G.Skill Flare X DDR4 memory. These modules were specially developed for Ryzen. Furthermore, they are equipped with Samsung B-die ICs, known for their overclocking headroom.

Last of all, we use a Cooler Master MasterWatt Maker 1200 power supply.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700XView Deal

AMD Ryzen 7 1700View Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1600XView Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1600View Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1500XView Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1400View Deal

G.Skill Flare X (2x 8GB)View Deal

Cooler Master - MasterWatt Maker 1200View Deal

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

Preparing The Motherboard

Measurement Points

We begin with a little modification to the motherboard. Test points are available on the PCB, but Asus sadly neglects to include connectors. As a result, it's on you to precisely touch the indicated pads with a multimeter in order to take measurements.

Normally that's not an issue. But when it comes to extreme overclocking, voltages have to be watched more closely and we don't always have our hands free. Right away, we add something to plug our volt meter into for easier measurements.

LN2 mode

Some preparations are easier than others. In this step, we simply move the jumper labeled “LN2 MODE” in order to activate it. Once enabled, the motherboard automatically starts up with higher supply voltages. This will offer better support for the extreme conditions we're planning to apply. Certain hidden profiles in the BIOS are also unlocked.

Don't enable the LN2 MODE jumper if you plan on overclocking at ambient temperatures. Following the activation of this mode, the PLL (Phase Locked Loop) will transition from 1.8V to 2.1V. If you read our previous article, we revealed that raising PLL from 1.8 to 1.9V caused an 8°C temperature increase. Raising the PLL to 2.1V on air cooling should be avoided!

Isolation

When overclocking with liquid nitrogen, special care must be taken to protect your hardware. Ice will form and you don't want to risk water droplets falling onto the electrical components. We presented a number of ways to approach this in De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K with Water and LN2.

To start, we remove the heat sink covering the motherboard's VRMs. This step isn't obligatory; it most depends on the overclocker's preference. In our opinion, though, this sink is useful for extreme overclocking, so we prefer to take it off. This facilitates the insulating steps that follow, and even more important gets rid of a big metal mass. That could be a big risk for forming condensation otherwise.

Once we're down to the bare motherboard, we craft a “shield” made from shop towels. This protective layer must be fitted as tight as possible in order to prevent condensation from reaching the PCB.

Unused RAM slots are filled with towels. The space between surface-mounted components gets the same treatment, too. To finish, a section of neoprene is fitted around the socket. This protection serves as a last defense, though we hope that condensation is stopped well before this stage.

If it is properly made and placed, this ultimate protection is sufficient to shield the hardware without damaging it, and can be easily removed. Once the cooling pot (which holds the liquid nitrogen and cools the CPU) is in place, we pack on more shop towels. The pot is wrapped in neoprene, then towels, and any exposed portions of the motherboard are covered with several more layers of towels.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

Preparing The RAM

During our first extreme overclocking sessions, we didn't put much effort into preparing the memory. We simply installed the modules into slots with their factory heat sinks in place. This strategy didn't work all that well, as we had to stop our tests multiple times when the hardware refused to start up. Although we can't say for sure, it's likely that humidity around the memory stick closest to the pot was responsible for these failures.

After drying the hardware, everything worked once again. And since this happened more than once, removing the RAM sinks just seemed like a prudent idea.

If you choose to follow suit, be careful: some heat spreaders are so firmly attached to the memory chips that they can pull ICs right off the PCB. To improve our chance of success, we warmed the module up first. Even then, it took a lot of effort to achieve our goal.

Before masking off the chips, we take advantage of their exposure to verify that our sticks are endowed with Samsung B-die memory. Without question, they're the best for overclocking.

The type of the IC is indicated on the chip, just above the red line we drew, “5WB”. If these were E-die chips, we'd see 5WE, or 5WD for D-die. Other manufacturers use different identification marks.

To protect our memory stick, we cover it with adhesive tape. The impermeable nature of this tape should keep condensation from ruining our day. Don't worry, the missing sinks pose no challenge to stability. Even at 1.6V, the chips remain cool.

The small pins at the bottom of the module are too close to the slot to be covered. They're buried under layers of absorbent towels though, and therefore less exposed.

Even without the sinks in place to trap condensation, the surface of the RAM doesn't seem to be much less humid. This picture was taken at the end of an overclocking session, and you can clearly see drops of water on the stick's most exposed side. Nevertheless, our efforts pay off: we didn't have any issues with system cut-outs.

It would have been easier to pile paper towels around the RAM to keep water from collecting on the PCB. But then the modules would have cooled down even more through the motherboard. Given that Samsung's B-die memory dislikes freezing temperatures, they could have then failed to function at high frequencies. For better or worse, nothing is ever simple with extreme overclocking.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

1800X: First Test Of Scaling With LN2

By luck, we chose the best Ryzen 7 1800X for our scaling trials right out of the gate.

Ryzen 7 1800X : Frequency As A Function Of Temperature At 1.5V

This first experiment explores how the processor behaves at different temperatures with its core voltage fixed at 1.5V. That seems really high for a test at ambient, and we don't want to damage our CPU just for the sake of generating a chart. On the other hand, once the 1800X is at -196°C, a voltage of 1.5V is actually pretty conservative. In the end, we picked this value as the best compromise between risk at ambient and extreme overclocking performance.

At room temperature (20°C), the processor passes a Cinebench R15 run at 4175 MHz. This is a high frequency for Ryzen, achieved at significant risk. Don't try this at home: warm silicon doesn't like aggressive voltage settings.

By lowering the temperature to 0°C, we're able to dial in a 100 MHz frequency increase. So far, we have an improvement of around 5 MHz/°C.

We continue to lower the temperature by pouring liquid nitrogen in the cooling pot until we arrive at -50°C. The frequency gain is now 250 MHz. Our progression remains constant with the same rate of 5 MHz/°C.

Next we see -100°C, giving us an additional 200 MHz. The trend begins to flatten, indicating that the scaling progression is slowing down slightly (4 MHz/°C).

An additional 50°C drop in temperature shows a gain of only 175 MHz at -150°C. The increase is 3.5 MHz/°C.

For the last step, we reach full pot. At -196°C, with a 46°C drop in temperature, the clock rate stabilizes at 5025 MHz (2.7 MHz/°C).

A full pot signifies that our chamber is filled to the brim. We are at the minimum temperature permissible with liquid nitrogen, which is -196°C. To go any lower, you'd need liquid helium: -269 °C.

Thanks uniquely to the reduced temperature, our sample passes Cinebench R15 with an additional 850 MHz overclock. When you hear that these processors love the cold and are damaged by heat, here is the proof.

Ryzen 7 1800X : Frequency As A Function Of Core Voltage At -196 °C

The next experiment tracks our CPU's behavior at various core voltages with a temperature held constant at -196°C. Only the voltage changes; all other parameters remain unchanged.

At 1.5V, we hit the same clock rate seen in the previous set of tests. This makes sense, of course. However, we'll take the time to mention how well our sample scales. In fact, some of the CPUs we tested couldn't hit 4175 MHz even at a core voltage of more than 1.8V.

With an additional 0.1V, the frequency increases 100 MHz. This is significant, but not exceptional. As a reminder, we saw the same gain under air cooling when transitioning from 1.3 to 1.4V, while the shift from 1.0 to 1.1V offered a superior increase of 250 MHz. Before starting these tests, we would have guessed that the clock rate gained by increasing voltage would be amplified at lower temperatures. That's not the case, though.

The same observation applies when we raise the core voltage an additional 0.1V to 1.7V (+100 MHz).

For the next step, we stabilize 75 MHz higher at 1.8V. This frequency is remarkable: 5300 MHz. Such a clock rate is not common with Ryzen.

We halt the trial at 1.85V. Going any higher yields no frequency increase, and the voltage settings start becoming hazardous to our guinea pig.

The progression we just saw cannot be extrapolated to all Ryzen CPUs at the temperatures and voltages we used for testing. Certain specimens will fare worse when cold, some won't accept more than 1.75V, and others will continue scaling beyond 1.9V. This sample is above average though, even if it's always possible to find something better.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

Lapping The CPU

As we ran our tests, we realized that this sample was above average. So, we tried to land a record for eight-core processors, including AMD and Intel CPUs. The combat was relentless. On one hand, there were some very good results obtained by overclockers right around the time Ryzen was released, and it isn't hard to imagine that they had access to a sizeable quantity of hand-picked chips. On the other hand, Intel's Core i7-5960X compensates for its age with frequencies beyond 6 GHz under liquid nitrogen cooling.

We therefore decided to concentrate our efforts on two benchmarks: Cinebench R15 and GPUPI. In both cases, we succeeded in taking second place, in front of the -5960X contenders running around 6200 MHz (in the case of GPUPI).

Lapping In Pursuit Of MHz

At that time, our highest clock speed in GPUPI was 5390 MHz. The leader, Der8auer, was at 5440 MHz. First place, while so close, seemed out of reach. Without a better 1800X at our disposal, we decided to lap our sample in the hopes of better thermal transfer.

During our tests, we saw a gain of 2.7 MHz/°C at -196°C. If lapping helped us gain 15°C, which is not impossible given the high voltages we were using, 5430 MHz should be attainable.

The process proved more laborious than we expected. Within the first few minutes, defects began appearing in the CPU lid's shape. A flat processor should be “worn” completely on the surface in a homogeneous manner. However, we were uniquely attacking the edges of the IHS.

There were two possible scenarios: either the processor was not actually flat, or we were lapping incorrectly. To remove any doubt, we took a brand new razor blade and placed it on the CPU's surface. There it was: the blade only touched the borders, allowing a seam of light to shine through in the center.

Our lapping effort resumed. We used emery cloth (comparable to sand paper and intended for use in sanding metals) attached to a piece of glass to guarantee a uniform surface. We started with a course grit to rapidly remove (relatively, of course) the extra material on the edges.

This is the progress we made in one hour. The nickel coating is removed, revealing copper on the sides. Gradually as we eroded the surplus material, our uniform area grew in size. In the end, almost the entire IHS appears to be copper. Two visible spots persist, but the defect is sufficiently small to be ignored. The processor doesn't need to be polished any further. Having a flat surface is top priority. Fine scratches won't affect performance.

At this point, we resumed our trials with liquid nitrogen, confident in our work and hopeful that we'd realize our estimated gains.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

BIOS Settings

New BIOS features allowing the adjustment of RAM timings, which were previously greyed-out, became available during our testing. Unfortunately, those updates started rolling out too late. Given that there is only one BIOS chip on our test platform, and that we had already generated quite a bit of data beforehand, we decided to continue with BIOS version 0083 in order to maintain our methodology.

While some overclockers saw improvements from BIOS version 1201, this wasn't the case for everyone. Memory controller quality played a big role, too.

We already explained the BIOS settings in our previous guide, so we won't dive back into the details. Here's what the voltages we used look like, though:

CPU Core Voltage: Set to 1.5V on our sample. It can be raised to 1.8 or even 1.9V without worry when the cooling pot is at -196°C. During our first tests, we started at 1.5V in the BIOS and then stepped higher through the operating system. After a while, we determined it was safe enough to simply start off with the desired value.
VDDSOC: As with air cooling, avoid setting this any higher than 1.25V. For example, you can set VDDSOC to 1.2V, find the maximum stable frequency for your RAM, and then try to lower the setting to 1.18 or 1.15V. In short, seek the minimum value necessary.
DRAM: For our memory sticks, 1.6V was sufficient for 3200 MT/s at 12-12-12 timings. The most important variable is the quality of processor's memory controller, but aside from switching processors, there is no silver bullet!
1.8V PLL: We didn't see any gains when increasing the PLL voltage. The LN2 mode jumper adjusts this to 2.1V, but you can leave it at 1.8V without risking any problems.
1.05V SB: 1.3V does not seem to pose a problem; however, we didn't realize any performance gains by increasing this parameter.

The Case For LLC

In the “External Digi+ Power Control” sub-menu, you find the CPU Load-line Calibration option. We tried multiple modes available on Asus' Crosshair VI Hero and recorded their voltages with a multimeter. With a voltage setting of 1.8V in our BIOS, we observed the following values under load:

LLC 2: 1.78V
LLC 3: 1.83V
LLC 4: 1.85V

During our test under air cooling, we were surprised to see that even the lowest level of LLC was already too high. With LN2 and higher voltages in play, Level 1 and 2 are no longer sufficient, though. But also be careful not to overdo it, since Level 4 and 5 were too severe. Therefore, we recommend LLC 3 for voltages near 1.8V.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

AM4_PCRATIO: A Frequency For Each Core!

Hiding behind this obscure name is a small utility allowing one core to be overclocked, or to set one CCX (CPU Complex) to a different frequency than the other one. If you don't know why you'd bother, allow us to explain in a little more detail.

When overclocking a processor, all of the cores operate at the same clock rate, and this is great for most folks. On the other hand, if you're gunning for a single-threaded benchmark record, performance is held back by the least-scalable silicon.

Take a quad-core processor as an example. Some of its cores are capable of running at 4 GHz, while others hit 4.2 or 4.4 GHz. Without utilizing special tools, you'll lock up as soon as you try pushing past 4 GHz since some of the cores aren't capable of going any higher. Talk about a frustrating situation: the best cores are held back by the worst.

The CCX Version

Using am4_pcratio_ccx (instead of am4_pcratio_focus) allows the frequency of all cores in one CCX to be changed, while the other CPU Complex's cores are automatically adjusted down to a lower clock rate.

Here is an example of three processors: A, B, and C. The value shown in blue indicates the maximum frequency that the cores are capable of operating at.

A: In this example, whether you deactivate cores from the BIOS or from AM4_PCRATIO, you won't see much of a gain because they're all identical.
B: Core 0 is the best one. You can can choose to uniquely activate it from the BIOS, while the others are turned off. With fewer active cores, the processor generates less heat and you can overclock even further. Another method would be to use AM4_PCRATIO with a focus on Core 0. The result would be roughly identical, but you'd end up with other active cores. For instance, Windows would run on some cores at 2 GHz, allowing the benchmark to have unique control of the fastest core.
C: Now the fastest core is Core 3. It isn't possible to reserve only this one using the BIOS. So, using AM4_PCRATIO is your best chance for an improved benchmark score.

Given that each processor is different, it is difficult to quantify the gain from this manipulation. Worst-case, if you spend time trying each core and discover their limits are all the same, you wasted a couple of hours. On the other hand, if your sample is more like our second or third example, the gains can be substantial. Knowing that a competition can be won with a 10 or 20 MHz advantage, this is far from anecdotal.

Put your hard work in at room temperature. That'll allow you to conserve several liters of LN2.

With a bit of experience, it's easy to figure out the limits of individual cores quickly. All you need to do is overclock each one, raising their frequencies individually until your PC crashes. Since we have to run our benchmark multiple times, choose a 10- to 15-second test for brevity.

Our strategy was as follows:

Start by finding the limits of Core 0, then focus on Core 0 by using AM4_PCRATIO and execute GPUPI.
If the benchmark completes, note the stable frequency and proceed to a higher clock rate. Repeat this operation until the system freezes. We now know the maximum frequency for Core 0. If the test completes at 4000 MHz, 4025 MHz, and 4050 MHz, but fails at 4075 MHz, we conclude that 4050 MHz was the limit.
Restart the PC and change focus to Core 1. If 4000 MHz is OK, but 4025 MHz causes a crash, Core 1 isn't as good, so we don't use it.
Repeat this process across the CPU to determine its strongest core.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

OC: Ryzen 7 1800X

Since we have multiple Ryzen 7 1800X CPUs, each one gets its own number. Our freshly lapped processor is first.

Ryzen 7 1800X #1: 5411 MHz

The temperature drops, frequencies increase, but our optimism does not last for long. This CPU wouldn't stabilize at 5420 MHz, and it's just barely able to run at 5400 MHz. With a little work, and by tweaking the settings, we manage to pass GPUPI at 5411 MHz, reducing the three-second delta to just 0.9s.

We score a beautiful 2430 points in CineBench R15 at 5323 MHz, again falling short of first place. Our CPU is a good one, but it isn't setting any records.

Before moving on to other samples, we make note that this chip's IMC is quite average. Under LN2 cooling, it's impossible to push our memory beyond 3000 MT/s. Unable to achieve higher data rates, we instead tighten timings to 11-11-11-26 and use a REF_CLOCK setting of 139 MHz to boost our score a bit.

Ryzen 7 1800X #2: 5200 MHz, DDR4 At 3310 MT/s

Our second sample isn't quite as good as the first one. As a result, we didn't spend a lot of time trying to push its performance. After assembling and waterproofing our platform, we spent another two hours toying with the chip's limits. In the end, Cinebench ran successfully at a little higher than 5200 MHz.

Incidentally, this CPU's memory controller is quite good. It allowed us to complete SuperPI 32M with a memory frequency of 1655 MHz (3310 MT/s).

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

OC: Ryzen 7 1700X & 1700

Ryzen 7 1700X: 5310 MHz

Our overclocking approach didn't change for AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X. The cores in this specimen aren't that great, but they aren't bad either.

Just for giggles, we again tried for some records and ended up taking first place in all of the benchmarks we ran except for SuperPi 32M, which requires a lot of optimization. Sadly, we didn't have enough time to spend hours tuning for each metric. There are a lot more CPUs to get through!

What we have, then, is an average CPU that's easy to benchmark and fairly comparable to our 1800X samples.

Curiously, the scores we obtained in Wprime 32M are systematically very poor on all of our eight-core processors, and we can't explain why. Some overclockers see times between four and five seconds, while others dip under three seconds. While differences from one system to another are normal, the deltas shouldn't be 100%.

Ryzen 7 1700: 5150 MHz And Major Bugs

While we were testing our first Ryzen 7 1700, our friend Niuulh was testing a second sample we lent him for a competition. If you are familiar with the term poisoned chalice, this inadvertently became one in every sense.

We started by overclocking with air cooling, and quickly hit a brick wall. In the first minutes of our effort, the processor was stuck at 1550 MHz. Obviously something was wrong, since the chip's stock clock rate is higher than that.

And yet, the BIOS settings were unchanged from our trials with the 1800X and 1700X. The values indicated in Asus' software even matched those we set in the BIOS. Still, the processor remained fixed at 1550 MHz.

Moving to MSI's X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium didn't solve our problem. Two CPUs, separated by 600km, were suffering the same symptoms. The motherboard didn't seem to be the cause, the operating systems were unique installations, and the overclockers were different. Without a doubt, this was a problem with our processors.

After spending many hours tweaking BIOS parameters, the only solution was to not modify the supplied voltage via the BIOS, modify the OFFSET mode, or raise the REF_CLOCK setting. Whatever was going wrong, this was not business as usual.

The problem became even more severe under LN2 cooling. Once the temperature dropped below -20°C, the processor got stuck at 1550 MHz and nothing would free it.

Since our two processors were affected identically, we came to the conclusion that Ryzen 7 1700 cannot be used with LN2 cooling. We were condemned to powering on at -20°C and dropping the temperature to -196°C after booting to Windows. When the system crashes (every four to five minutes), you have to raise the cooling pot's temperature back to -20°C with a gas heating torch and start over. This eats up a ton of time, nitrogen, and gas, and it sucks the fun right out of overclocking.

Seeing that our Roman and Indonesian friends were able to overclock Ryzen 7 1700 with LN2, we asked them how they did it. Their answer: they didn't do anything special at all.

We decided to test our last 1700, and to our surprise, it had no problems under air or LN2. There went our hypothesis. By comparing processor batches, we determined that the two problematic processors were fabricated on the same date, while the third chip was older. Could this be a manufacturing issue? For now, we don't know.

As far as maximum clock rate goes, our three samples completed Cinebench R15 at anywhere from 5050 and 5150 MHz.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

OC: Ryzen 5 1600X & 1600

We have two processors endowed with six cores and two others with four. Which one will overclock the best? Now's the time to place your bets.

Ryzen 5 1600X: 5250 MHz

During our air cooling tests, the 1600X wouldn't cooperate. Bugs kept popping up and holding back the frequency. We assumed things would get worse once we introduced LN2. In the end, while our sample didn't have any issues with liquid nitrogen cooling specifically, it still proved difficult to get running.

At this point, it's pretty safe to conclude that you never know what you're going to get. The behavior of these processors is much too variable from one to the next, even among identical models.

After spending two hours with LN2, we only saw Windows twice. Two times in as many hours is a poor showing, to say the least, which explains the absence of a score.

We hit 5.1 GHz at 1.7V, and even saw 5250 MHz once at 1.85V. The cores are pretty good, but far from Der8auer's diamond in the rough that exceeds 5.4 GHz. Still, the clock rate we recorded was good enough to land second-highest for a Ryzen 5.

For reasons pertaining to our mental health, we didn't bother trying to squeeze any more performance from the processor's memory controller.

At the end of this chip's trials, as we were removing the cooling pot, our Ryzen 5 1600X got stuck to the bottom and was pulled from its socket. This isn't the first time we've seen that. Either the socket doesn't grip tightly enough, or the thermal paste has too much suction. Fortunately, nothing was damaged.

R5 1600: 5075 MHz

Unlike the six-core chips we just finished testing, our 1600 didn't suffer any show-stopping bugs. Whether it be air or LN2 cooling, its behavior is normal. This processor loves high core voltages and exhibits progression up to 1.92V. With that said, it's not a great performer, plateauing at 5075 MHz. The IMC is nothing exceptional; we timidly reached 3000 MT/s at CAS 12, but were stable around 2800 MT/s for our memory-intensive benchmarks.

This doesn't mean that all 1600s will behave this way. We'd guess that fewer active cores would enable higher maximum clock rates. But that doesn't prove to be the case today.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

OC: Ryzen 5 1500X & 1400

Ryzen 5 1500X: 5030 MHz

We won't drag things out on you. As we dropped down AMD's Ryzen stack, the maximum frequencies continued to fall. Despite starting off great with a Ryzen 7 1800X that exceeded 5.3 GHz, our 1500X barely crossed the 5 GHz mark. It managed to complete Cinebench successfully at 5030 MHz and a voltage of 1.85V.

When we ran our benchmarks, there were no results on HWBOT using LN2 cooling. So we took advantage of the opportunity to fill the ranks with 13 first-place finishes. To be honest, though, there is no glory in breaking a record when the best competition is only using water cooling. At least future extreme overclockers have a challenge to beat now.

Ryzen 5 1400: 5000 MHz

The last of our 10 processors is the worst of all. It simply doesn't like high voltages, and it stops progressing at 1.8V. Under these conditions, 5 GHz was the limit for Cinebench R15.

This is a disappointment for the enthusiasts who hoped lower core-count Ryzens might be capable of higher clock rates. But it's a logical outcome, given the way AMD bins its dies. The best performers naturally turn into 1800Xes, with all of their cores activated and operating at the highest frequencies.

At least this chip's IMC isn't terrible. It reached 3100 MT/s at CAS 12. The processor didn't have any issues with bugs, and it accepted -196°C without a problem. The test would have been downright enjoyable if we could have squeezed out an extra 300 MHz.

As with the 1500X, we took advantage of the absence of LN2-based scores to place our own.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

Overclocking: Air Vs. LN2

Before wrapping up, we wanted to see if there was a strong correlation between a processor's maximum frequency with liquid nitrogen cooling and what it is capable of with air cooling. This has significant appeal: why bother spending precious time and an enormous quantity of LN2? It could be sufficient to pre-select the best processors based on their performance under air cooling, and then test only the best contenders using liquid nitrogen cooling.

So we revisited our 10 Ryzen CPUs and found the maximum frequency of each at 1.35V. The table below allows us to make a comparison between the room temperature results and those with liquid nitrogen.

Sample	Date of Fabrication	Max Freq. @ 1.35V (MHz)	Max Freq. @ -196°C (MHz)	Ideal Voltage @-196°C (V)
Ryzen 7 1800X #1	1703PGT	4050	5320	1.85
Ryzen 7 1800X #2	1711SUT	4025	5220	1.85
Ryzen 7 1700X	1711PGS	3975	5170	1.85
Ryzen 7 1700 #1	1713PGT	3900	5050	1.85
Ryzen 7 1700 #2	1709PGT	3900	5120	1.85
Ryzen 7 1700 #3	1713PGT	3925	5150	1.94
Ryzen 5 1600X	1711SUT	3975	5250	1.85
Ryzen 5 1600	1713SUT	3900	5075	1.92
Ryzen 5 1500X	1712SUT	3850	5030	1.85
Ryzen 5 1400	1714SUT	3900	5000	1.8

At the top of the table, the 1800X CPUs dominate with air, just as they did in our LN2 tests. It seems like a processor capable of passing Cinebench R15 at 4 GHz with air cooling could be able to do 5.2+ GHz under the influence of LN2. The difference between our first and second samples is nevertheless more pronounced with liquid nitrogen than cooling at room temperatures.
The 1700X tends to reinforce our observation; it finishes just below the 4 GHz mark with air, and just below 5.2 GHz with LN2.
The same observation applies to our 1700s. The best with air cooling is also the best with LN2, but an important variable also comes into play: ease of use. Our notes show that these processors gave us a hard time. The samples that struggled under LN2 cooling were problematic under air, too.
Looking back at the Ryzen 5 CPUs, we could say that a processor able to hold 3.9 GHz at ambient should be capable of benching at around 5.1 GHz. Obviously, these numbers aren't always exact, but they do illustrate a trend. This pattern seems to prove correct with the exception of Ryzen 5 1400, which should have been able to reach a higher frequency with LN2. It may have, too, had it not stopped progressing before 1.8V.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

Conclusion

While life isn't always black and white, you could say that overclocking Ryzen CPUs using LN2 is definitely cut-and-dried. On one hand, you have some processors that handle cryogenic temperatures and high voltages without a problem. They can reboot without issue at -196°C, allowing you to continue your pursuit of higher clock rates. In other words, they're every overclocker's dream.

But some Ryzen processors are stubborn to the point of being nightmarish. Having to go from -196°C to -20°C after every crash is not pleasurable. The resulting consumption of nitrogen, gas, and patience is downright frustrating.

AMD's Selection Methodology

Enthusiasts in the habit of trying multiple CPUs and keeping only the best won't be bothered. They'll toss stubborn samples aside for someone else to worry about. But if you're on a budget and only have one processor to experiment with, the luck of the draw is particularly unforgiving right now.

Strangely enough, while we expected the processors with the fewest cores to overclock best, the opposite proved true. With only 10 samples on-hand, it's hard to draw statistically reliable conclusions. According to our tests, though, the Ryzen 5 CPUs couldn't stand up to the clock rates achieved by our Ryzen 7s. This is most certainly due to AMD's binning process. Lower-performing chips have some cores deactivated and their clock rates reduced. The best dies go into the Ryzen 7 1800X model.

Thus, your best bet for a good overclock under LN2 is AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X. In our air cooling tests, one Ryzen 7 1700 was able to keep up with the 1800Xes.

Ultra-Solid Processors

To end on a positive note, we want to emphasize that, despite tens of hours testing with liquid nitrogen cooling, using high voltages at cryogenic temperatures, and building/tearing down our test platform (with water everywhere), not a single component was damaged. Ryzen appears solid, despite its relative youth. And when you stumble across a gem of a sample, it's a pleasure to overclock.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: How To Overclock AMD Ryzen CPUs

MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K

MORE: CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 CPU Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 29 May 2017 13:00:01 +0000

Introduction

AMD's Ryzen line-up shook up the CPU market with more cores and threads at lower price points than competing Intel processors. But the series' universally unlocked ratio multipliers are the real key to extracting maximum value from Ryzen.

The Ryzen 7 family redefined what an 8C/16T CPU cost, and the Ryzen 5s do the same in their segment with a powerful duo of affordable 6C/12T options. AMD's Ryzen 5 series also includes the 4C/8T 1500X and 1400, but we think AMD's $220 Ryzen 5 1600 is much more interesting.

Like its $250 1600X counterpart, the Ryzen 5 1600 features six cores and 12 threads. AMD bins the 1600X as a 95W part, while the 1600 falls into the 65W TDP range. As expected, the 1600's lower TDP boils down to reduced voltages, imposing lower stock frequencies and thermal output. The Ryzen 5 1600 features a 3.2 GHz base clock rate compared to the "X" model's 3.6 GHz, and it also incurs a similar 400 MHz deficit to the dual-core Precision Boost frequency.

Ryzen 5 1600 falls neatly into the $40 price gap between Intel's Core i5-7500 and -7600K. Both competitors are quad-core models lacking the benefit of Hyper-Threading. That should make for a lopsided battle favoring AMD in heavily-threaded workloads, such as content creation and rendering. Ryzen processors also provide acceptable performance in lightly-threaded workloads. The Intel CPUs do come with on-die graphics for those who need it, while AMD dedicates all of Ryzen's transistors to host processing. Discrete GPUs are a must-have for enthusiasts anyway, so it makes sense to go the route that AMD chose.

MORE: Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips

MORE: Intel Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K, i7-7700, i5-7600K, i5-7600 Review

MORE: Broadwell-E: Intel Core i7-6950X, 6900K, 6850K & 6800K Review

AMD indicates that its non-X models do not feature XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) functionality, which allows the CPU to dynamically adjust its clock rate (for two cores) above the Precision Boost rating based on available thermal headroom. During a single-core Cinebench test, we recorded frequencies that regularly jumped to 3.7 GHz on two cores, so it appears the Ryzen 5 1600 also features XFR. Many of the architecture's other features remain unchanged, including its spacious 16MB of L3 cache, SenseMI suite, and unlocked multiplier.

Intel's carefully segmented stack, which relies on locked multipliers to force specific performance profiles, serves as a liability in the face of AMD's unlocked approach. As we've seen from other Ryzen models, the non-X SKUs tend to hit their overclocking ceilings at lower frequencies and offer less consistent memory overclocking. But your access to the platform's many knobs and dials is the same, no matter which Ryzen CPU you purchase. A bit of tuning often pulls the non-X models into range of their more expensive counterparts, also helping close the gap with Intel's mid-range Core CPUs in lightly-threaded apps.

Much like Intel's K-series CPUs, AMD's X models don't come bundled with thermal solutions. So, their additional frequency headroom is accompanied by a higher platform cost. AMD sweetens the Ryzen 5 1600's value proposition by giving you its 95W Wraith Spire cooler. The 1600, like all other Ryzen chips, drops into Socket AM4. Combining the budget-minded processor with an affordable B350-based motherboard results in a capable 6C/12T rig with plenty of horsepower in reserve for any number of enthusiast workloads.

A lot has been written about Ryzen's challenges in some games, but improved memory support and a trickle of software patches have addressed the most glaring issues. The Ryzen processors are good enough for gaming. But the question is whether they offer enough performance to unseat Intel's incumbents in the important price-to-performance ratio comparison. Let's see if the 1600 has what it takes to usurp Core i5.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

The Ryzen 5 1600 is based on the same die as Ryzen 5 1600X, albeit with a lower 65W TDP. So, we expect a fairly similar overclocking experience.

We dialed in a Prime95-stable 3.9 GHz using a 1.425 vCore setting and 1.2V CPU NB voltage (CPU Loadline Calibration set to Auto). We've seen others achieve 4 GHz overclocks with lower voltages, so it's possible that we have a lower-quality sample. We recorded 84°C (per AIDA) with Noctua's NH-U12S SE-AM4 cooler during extended stress tests.

Our vCore voltage is higher than AMD's recommended limit of 1.35V for long-term overclocks. AMD notes that Ryzen processors can withstand more than 1.45V, though a setting that high may have an impact on longevity. Of course, the warranty doesn't cover damage from overclocking of any sort, so proceed at your own risk.

We were able to use our G.Skilll FlareX DDR4 memory kit at 2999 MT/s with relaxed 16-16-16-34 timings, but were unable to achieve 3200 MT/s in tandem with our 3.9 GHz overclock. Notably, we ran the Ryzen 5 1600X with the same kit at 3200 MT/s and 14-14-14-34 timings on the same motherboard. As we've seen with other non-X models (and the Ryzen 5 1500X), it's possible that the memory overclocking disparity is attributable to AMD's IMC (Integrated Memory Controller).

Ryzen Memory Support	MT/s
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Four-DIMM	1866
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Four-DIMM	2133
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Two-DIMM	2400
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Two-DIMM	2677

After experimenting with the recently-exposed ProcODT (on-die termination signal) motherboard firmware setting, we found that it has a profound impact on memory overclocking and compatibility. The 40- to 60-ohm range allows us to use various memory kits with Ryzen processors that were previously unusable.

AMD recently released a new v1.0.0.6 AGESA update. Motherboard vendors build firmware upon the AGESA bedrock, so improvements to the underlying code allow manufacturers to provide more options through their own BIOS builds. The latest version exposes 26 more settings that should improve memory overclocking, such as allowing either 1T or 2T command rates (previously limited to 1T) and an expanded range of multipliers that allow 4000 MT/s without BCLK overclocking. We will revisit the 1600's memory overclockability when the final firmware revisions become available.

Comparison Processors

Intel Core i5-7400

Intel Core i5-7500

Intel Core i5-7600K

Test Setup

We conducted gaming testing with the MSI B350 Tomahawk. To streamline our workflow, we employed Asus' B350-Plus for application testing. The Ryzen gaming story has changed quickly since the launch as a string of motherboard firmware and chipset drivers, along with game updates, have come to fruition. As such, we retested all processors with updated firmware and drivers.

Test Systems and Measurement Setups
Systems	AMDRyzen 5 1600, 1600X, 1500XMSI B350 Tomahawk (games)Asus B350-Plus (applications)2x G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @2666 (stock), 2933 (1600 and 1500X) and 3200 MT/s (1600X)IntelIntel Core i5-7600K, i7-7500MSI Z270 Gaming M72x G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @2400 and 3200 MT/sAllEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500, 1500WWindows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4Arctic MX-4

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

VRMark & 3D Mark

VRMark

Futuremark's new VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. VRMark features both HMD and Desktop modes. Desktop mode works both with and without an HMD attached. If you do have one connected, software caps the frame rate at the HMD's refresh rate (90Hz for both the Vive and Rift), and Futuremark doesn't recommend wearing the HMD during the test. We conducted our tests in Desktop mode on a standard monitor, outputting the same resolution and view (for each eye) as an HMD, but without the 90 FPS cap.

The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS (for both tests), so all of these processors paired with a GeForce GTX 1080 are suitable for modern VR experiences.

An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X outpaces Intel's stock Core i5-7600K, but the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 lags behind slightly. The Ryzen 5 1600 outpaces its four-core 1500X counterpart, while the Core i5-7500 bests the stock 1500X and 1600.

The Blue Room metric performs a grueling 5K resolution benchmark that mimics the expected performance requirements for future VR devices. It's clear that we're butting up against a graphics bottleneck during the test.

3DMark

3DMark's DX11 physics and DX12 CPU tests quantify the amount of processing power available to a game engine.

The stock and overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X configurations unleash beastly performance during the DX12 physics workload. The 1600 also posts strong results that either beat or challenge the overclocked Core i5-7600K.

AMD's Ryzen processors win the DX11 physics tests. The Intel CPUs fare better during the 3DMark API tests, but Ryzen naturally provides strong threaded DX12 draw call performance.

As we've come to expect, Intel processors perform well in single-threaded DX11 metrics. Even AMD's overclocked CPUs can't match them there. Strong per-clock performance helps explain Intel's advantage in lightly-threaded benchmarks where Ryzen's core count advantage is neutralized.

Once again, even after Futuremark's recent API test update, we note a reduction in multi-threaded DX11 draw call performance for the overclocked six-core Ryzen processors compared to their stock configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AotS: Escalation & Battlefield 1

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity was one of the first games to receive a Ryzen-specific patch, so it illustrates what can happen when a developer spends time optimizing for the Zen architecture's intricacies. We recorded impressive performance boosts after the update.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales exceedingly well with more cores/threads, rewarding the six-core Ryzen processors in both stock and overclocked configurations. Intel's Core i5-7600K has much more overclocking headroom, however, allowing it to take the pole position. In its stock configuration, the -7600K falls into the same range as the other four-core processors.

Notably, AMD's four-core Ryzen 5 1500X bests the Intel Core i5-7500, largely due to improved utilization, which is enabled by its SMT implementation.

The stock Ryzen 5 1600 experiences the most apparent frame time outliers during the test, but a bit of overclocking provides a drastic improvement.

Battlefield 1 DX12

We dialed Battlefield 1 up to the Ultra preset and took an armor-laden stroll across the O La Vittoria landscape.

The Ryzen 5 1600 bests a four-core 1500X, but trails the rest of the field. Overclocking helps propel it to similar performance as the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X.

Battlefield 1 DX11

In Battlefield 1, under the DX11 API, Ryzen processors tend to score better relative to Intel's Core chips. Presenting benchmark results using different settings helps illustrate how even one game can paint different pictures of performance, depending on how it's set up.

The stock Ryzen 5 1600 beats Intel's Core i5-7500, and overclocking widens the gap. We notice a much larger delta between the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X (3.25%) in this test. Then again, there is a 100 MHz difference in clock rate between the two processors (2.5%). The 1600X's 3200 MT/s memory data rate is also higher than the 1600's 2966 MT/s, and given the increased performance we find with faster memory, that likely contributes to the disparity. AMD's forthcoming AGESA update might improve memory overclocking with the Ryzen 5 1600, which would help get it closer to the 1600X.

Those big blue spikes in our frame time over run chart belong to the Ryzen 5 1500X. Not good.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Civilization VI & Dues Ex: Mankind Divided

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's demanding AI test isolates host processor performance, and historically responds better to high clock rates and IPC throughput than more cores.

Not surprisingly, then, Intel's Core i5-7600K leads in both its stock and overclocked configurations.

The overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 nearly matches the more expensive 1600X. However, AMD's 1500X beats the 1600 in a stock configuration due to its higher base and boost clock rates.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The stock Ryzen 5 1600 encounters some frame time turbulence during the graphics test, but once again, tuning helps smooth out the wrinkles.

Intel's Core i5-7500 falls to the bottom of the group, while its stock Core i5-7600K also struggles. Interestingly, the latter Core i5 still achieves a notably higher minimum frame rate than the stock 1500X and 1600.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Deus Ex continues to favor AMD's Ryzen processors, while the Intel CPUs hit a ceiling of some sort around 58 FPS. The average FPS chart reflects this dichotomy.

The game also doesn't respond well to overclocked Ryzen processors. Our 1600X and 1600 samples yield the same average FPS and frame time measurements in stock and overclocked configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Grand Theft Auto V & Hitman

Grand Theft Auto V

We measure performance during Grand Theft Auto V's F-16 flight sequence with the built-in benchmark.

Intel's overclocked Core i5-7600K enjoys an undisputed lead over the other processors. Even the stock -7600K beats the rest of our field.

The overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X and 1600 land one after the other.

In spite of the overclocked Core i5's commanding win, it continues demonstrating the same disturbing frame time outlier we've seen previously. Curiously, it isn't affected if we leave its stock clock rate alone.

Hitman

The overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 falls in line beneath the 1600X by nearly the same percentage observed in previous tests. The Core i5-7500 settles in at the bottom of our chart, and Intel's stock Core i5-7600K lands under both six-core Ryzen chips. Overclocking propels the unlocked Kaby Lake-based CPU into a compelling lead, though.

Separately, the stock Intel processors serve up higher minimum frame rates than AMD's stock Ryzen processors.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Shadow of Mordor & Project CARS

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

The value of an unlocked multiplier becomes clear during this benchmark. AMD's stock Ryzen processors land at the bottom of our chart. However, overclocking them adds enough performance to challenge Intel's Core CPUs.

As expected, the Core i5-7600K leads in this older game. But the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X isn't far behind. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 lags behind the 1600X by a mere 1.2 FPS on average. We suspect there'd be little difference between them at 4 GHz, in the event your sample is more flexible than ours. The overclocked quad-core 1500X offers nearly the same performance level, too. A stock Ryzen 5 1500X beats the 1600 during this lightly-threaded benchmark by virtue of its 200 MHz XFR advantage.

At the end of the day, all of these processors facilitate a smooth experience in Middle-earth, and their performance is quite similar.

Project CARS

Project CARS responds most readily to high clock rates and IPC throughput. The overclocked Core i5-7600K offers the highest average FPS, but a few frame time outliers crop up during the benchmark. Intel's Core i5-7500 also experiences a few spikes that show up on our chart.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Division

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Ryzen processors endure a massive performance deficit under Rise of the Tomb Raider and DX12, so we're switching to DX11 to see how the picture changes.

Intel's processors still enjoy a healthy lead, despite our different API settings. Rise of the Tomb Raider could be a good candidate for a Ryzen-optimized patch. Alternately, if Nvidia's graphics driver is negatively affecting performance under DX12, pairing Ryzen with a capable AMD graphics card (Radeon RX Vega, anyone?) could be what equalizes performance between CPU vendors.

Tom Clancy's The Division

Tom Clancy's The Division is fairly graphics-bound, so, outside of minimum frame rates, it doesn't show much variation between host processors. As we've noted in the past, the Ryzen 5 1500X suffers a distressing drop in performance during the opening section of the scene, which is visible as severe stuttering.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Application Benchmarks

Microsoft Excel 2016 - Word, Excel & PowerPoint

Benchmarking Microsoft Office isn't particularly exciting, but it is representative of software many of us use on a daily basis. The Ryzen processors gain a bit of steam during the PowerPoint workload, but Intel's processors enjoy a lead through most of the tests.

Notably, the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X offer almost identical performance. In either case, aside from the tuned Core i5-7600K, the difference between the various processors is relatively small.

Adobe Creative Cloud

The same trends emerge throughout the Adobe suite, as Intel's Core i5-7600K largely enjoys a lead due to its per-clock performance advantage.

AMD's overclocked Ryzen 1600X and 1600 achieve a higher cumulative score than the Core i5-7500, and the -7400 falls to the bottom of the chart.

Rendering

The six-core Ryzen processors shine during heavily-threaded workloads. Ryzen 5 1600X and 1600 establish convincing leads through our suite of rendering tests, while the overclocked Core i5-7600K jostles for position with Ryzen 5 1500X during a few benchmarks.

The Core i5-7600K, in both stock and overclocked configurations, enjoys a healthy lead in the single-core rendering tests. The tweaked Ryzen CPUs trade blows with the Core i5-7500 in those same metrics, and beat the -7400 during the single-core POV-Ray and Cinebench tests.

Web Browser

During the Kraken Javascript benchmark, Intel's Core i5-7600K leads in its stock and overclocked configurations. But the overclocked Ryzen processors make short work of Intel's multiplier-locked models. Ryzen 5 1500X can't quite keep up with Core i5-7500 during the MotionMark browser benchmark, but the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X both provide a benefit over the locked -7500 and -7400.

SiSoftware's cryptographic test measures performance for both AES-256 and SHA algorithms. Aside from the overclocked Core i5-7600K, Ryzen's hardware AES units provide a tangible performance benefit over the Intel processors in both single-core and multi-core encryption/decryption tasks. The processors also provide faster SHA2-256 AVX hashing performance.

Encoding & Compression

The overclocked Core i5-7600K enjoys a substantial lead in the LAME workload, but the tuned Ryzen 5 1600X and 1600 also provide competitive performance. AMD's six-core Ryzen processors leverage their thread count advantage to great effect during the compression workload. A similar trend emerges during the HandBrake benchmark.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Final Analysis

As we observed with the Ryzen 7 1700X and 1700, AMD’s unlocked multipliers and similar overclocking ceilings are great for enthusiasts on a budget. You're able to buy a cheaper CPU and realize almost the same performance as higher-end models after a bit of tinkering. We couldn't achieve a 4 GHz overclock with Ryzen 5 1600, which would have matched our results with the 1600X. According to other tests we've seen, though, it’s certainly possible to find a sample capable of 4 GHz. We also couldn't match the 1600X's 3200 MT/s memory speed, but that is fairly common from non-X Ryzen CPUs. Motherboard vendors should have a wave of new firmware versions coming soon that might improve memory overclocking.

We use a geometric mean of average and minimum FPS through our benchmark suite to generate a gaming price efficiency chart. This includes six titles released in 2016 and four older games that launched in 2015.

In the suite, a stock Ryzen 5 1600 provides nearly the same average frame rate as Intel's Core i5-7500. But a bit of overclocking propels it into the lead. An overclocked 1600 can't quite reach the performance of a tuned Core i5-7600K, but it sells for $20 less and comes awful close paired up to high-end graphics. Most systems in this price bracket utilize less powerful GPUs, and the Ryzen 5 1600 should provide enough horsepower to propel mid-range builds to smooth gameplay.

The story changes when we remove older games from our calculation. The second average frame rate chart, which only includes modern games that tend to utilize processing resources more efficiently, places the stock Ryzen 5 1600 ahead of Intel's stock Core i5-7600K. That's quite an impressive feat considering the 1600 also has plenty of spare threads available for more taxing productivity applications. Notably, Intel's CPUs continue to enjoy a substantial lead when we look at minimum frame rates in new and old games alike.

The 1600's low price point is hard to ignore. This CPU features the lowest price-per-core through AMD's Ryzen portfolio, and in light of its solid showing through our application and game suite, it also provides an impressive price-to-performance ratio. The addition of a bundled 95W cooler magnifies the savings relative to Intel's Core i5-7600K and AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X, neither of which include a thermal solution. The Ryzen 5 1600 also provides more performance than Core i5-7500 in a wide range of applications for a little extra money. That should get you thinking about stepping up to AMD's $220 Ryzen instead of buying a locked Intel model.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Processor Price List

Michael Justin Allen Sexton — Sun, 14 May 2017 01:00:00 +0000

AMD Processors

AMD recently breathed new life into its microprocessor business with the release of its Ryzen CPU architecture, which is significantly faster than the company's older Bulldozer, Piledriver, and Kaveri based processors. While Ryzen occupies the high-end of the CPU market, AMD still produces APUs and CPUs based on its older microarchitecture designs to handle the low-end.

MORE: AMD AM4 X370 Motherboard Price List

MORE: AMD AM4 B350 Motherboard Price List

Socket AM1

Sempron

AMD Sempron 2650View Deal

MORE: Best Builds

MORE: Best Cases

MORE: Best Cooling

Socket FM2

A4

AMD A4-6300View Deal

AMD A4-7300View Deal

A6

AMD A6-5400KView Deal

AMD A6-6400KView Deal

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Best Deals

MORE: Best Graphics

Socket FM2+

Athlon

AMD Athlon X4 860KView Deal

AMD Athlon X4 870KView Deal

AMD Athlon X4 880KView Deal

A6

AMD A6-7400KView Deal

A8

AMD A8-7600View Deal

AMD A8-7650KView Deal

A10

AMD A10-7860KView Deal

AMD A10-7870K Black EditionView Deal

AMD A10-7890K w/WraithView Deal

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: Best Monitors

MORE: Best Motherboards

Socket AM3+

AMD FX

AMD FX-4300View Deal

AMD FX-4350View Deal

AMD FX-6300View Deal

AMD FX-8300View Deal

AMD FX-8320EView Deal

AMD FX-6350View Deal

AMD FX-8320View Deal

AMD FX-6350 w/WraithView Deal

AMD FX-8350View Deal

AMD FX-8350 w/WraithView Deal

AMD FX-9590View Deal

AMD FX-9370View Deal

AMD FX-8370 w/WraithView Deal

AMD FX-8370EView Deal

MORE: Best Power Supplies

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best Virtual Reality Headsets

Socket AM4

Ryzen 5

AMD Ryzen 5 1400 w/Wraith StealthView Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X w/Wraith SpireView Deal

MORE: AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Review

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 w/Wraith SpireView Deal

AMD Ryzen 5 1600XView Deal

MORE: AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU Review

Ryzen 7

AMD Ryzen 7 1700View Deal

MORE: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Review

AMD Ryzen 7 1700XView Deal

MORE: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU Review

AMD Ryzen 7 1800XView Deal

MORE: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 01 May 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction

AMD’s Ryzen 7 derives its value from higher performance than Intel's workstation-oriented Broadwell-E processors at any given price price point. With Ryzen 5, the company plays to the same tune, this time hitting comparable prices as Intel's Core i5 chips, but with simultaneous multi-threading to turn four or six cores into 8T/12T powerhouses.

The six-core Ryzen 5 1600X we recently tested is one such 6C/12T solution, going up against 4C/4T Core i5s and successfully cutting through threaded workloads with greater alacrity. The Ryzen 5 1500X we're benchmarking today loses two cores, but maintains its SMT support to tackle the mainstream competition without compromising performance in rendering, programming, and transcoding apps.

A $190 price tag lands the Ryzen 5 1500X between two processors that constantly fight for a position in our Best CPUs column each month: Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7500. But the 1500X's SMT advantage helps turn the tide in a number of our most taxing benchmarks. Moreover, its 16MB of L3 cache provides twice the capacity per core of Ryzen 7, easily outshining Core i5's meager 6MB last-level cache.

As with all Ryzen processors, the 1500X is purely a CPU, so it lacks integrated graphics. The 65W processor offers a 3.5 GHz base frequency and 3.7 GHz boost clock rate, but it also comes equipped with a more robust eXtended Frequency Range than other Ryzen models. The XFR feature provides a 200 MHz dual-core boost to 3.9 GHz if your thermal solution is beefy enough, whereas other Ryzen chips are limited to an extra 100 MHz.

Specifications

MORE: Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips

MORE: Intel Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K, i7-7700, i5-7600K, i5-7600 Review

MORE: Broadwell-E: Intel Core i7-6950X, 6900K, 6850K & 6800K Review

Intel's competing Core i5-7500 runs at 3.4 GHz by default, but employs Turbo Boost to hit 3.8 GHz under lightly-threaded workloads. The Kaby Lake architecture also enjoys a ~10% advantage in IPC throughput. Unfortunately, though, a locked ratio multiplier keeps you from easy overclocks.

AMD caters to the enthusiast market by unlocking all of its Ryzen CPUs on X370- and B350-based motherboards.

Most Socket AM4 motherboards require a new thermal solution or conversion kit (Asus does sell models with elongated holes that support AM3 and AM4 coolers). If you grab a Ryzen 7 1800X, for example, that means shopping for a new heat sink/fan or liquid cooler. But AMD does include its 95W Wraith Spire with the Ryzen 5 1500X. At stock clock rates or under conservative overclocks, it should be ample. Expect more aggressive tuning to require a higher-end third-party cooler, though. And for comparison, Intel's Core i5s do comes with bundled heat sinks and fans.

All of the existing Ryzen models start life with eight physical cores and the same underlying dual-CCX design. Each CCX hosts four cores. AMD disables these resources symmetrically, either due to manufacturing defects or for differentiation purposes, to create the six- and four-core variants. Ryzen 5 1500X utilizes two cores per CCX in a 2+2 configuration.

Ryzen Memory Support	MT/s
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Four-DIMM	1866
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Four-DIMM	2133
Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Two-DIMM	2400
Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Two-DIMM	2677

The cores communicate via AMD's Infinity Fabric, which we covered in our AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU Review. To summarize some of our findings in that story, the communication delay between CCX modules does have an impact on performance. Overclocking the memory subsystem helps reduce Infinity Fabric latency, which benefits application performance. So, we suggest splurging on a 3200 MT/s-capable kit.

Due to its common design, we expect the 1500X to hit an overclocking ceiling around 3.9 to 4.0 GHz. At those frequencies, AMD has an advantage over Intel's multiplier-locked Core i5s. The 1500X also sports the familiar bevy of Ryzen features, such as the SenseMI suite, a dual-channel memory controller, and Socket AM4 compatibility.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

As mentioned, the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 families share the same die configuration, so we expected a similar 3.9 to 4.0 GHz overclocking ceiling. AMD recommends a 1.35V maximum CPU voltage for long-term overclocks, and although the company says Ryzen can withstand 1.45V, longevity may be affected. In either case, voltages above stock aren't covered under Ryzen's warranty, so any damage you cause is yours to live with.

We spent a considerable amount of time tuning the Ryzen 5 1500X to match our previous efforts with Ryzen 7- and 5-series processors. Eventually, we did dial in a Prime95-stable 3.9 GHz overclock at 1.375V and an auto LLC (Load Line Calibration) setting. In the U.S. lab, we recorded up to 64°C (per AIDA) with our Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 during extended stress tests. Seeing plenty of available thermal headroom, we then attempted to match the 4 GHz we saw from other Ryzen processors (except the 1700), but were unsuccessful.

AMD's Ryzen CPUs respond well to higher DDR4 data rates, so memory overclocking plays an important role in improving benchmark performance. Unfortunately, the stability of overclocked DDR4 is dicey on early motherboard firmware. Again, we couldn’t match the 3200 MT/s data rates achieved on other Ryzen models. We tried MSI's B350 Tomahawk and Asus' B350-Plus XMP-equivalents (A-XMP and D.O.C.P., respectively) with relaxed timings, but were unsuccessful. Finally, we got 2933 MT/s running stably, but that appears to be our sample's ceiling. Interestingly, we achieved 3200 MT/s with other Ryzen processors on the same motherboards, implying the disparity stems from the chip's IMC (Integrated Memory Controller). Of course, it's also possible that future firmware builds could rectify the issue.

Test Setup

For this piece, we split testing between our German and American labs. The U.S. team ran the gaming benchmarks, while the Germans measured performance in workstation apps and collected thermal/power data. Both labs used MSI's B350 Tomahawk motherboard.

Disabling SMT on Ryzen 7 processors is a common tactic to increase game performance. But we've found that it actually adds frame time variance in certain games running on Ryzen 5, negatively affecting the user experience. Today, we're testing with SMT enabled and the High-performance Windows power profile. AMD also offers an optimized Ryzen-specific Balanced power profile.

If you want to know more about how the Tom's Hardware DE system looks and is controlled, check out How We Test Graphics Cards.

Test Systems and Measurement Setups
Systems	Germany AMD 1Ryzen 5 1500X, 1600X, Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700MSI X370 XPower Gaming TitaniumIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7500 MSI Z270 Gaming 7AMD Socket AM3+ FX-9590 Asus Crosshair V Formula 2 x 8GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-2133 @1866 MT/sGermany All16GB (2x 8GB) G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4-3200 (15-15-15-35)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet Dark Power Pro 11, 850WWindows 10 Creators Update Version 1703U.S. AMD 1Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 7 1700MSI B350 Tomahawk2x G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @2666, 2933 and 3200 MT/sU.S. Intel 1Intel Core i7-7700K, i7-7600K, i7-7500, i5-7400MSI Z170A Gaming M72x G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @2400 and 3200 MT/sU.S. AMD 2AMD FX-8370MSI 970 Gaming2x Kingston HyperX DDR3 2133 MT/sU.S. AllEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500, 1500WWindows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	Germany- Alphacool Eispumpe VPP755 Pump - Alphacool NexXxoS UT60 Full Copper 240mm- Alphacool Eisblock XPX CPU-Alphacool Cape Corp Coolplex Pro 10 LT- 5x be quiet! Silent Wings 3 PWM- Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut U.S.-Corsair H100i v2-Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4-Arctic MX-4
Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Expansion Kit and Mods
Power Consumption Measurements	- Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) - Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable - Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply- 2 x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function - 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100kHz, DC) - 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500MHz) - 1 x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurements	- 1 x Optris PI640 80Hz Infrared Camera- PI Connect Analysis Software with Profiles
Noise Measurements	- NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File)- Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)- Creative X7, Smaart v.7- Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H)- Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm- Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) - Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of raw horsepower available to the game engine.

Due to its thread count advantage, AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X beats Intel's entire line-up of stock processors during our DX12 CPU test. Overclocking provides a nice boost, as well. The 1500X enjoys the same advantage in Futuremark's DX11 physics tests.

The 3DMark API overhead test reveals a surprising trend. Mainly, the Ryzen 5 1500X delivers higher DX11 multi-threaded results than its six- and eight-core counterparts, which could be related to its higher per-core allocation of L3 cache reducing contention. This could bode well for frame rates in threaded games.

As expected, the 1500X's single-threaded DX11 results land within range of the other Ryzen processors, but lag Intel's numbers due to its lower per-core/clock performance. The overclocked 1500X enjoys a big gain in single-threaded performance, improving its standing against the locked Core CPUs. In line with its pricing, AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X falls directly between the Core i5-7500 and -7400 in DX12 draw call measurements.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AotS: Escalation & Battlefield 1

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation's recent patch helped level the playing field between AMD and Intel processors. The CPU test scales well with core/thread count, so it might be natural to assume that Ryzen 5 1500X would enjoy an advantage due to its SMT implementation. But at stock settings, it doesn't. Rather, the 1500X slightly trails Intel's competing CPUs.

Overclocking does help AMD overcome the locked Core i5s.

Also, we noticed visible hitching on the Ryzen 5 1500X and Core i5-7400 platforms during the CPU-intensive test, and that tendency is reflected well in our frame time over run chart.

Battlefield 1

We dialed Battlefield 1 up to the Ultra preset and repetitively took an armor-laden stroll across the O La Vittoria landscape.

AMD's stock Ryzen 5 1500X falls to the bottom of the pack. Overclocking offers a small performance increase, but it's not enough to propel AMD's quad-core model ahead of Intel's Core i5s. Notably, the overclocked 1500X does offer a higher minimum frame rate than the Core i5-7400.

The i5-7400 also stumbles under several frame time outliers, which are visible during gameplay. The overclocked 1500X, in contrast, provides a similarly smooth experience as the Core i5-7500.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Civilization VI & Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's demanding AI test measures CPU performance during a turn-based strategy game. It isolates host processor performance, and historically responds better to high clock rates and IPC throughput than more cores.

The Ryzen 5 1500X beats AMD's eight-core Ryzen 7 1700, but lags the other contenders. A bit of overclocking improves performance enough to put the 1500X between Intel's Core i5-7500 and -7400.

An overclocked six-core Ryzen 5 1600X provides little benefit over the 1500X during this test.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Ryzen 7 1700 stumbles under the most severe frame time outliers in Civilization VI's graphics benchmark, while the Ryzen 5 and Core i5 processors offer consistent frame delivery and smooth gameplay. A stock 1500X beats the Core i5-7500 and i5-7400, and responds well to overclocking, too. At 3.9 GHz, it jumps beyond the locked Intel processors and even beats the stock Core i5-7600K.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is a bright spot for AMD's newest architecture, which definitively bests the Kaby Lake-based models we test.

There's very little difference between Ryzen CPUs; it only matters that you pick one of these chips rather than a Core i5. Intel appears to encounter some sort of bottleneck that's not apparent elsewhere in our testing.

The Core i5-7600K and Ryzen 5 1600X encounter most of the frame time issues, based on our measurements. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 1500X and locked Intel processors provide smoother performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Grand Theft Auto V & Hitman

Grand Theft Auto V

We measure performance during Grand Theft Auto V's F-16 flight sequence with the built-in benchmark.

The 1500X isn't as competitive in this game. Overclocking improves its average frame rate, but only moves the CPU up one position on our charts. In comparison, AMD's 1600X fares better against Intel's Core i5s.

Hitman

The 1500X enjoys an impressive 11 FPS gain from overclocking. Tuning also pushes the Ryzen 5 chip's minimum frame rate up by three.

Intel's locked Core i5s generally deliver better minimum frame rates, and this favorable position carries over to the frame time results, too. Ryzen 5 1500X provides smooth gameplay at stock settings but encounters more variance when we overclock. The Core i5-7500 and -7400 also experience a bit of frame time variance during our test. Still, they facilitate playable performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Shadow of Mordor & Project CARS

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor appears mostly graphics-bound, so there isn't much difference between the various host processors.

AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X responds well to overclocking, which helps propel it from the bottom of our chart to third from the top. As a percentage, though, the improvement is only 3%.

That blue outcropping near the center of our frame time measurements represents the Ryzen 7 1700 suffering from increased variance during that portion of the scripted benchmark sequence.

Project CARS

Project CARS responds most readily to high clock rates and IPC throughput. After observing the 1500X's decent results in other games, we're surprised it doesn't fare better in this title.

The 1500X does manage to outpace AMD's Ryzen 7 1700, but even a bit of tuning does little to increase its standing against the other processors.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Division

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider is the perfect example of a game that doesn't efficiently utilize Ryzen's on-die resources. If there's one game in our suite that could really use a round of optimization for AMD's architecture, this is it. Even at their best, the Ryzen processors trail Intel's offerings by 33 FPS. We also recorded significant frame time variance from Ryzen during the test's latter half. Then again, Intel's Core i5-7400 and -7500 encounter their fair share of inconsistent performance, as well.

Tom Clancy's The Division

Tom Clancy's The Division is also fairly graphics-bound, so it doesn't show much variation between host processors.

AMD's stock Ryzen 5 1500X trails the pack in average frame rate, though its minimum is higher than Intel's Core i5-7400 and -7500 (and surprisingly, the stock Core i5-7600K).

We expected to see more consistent performance, given the higher minimum frame rates we observed. However, Ryzen 5 1500X suffers extensive variance during the test's opening seconds, which the other CPUs don't encounter. This trend persists, even after we overclock the 1500X, and manifests as noticeable stuttering during the run.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Workstation Benchmarks

2D Benchmarks: DirectX And GDI/GDI+

Ryzen 5 1500X falls into the bottom range of AMD's portfolio during these lightly threaded tests, although the quad-core chip does notably outpace Ryzen 7 1700 in a few tests due to its frequency advantage.

2D Benchmarks: Adobe Creative Cloud

The Intel processors continue reaping the fruits of higher IPC throughput in several of these benchmarks, but most productivity-oriented applications don't expose massive performance deficits that would significantly hamper the user experience.

Ryzen 5 1500X surprisingly trails the FX-8370 through our InDesign workload. Then again, there is a mere 1.41-second gap between the best and worst results. After Effects reveals larger disparities. The 1500X trails AMD's 1600X by 14.59 seconds, but beats the Core i5-7500 (its closest competitor based on cost).

3D Benchmarks: DirectX and OpenGL

The 1500X doesn't benefit from its SMT-enabled cores in these lightly-threaded workloads.

We use stock settings to better reflect a real-world workstation environment. Although tuning would help AMD's CPUs, overclocking is less typical in the professional space.

Notably, the 1500X outstrips Ryzen 7 1700 in all of these tests.

CPU Performance: Workstation

The 1500X doesn't perform as well as expected in SolidWorks, but it is more competitive in threaded workloads and trades blows with the Core i5s.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Rendering workloads reward the 1500X's SMT-enabled cores, helping Ryzen trump the Core i5-7500 and, in some cases, Core i5-7600K.

The 1500X isn't as potent as Ryzen 5 1600X with its six cores. However, the quad-core configuration offers a lot of value in applications like Blender, 3ds Max, and LuxRender.

CPU Performance: Encoding & Compression/Decompression

The HandBrake workloads utilize however many threads you offer them, so Ryzen 5 1500X unsurprisingly goes up against the Core i5-7500 and -7600K.

Decompression in 7-Zip isn't as taxing, so the 1500X falls to the bottom of our chart. But packing files into an archive can be parallelized more effectively, giving Ryzen an advantage over Intel's Core i5-7500.

In heavily-threaded workloads, Ryzen 5 1500X trails the pricier six-core Ryzen 5 1600X by a large margin. That's alright though, we think. In this price bracket, a quad-core host processor doesn't need to excel in workstation-oriented tasks. It's far more likely to end up in gaming systems. Still we like knowing that Ryzen can handle heavy lifting in a quad-core configuration if needed.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Temperature & Power Consumption

Temperatures

We calculated our temperature measurements on an adjusted scale, as we discovered some inconsistencies with AMD's temperature offset. Read more about this in our Ryzen 5 1600X coverage.

As expected, the Ryzen 5 1500X exhibits a slightly lower temperature range during the various tasks we look at, largely due to its four disabled cores and reduced frequency.

Power Consumption Comparison: Ryzen 5 Processors

Our power consumption results are based on numbers provided by the MSI motherboard’s sensors. We use a special low-pass filter for smoothing out brief peaks and valleys, along with an adjusted average calculation method.

We first take a look at the two new AMD Ryzen 5 processors on their own. The measurements and resulting curves are generated using long test intervals. These help circumvent (or at least minimize) bias errors caused by too little data.

A direct comparison between the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X proves particularly interesting, since we're comparing quad- and hexa-core configurations based on the same die. Their idle, browsing, and AutoCAD results land very close to each other.

More demanding workloads change the picture a bit. Power consumption naturally rises on both CPUs, and by the time we hit our stress test, there's a large difference between the two models. The charts below illustrate what we mean even more clearly.

Power Consumption Comparison: All Processors

At idle, the differences between Ryzen CPUs are small. In fact, we can only measure them reliably with a 15-minute test run.

There’s really no clear distinction between the quad-, hexa-, and octa-core models. The processors with deactivated cores don't appear to have those parts cut off electrically, so we assume they are still supplied with power.

Even though AutoCAD is only lightly threaded, the differences between AMD's Ryzen processors are marginal. More than likely, they're due to variation in chip quality and clock rate.

The higher-end Ryzen models consume more power during heavier loads. AMD’s Ryzen 7 1700 comes closest to hitting a sweet spot as a result of its lower clock rate. It takes the efficiency crown, though our benchmarks often show it to be slower than Ryzen 5s with fewer cores.

A similar picture emerges during the stress test. AMD’s Ryzen 7 1700, with its 16 threads and low frequency, uses less power than the six-core Ryzen 5 1600X. Meanwhile, the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X fares significantly better than the other Ryzen models.

What we're finding in today's piece fits in well with findings from our Ryzen 7 reviews. That is to say the Ryzen 5 models aren't any more or less efficient than the higher-end Ryzen chips. We suspect that the Ryzen 5's chip quality isn’t any worse than Ryzen 7’s either, since efficiency isn't negatively affected and power consumption doesn't increase. Moreover, deactivating cores on the dual-CCX die doesn’t result in better efficiency, suggesting that those disabled parts are still supplied with power.

The power consumption results across AMD's Ryzen portfolio are solid compared to Intel's equivalent CPUs, except when it comes to our idle measurements.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Final Analysis

Ryzen 5 1500X takes on Intel's Kaby Lake-based Core i5 CPUs with four cores of its own. But because the chip supports simultaneous multi-threading, it presents eight logical cores to your operating system.

	Price Per Usable Core	Price Per Thread
Ryzen 7 1800X	$58.75	$29.38
Ryzen 7 1700X	$48.50	$24.25
Ryzen 7 1700	$41.25	$20.62
Ryzen 5 1600X	$41.66	$20.83
Ryzen 5 1600	$36.55	$18.75
Core i5-7500	$48.00 - $50.50	$48.00 - $50.50
Ryzen 5 1500X	$47.25	$23.65
Core i5-7400	$45.50	$45.50
Ryzen 5 1500	$42.25	$21.25

As you can see, AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X bears the family's highest cost per physical core. It lands in the same range as Intel's Core i5s, in fact. But the 1500X's value comes from the benefit of SMT technology. While this chip's cost per thread is also highest among the Ryzen 5 CPUs, the 1500X does become more competitive than Intel's offerings when you divide its price tag across eight threads. Of course, taking advantage of that extra functionality isn't trivial. But if your application does benefit from parallelization, Ryzen 5 1500X is positioned to capitalize.

Although price per thread is an interesting academic metric, the price to performance ratio is typically more meaningful. As an example, we don't like AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X much for gaming because it costs more than Core i5-7600K, and the Intel chip overclocks better to boot.

Because Intel stubbornly locks the multipliers on its non-K-series SKUs, though, cheaper Core i5s don't enjoy the same advantage against Ryzen 5 1500X. AMD's processor isn't a gamer's dream at its stock settings. But a little tuning puts the 1500X in contention with similarly-priced Intel CPUs. We experienced unflattering frame time spikes in some titles on the Core i5-7400, so an overclocked Ryzen 5 1500X provides a smoother experience in that regard. Overclocking also helps the 1500X against Intel's Core i5-7500.

The 1500X isn't as competitive in our Adobe and Encoding tests. Then again, we ran those benchmarks using stock clock rates. A bit of optimization would help AMD quite a bit, whereas the Core i5-7500 and -7400 are locked to their factory-set frequencies. Although Ryzen 5 1500X can't keep up with the six-core 1600X in these types of workloads, it's hard to beat for the price.

Ryzen 5 1500X and its Intel competition easily drop into affordable motherboards, and both include bundled coolers (though we suspect that AMD's Wraith Spire is the beefier solution). You do need to budget for a high-end memory kit if you want access to the 1500X's best performance, though.

By virtue of its four cores, Ryzen 5 1500X isn't as fast as higher-end Ryzen processors in heavily threaded applications. But it readily challenges Intel's Core i5s in those workloads. Where Kaby Lake claws its way back is single- and lightly-threaded tasks. Fortunately for AMD, once you get down to this price level, the Intel chips are limited by locked ratio multipliers. So overclocking proves powerful in changing the dynamic.

Indeed, Ryzen 5 1500X relies on overclocking to make its story compelling. At stock settings, gaming PCs are better-equipped with the Core i5-7500. But the freedom to optimize helps AMD's 1500X serve up smooth frame rates with threads left over for dominating content creation workloads. The value of overclocking always weighs heavily on our recommendations, and Intel doesn't even qualify. AMD consequently gets the kudos for satiating enthusiasts across its portfolio.

If that sub-$200 price range is the top of your budget, Ryzen 5 1500X is a good alternative to Intel's locked Core i5s. An overclocked 1500X serves up better gaming performance than the Core i5-7400. Plus, its four extra logical cores provide a big boost in heavily threaded content creation apps, pushing AMD's chip out of front of Core i5-7500.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen AMA

Tom's Hardware Community — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:00:00 +0000

TDP, RAM Performance, and APUs

[Updated 4/17/2017 at 1:15 pm PDT to include a clarification regarding APUs. That answer is on this page toward the end.]

First off, let's give a big thank you to AMD for stopping by to answer all the insightful questions presented by our community members. Scheduling this AMA took a bit of work on their end, especially during such a busy launch year, and for that, the Community Staff as well as our readers are much obliged to everyone at AMD for taking the time to engage with the enthusiastic members of our community.

And of course, we're deeply appreciative of Don Woligroski for the in-depth responses given to each question posted by the Community. We'd also like to thank Sam Tehrani and Erin Maiorino for all their help putting this together.

Want to read the AMA in its original format? You can check out the original thread here. While you're there make sure to enter our second and final giveaway for the ASRock X370 Taichi AM4 Motherboard. Below you'll find the AMA in its entirety, formatted for your convenience and edited for clarity.

Our AMA With AMD

turkey3_scratch: When it comes to TDP, how exactly are the values created? I notice both the Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700X are labeled as a 95W TDP, however, there are differences in the frequency between the two, and looking at the data on these processors I would think the 1700X would use less power than the 1800X. How come the TDPs are the same?

Do you think the current TDPs for these processors best exemplify average power under maximum load (i.e. torture test) or a typical heavy load (i.e. gaming)? Do you think any more data relating to the power of these processors would be helpful to consumers under the specifications, such as the peaks in an oscilloscope graph?

A lot of people like to overclock but when overclocking the TDP no longer is the same and requires some guesswork. Do you think there could be some form of data presented to consumers that could tell them more about the power requirements of the processor if they overclock to certain amounts and voltages, or do you think it's too unpredictable and/or best left to third party sites' independent testing?

DON WOLIGROSKI: This is a can of worms, but I'll do my best. A couple points to frame the conversation:

1. TDP is not electrical watts (power draw), it's thermal watts.

2. Published processor TDPs are often rounded up to fit a desired specification. For example, AM4 motherboards are specd to run processors with 65W and 95W TDPs. It gives motherboard manufacturers and system builders a thermal framework to fit within. At AMD we call the Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 7 1700X, and Ryzen 5 1600X 95W processors, but in practice there might be a couple of thermal watts difference during operation due to a number of factors.

So right off the bat, power draw conclusions based on processor TDPs are probably not going to be perfect, although they can give you a rough idea.

To be frank, people tend to overspec the heck out of their PSUs. Primarily I think important to look for a well-reviewed model from a reliable manufacturer, rather than to worry about processor power draw on 95W Ryzen CPUs. Heck, 125W FX processors tend to run fine on a decent 450W juice box from my experience, but Igor at Tom's Hardware frankly knows a hell of a lot more than I ever will about PSUs. He's your guy when it comes to power draw.

James Mason: Will AMD eventually be able to fix the RAM clock speed issues through software updates alone?

DON WOLIGROSKI: As long as there isn't a physical motherboard hardware limitation, we are absolutely able to address RAM performance improvements through the motherboard BIOS.

Some perspective here - Socket AM4 is brand new, and our first DDR4 socket. Our competition took a year to get the RAM speed and stability they enjoy, but in the month since we launched Ryzen 7 we've gone from testing our original data at 2400 MHz to giving Ryzen 5 reviewers stable 3200 MHz B350 platforms to test with thanks to BIOS updates. Consumers can expect those updated BIOSes to arrive for X370 motherboards in the Ryzen 5 launch time frame around April 11^th for X370 boards.

That's not to say we've achieved perfection in a month. We still have a lot more work to do on the AM4 platform, but the strides we've already taken are incredible. We're also tracking toward another BIOS update in May to help with overclocked memory stability and performance even more, and we have a standing team of people working to develop this indefinitely.

The best part of this is, memory speed is a big piece of the platform, and rears its head in platform-limited applications like games running at the relatively-low 1080p resolution. So we're really happy about the improvements we've made, and this is definitely a priority for us going forward.

imrazor: How will you price the lowest end 4 core, 8 thread Ryzen 3 processor?

AMD Ryzen 5 1400View Deal

DON WOLIGROSKI: We haven't disclosed any Ryzen 3 pricing yet, but you can probably where prices will be relative to Ryzen 5. I'm also sure we haven't announced a 4c/8t version, Ryzen 3 specs will be revealed later.

Sorry, wish I could say more. But I invite you to enjoy the 4c/8t Ryzen 5 1400 when it's released on the 11^th at a suggested price of $169 USD!

atljsf: Now that AM4 motherboards support APUs, what kind of APUs can we expect? Will they have 4 cores and 4 threads? Perhaps 4 cores and 8 threads? Do you have any information of TDP limit? Will they hit 65 Watts TDP?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I can't comment on unannounced products and specifications, but the Ryzen-based APUs will be awesome. That is all I can say.

[Update: Don contacted Tom's Hardware to make he following addendum to this answer: "In the second half of 2017, we will be introducing APUs for Socket AM4 based on our newest Bristol Ridge design, which is currently our newest notebook part. These continue to offer excellent Radeon graphics performance and are a great entry point for eSports gamers. We haven’t yet announced any release dates for a Zen-based APU.]

redgarl: With Nvidia pursuing self-driving car opportunities and Intel looking at Optane, is there a new focus for AMD in the upcoming future?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Optane: The elephant in the room is that Intel has made a very expensive cache drive available. Remember the first SSDs? Been there, done that. It says something that they don't recommend Optane for users who already have an SSD as their primary drive.

As for AMD, our finger is definitely on the pulse of storage tech. Of course I can't comment on unannounced products, so if we did have something in the works I couldn't talk about it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Ryzen 2, Wraith Coolers, and Infinity Fabric

redgarl: Goldman Sachs recently depreciated the value of AMD in a report. Do you think the public and the industry is still missing what AMD is trying to accomplish with their new lineup of products?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Goldman Sachs depreciation: This is my personal and not AMD-related opinion: AMD is really well positioned for the long haul, so frankly I'm not worried one iota about it. We've only just begun with Ryzen, Naples isn't released yet, and the public has no idea of our detailed plans. Take from that what you will.

Aspiring techie: What are the low hanging fruits that AMD can easily improve from Ryzen to Ryzen 2 and do you think the gains will be significant? Can we expect improvements in clock rates, SMT, CCX scheduling, overclocking, or other microarchitecture features?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Ryzen represents a double introduction here: an all-new architecture, and an all-new 14nm FinFET process. There are many levers to pull in pretty much every aspect of the CPU. The ones you mentioned are all part of that. And that's a really awesome place to be, when Ryzen is only 6% slower than Intel's newest Kaby Lake architecture clock-for-clock in Cinebench single-thread right out of the gate.

scout_03: Which cooler will come with the 1500x and the 1600x OEM CPU sale in box kit?

DON WOLIGROSKI: The Ryzen 5 1500X comes with the Wraith Spire cooler. This is the same cooler on the Ryzen 7 1700, but without the illuminated LED ring on the Ryzen 5. The Ryzen 5 1600X is sold without a fan, like the Core i5-7600K, which is its main competition in the price segment.

jaymc: Can we expect further performance improvements from Infinity Fabric [AMD’s latest interconnect technology and the successor to HyperTransport]? How future proof is it? Will Infinity Fabric keep up with DDR4 4000MHz? What about speeds in excess of 4500MHz DDR4 memory?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Well, I haven't heard of any engineering concerns about the Infinity Fabric interconnect. On the contrary, if you speed up Infinity Fabric you should drop some latency, so it's all good.

As I've answered already, we're very focused on improving memory speeds and latency, but I haven't heard any concerns about how far we can go before we're capped yet.

Presentato: As someone interested in doing virtualization and PCI pass-through of a GPU early reports of IOMMU groupings don't look promising for the consumer motherboards. Is that something AMD can address or are any improvements reliant on motherboard manufacturers?

DON WOLIGROSKI: This is something I've personally started to look at recently as a pet project. I'm playing with VM-Ware on my Ryzen system at home because, really, Ryzen's highly-threaded CPUs bring a lot of virtualization potential to the table in price segments where it hasn't been before. The sub-$300 segment has been limited to 4-thread processors on the Intel side, while Ryzen 5 ratchets that up to 12 threads. Boom.

Having said that, we're in launch mode right now, and virtualization isn't a top priority at the moment. We're laser focused on making the platform as fast as we can in the near future. I anticipate we'll look harder at virtualization as time goes on.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 7 1700XView Deal

Versus Kaby Lake, FreeSync TVs, and Frame Latency

PC-Cobbler: Many corporations have discovered to their great dismay that China does not respect IP ownership. Last April, AMD signed a technology transfer agreement with THATIC, a subsidiary of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one of China’s national research institutions. Did AMD cut its own throat with this deal?

DON WOLIGROSKI: This really isn't in my purview. I can say that AMD has good relationships with its partners that we build on trust. I can also say my colleagues are sharp and know what they're doing.

hendrickhere: Big AMD fan - always have been. Why should a standard PC user who is primarily interested in gaming and graphic software performance chose Ryzen and it's AM4 platform over a competing platform of a similar caliber?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Simple questions can be the most nuanced to answer, so bear with me. You've got two use cases here: Graphics Software and Gaming.

1. Graphics Software

This isn't even a contest. We absolutely crush Intel at every price point if you're doing any graphics rendering. We have three times the threads in the Core i5 segment, and double the threads of the Core i7 Kaby Lake segment in the consumer desktop space. We have very high single threaded performance, combined with a massive multi-threading advantage, and this makes Ryzen a very deadly foe when it comes to productivity/rendering/encoding/encryption application performance.

2. Gaming

I don't know how old you are, but I'll date myself. Back in the old days of PC gaming, it didn't really matter what kind of CPU you had because everything out there was graphics card bottlenecked. You'd buy the cheapest CPU out there and spend the rest of your money on the graphics card. A Duron with a Radeon 8500 performed the same as an Athlon with a Radeon 8500. Gamers didn't need to waste extra money on the CPU.

As time went on, developers started to make advanced AI, more demanding assets. Things started to shift back to the CPU and platform. Now in 2017, you want a decent 4-core CPU minimum for serious gaming. Even game consoles run 8-core processors. IPC has become a lot more important to gaming, as has platform speed if you want the highest frame rates at 1080p.

With the introduction of Ryzen, AMD is back in the high-end gaming segment. The graphics card is still the bottleneck in a practical sense, but primarily only at HD+ resolutions (1440p, 4K, and VR) So, if you're playing games at 1440p and above (and you really should be with a decent processor, because HD+ is so pretty), Ryzen is fast enough to move that gaming bottleneck back to the graphics card where it belongs. It's the good old days again, baby!

If you're playing at 1080p (and let's be fair, that's still the most prevalent resolution out there), the bottleneck gets shifted back to the platform and CPU. That's where we see Intel's Kaby Lake pull ahead of Ryzen in some cases. This surprised a lot of people, because Ryzen is such a dominating force in applications, why do we drop behind in some outliers?

Let's talk about that. A few points to frame this 1080p gaming conversation:

Ryzen is never slow at gaming in 1080p, it's just not as fast as Kaby Lake in certain game benchmarks. For example, if the Core i7-7700K gets 200 FPS, and Ryzen gets 150 FPS, that's a technical loss of 25%. In real world terms there's no practical advantage to 200 FPS over 150 FPS. Hell, most 1080p monitors are 60 Hz, which means you can't really get a meaningful benefit from higher frame rates than 60 FPS.

At 1080p, I'm not aware of any game that is so limited by Ryzen that 60 FPS is not achievable. In many games, Ryzen's 1080p performance is well above 80 FPS and 120 FPS. Even for people with ultra-high-end 144Hz monitors, Ryzen can get the job done if you're willing to adjust detail settings, which you’ll often have to do on Kaby Lake to get those frame rates.

Ryzen is getting a lot faster at 1080p gaming. Ryzen is a brand-new CPU, and in the month since we launched we engaged developers to address DOTA2, Ashes of the Singularity, and Warhammer: Total War to deliver faster Ryzen performance. That's in a month. At the same time, platform limited titles are gaining a benefit from our RAM-speed ramp. And we're delivering other updates like a better Windows power plan and a Ryzen Master Overclocking Utility that doesn't require HPET clock to be enabled, which also helps performance. You're going to see an uplift in Ryzen 1080p game performance in the April 11^th launch day articles, and we're just getting started.

Developers tend to make use of as many resources as you provide - over time. You will see games take advantage of more cores and threads organically, especially now that we have new graphics APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan to take advantage of them.

So, to Summarize:

1. Graphics software: Clean Kill for Ryzen. Your productivity/render/encoding/encryption wait times will be significantly longer on similarly-priced Intel competition.

2. Gaming: Virtually identical 1440p, 4K, VR game performance as the competition, and extremely smooth high-performance 1080p gaming (if not the fastest), combined with better prospects for the future thanks to advanced graphics APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan. Advantage: Ryzen!

tredeuce: How long do you and others at AMD get to celebrate the success before you have to move on to the next task or project? I know innovation and competition never ends, but surely I hope y'all can enjoy how well AMD is doing right now.

DON WOLIGROSKI: Wait, we get to sit back celebrate our success? Being in the tech industry means you're never coasting. I don't see a significant reduction in the foreseeable future. But better busy than bored!

redgarl: Are there any plans to add FreeSync technology to TVs? Can we expect a console like Scorpio to have positive effect for AMD GPU performance on the PC?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We will probably see television manufacturers adding FreeSync technology to their products. It seems like an inevitable no-brainer to me, but you never know. I think it's a much clearer path to monitor domination for FreeSync.

I’m not sure what you mean by your second question. Are you asking if our experience working with console manufacturers gives us design and engineering insights that we use for future PC products? If that’s your question, then yes, I think our engineers take all the lessons they learn from console gaming and apply those lessons to the PC where it makes sense. We're a very gaming focused company here at AMD, so it's a natural progression.

jaymc: There have been many online reports of a "Silky Smooth" gaming experience. Is this a real phenomenon or a placebo effect? If it is real then what do you think causes this affect? Is it mouse latency, more cores and threads, or a combination of the two? Also, can you verify if it is possible for gamers to reduce their mouse latency by bypassing the chipset, and connecting the mouse directly to the CPU via USB 3.1?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I personally believe that having all of those extra core/thread Ryzen resources at the PC's disposal means that the windows scheduler can throw requests at resources without affecting the game, where it otherwise might have had the slightest impact on the experience. I've personally noticed that Ryzen gaming has been very smooth for me, but is there placebo there? Hard to say. I do plan to address this with testing in the future, to see if we can quantify this objectively. We do know that Ryzen's 99^th percentile frame times are very good.

As for mouse latency, I don't have any numbers on this. I'd love to see someone dig in to this. If there's placebo anywhere, though, I suspect this is where it is. Even the 500Hz mouse polling rate on USB 2.0 seems like it should be sufficient to me, but admittedly I'm not a mouse performance purist and haven't looked deeply at this, or run any compares myself.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 7 1700View Deal

Cooler Brackets, Gaming, and Console Lessons

Awzey: I’m love the new Ryzen architecture, but I still don't understand why AMD introduced a new CPU cooler mounting system for the AM4 socket. Why didn’t AMD continue using the AM3+ bracket design, proven to work just fine on the Asus Crosshair VI Hero Motherboard?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Dude! We gave you the best of both worlds.

We include the AM3+ cooler-compatible retention frame on AM4 motherboards (to the best of my knowledge, all of them come with those retention frames), not just the ASUS Crosshair. Just check the Newegg board pics for socket AM4. They're all over the place. If you want to use the new Wraith Stealth and Wraith Spire coolers just take that retention frame off.

And frankly, spring screws on the AM4 Wraith Coolers are awesome.

paulgrr63: Which Ryzen processor would you recommend for gaming? I use my PC for schoolwork and gaming, but nothing too demanding. The games I play include For Honor, Battlefield 1, World of Warcraft, and Gears of War. Thank you for your time!

AMD Ryzen 5 1600XView Deal

DON WOLIGROSKI: In general, the Ryzen 5 1600X is the best Ryzen processor for gaming. It gives nothing up to the Ryzen 7s, since it has the same clocks as the top-of-the-line Ryzen 7 1800X, and it can really beat the Core i5-7600K in certain titles. Having said that, I'd wait for April 11^th launch day and look at the reviews before buying. The lower-priced Ryzen 5 1500X might do the job for you. Gaming performance depends on your graphics card, too.

Ditt44: During the mid-2000s most PC game development devolved into a 'console-first' policy, resulting in dumbed-down interfaces, specs, etc. It seems like we’re finally witnessing a reversal to that. With AMD's diversification and integration into console markets, is your company’s development process for CPU and GPU technology based on one market or the other, or is there a more parallel sharing of engineering assets, product features, and architectural designs?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I think products follow what people want.

There was a time when gamers were a bit intimidated by PCs and the knowledge that was required to run them properly. I think the new generation of gamers aren't intimidated and really see the benefits of the open PC platform. Combine that with the tremendous success of eSports, and the PC is leading the millennium's current gaming renaissance.

As far as base-lines, it's a loop. CPUs and GPUs get better, developers start to take advantage of that power, and then we plateau for a while.

This is why Ryzen is so fricking awesome for gamers. We basically disrupted the PC's landscape by making highly-threaded, high performance CPUs accessible at previously unheard of price points. Now that AMD has brought multi-core processors to mainstream, developers can make use for that hardware as it reshapes the market. It won't be instantaneous, but it's inevitable.

Personally, from a crystal ball standpoint, I think the PC will completely displace consoles someday. Really, consoles are just PCs with simplified user interfaces and better compatibility. We've been moving in that direction since day one, it just takes time.

redgarl: Do you think having console game developers and manufactures reliance on AMD architecture gives your company a serious advantage in performance for the same game on PC running on Nvidia or Intel components?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Being the de-facto console developer does have some advantages, giving developers a lot of incentive to optimize for your architecture. From a CPU development perspective, we are focused on both Radeon and GeForce compatibility first and foremost. We want our customers to be confident that both will work flawlessly on their rigs.

Aspiring techie: What do you think is holding Ryzen's clock speeds back? Compared to Kaby Lake, Ryzen's clock speeds are somewhat sluggish. Do you think that it's something in the architecture or Global Foundry's 14nm process?

DON WOLIGROSKI: If you think about it, Ryzen is an absolute worst-case scenario for clock rates: a brand-new architecture, and a brand-new process. And still we hit 4 GHz without too much trouble.

I believe we have tremendous clock speed headroom to take advantage of as we move forward because of this. Lots of improvements to be made.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1600XView Deal

Project Scorpio, Versus Core i5, and ECC

Robert Pankiw: Microsoft engineers are said to have made significant improvements to both the architecture and design of the Scorpio Engine, the SoC (system on chip) jointly developed with AMD. The engineering team reduced the Jaguar powered SoC to a 16nm process node. I realize that doing a process shrink isn't nearly as easy as shrinking a picture in MSPaint. What goes into shrinking existing core design?

The team also reportedly made huge strides in parsing DirectX 12 commands, even claiming that their new designs reduced some API calls down from thousands of instructions to 11. Can AMD still benefit from that knowledge and implementation specifics?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I should qualify this by starting with saying I can't comment directly on Project Scorpio, I am not involved in that project and have no idea if what you've heard about a die shrink is true, but I can make a comment on die shrinks in general

Die shrinks are far more involved than people think, because architecture is tied to dies in ways that we don't know. Not that I know, but this is what our architects tell me when I ask. I can say it's a non-trivial, massive undertaking. But I'm no processor engineer, to be sure. So, I don't have the knowledge to answer you with any authority, sorry.

It might sound like I'm tooting our own horn, but I do believe that AMD invented the basis for all modern APIs. DirectX 12 owes a good portion of its existence to AMD's Mantle API, which laid out a template for Microsoft to follow. They do a lot of things similarly. And of course, Mantle lives on as the basis of the Vulkan API. So absolutely, we're very, very focused on future-looking graphics APIs and taking advantage of them as best we can.

g-unit1111: I'm interested in upgrading my 4th Generation Intel Haswell rig to a Ryzen based system. What performance can we expect from the Ryzen 5 Processors? How does the Ryzen 5 1600X compare to say an i5-7600K? Would my money be better spent on upgrading to a Ryzen 7 1700X?

Also, what's the issue with AM4 mounting brackets? I see that companies like Noctua are giving away AM4 mounting brackets but would older coolers be able to work on the new platform?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Ryzen 5 will murder the Core i5 when it comes to prosumer applications: rendering, encoding, encryption. Anything that takes advantage of more threads, the Ryzen dominates.

If you're a prosumer who wants even more productivity, Ryzen 7 will deliver even shorter processing times than Ryzen 5. If this is you, get the

best you can afford. But know that the Ryzen 5 is worlds better than the Core i5. The Ryzen 5 1600X is essentially as fast as the Core i7-6850K when it comes to prosumer applications.

Now, if all you do is surf the web and game, one application at a time, maybe don't upgrade yet. If you game and stream at the same time, and like to run apps while gaming, then Ryzen is a sweet upgrade for gamers.

norune: Has AMD fine-tuned Ryzen chips so there is less overclocking headroom for the 1800X models in comparison to the 1700 models? Any date for the next revision of Ryzen? Like Late 2017 or early 2018?

DON WOLIGROSKI: AMD qualifies chips. We choose the best samples to be the 1800X, because it has to run at the highest clocks. Does that mean a 1700 or 1700X can't run at those same clocks? Not at all, they might run very well at higher clocks! But they might need a bit more voltage and a bit more cooling to do so.

I have no dates for the next Ryzen revision, sorry. All I can tell you is that Ryzen 3 is coming in the 2nd half of 2017.

sp1207: What is the story with ECC? I've read reports of it working with various motherboards, working only in Linux, working in Windows but not advertised as such. Is there any AMD push to coordinate with Microsoft and motherboard manufacturers to enable ECC as an option even if not officially supported?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Ryzen processors support ECC memory, but it's up to motherboard manufacturers to qualify their platforms. Since this isn't a typical consumer feature, you'll need to do some research and see what works I'm afraid, unless a motherboard specifically announces support for ECC RAM.

Robert Pankiw: Does AMD, Intel, and NVidia work together pre-launch to prevent as few hardware related bugs as possible, especially if these bugs only show up in certain configurations?

DON WOLIGROSKI: AMD does its best to ensure the best possible user experience when we partner with any other vendor.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1600View Deal

X399 Motherboard, Ryzen 5 Launch BIOS, and DDR5

BulkZerker: Can you comment on a rumor I read about a high-end prosumer focused motherboard (the X399)? Is this just idle gossip?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Well you can't believe everything you hear on the internet. But at the same time, if there was an unannounced product, I couldn't talk about it anyway.

Vesperan: If I buy a AM4 motherboard before Ryzen 5 launches, will it post and boot with the current shipped BIOS once I install a Ryzen 5 CPU?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I just asked our motherboard chipset product manager, Steve Basset, to be sure: Any Ryzen 7, 5, or 3 will be fine on the first-revision BIOSes. You're golden!

aeriolwinters: Will the AM4 platform have future revisions to enable DDR5 compatibility?

DON WOLIGROSKI: As far as I can remember, every major memory technology has required a new type of socket. So DDR5 probably won't fit in a DDR4 memory slot when it arrives. Processors are often backwards-compatible with older board revisions; I think that's what you're referring to. AMD has a history of supporting that more than the competition, but it's too early to make any specific promises or even speculation, sorry.

jdwii: In certain titles, such as Watch Dogs 2 the 6900K beats a 7700K but in that same title the 1800X is in parity with the Intel Core i5 in terms of performance. It’s an unexpected result. Can you please explain why as the 1800X beats a 6900X in most multi-threaded tasks, but has Core i5 level gaming performance?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Frankly, Ryzen is a brand-new architecture. Game developers have tightly focused on Intel for years, there will be a ramp-up as game developers learn what they're doing that might not play well with Ryzen, and how to take advantage of its strengths.

We have already improved Ryzen performance for games like DOTA2, Ashes of the Singularity, and Warhammer: Total War with relatively little developer effort. We're working to do what we can and make sure developers have access to Ryzen hardware and our expertise to get rid of these strange game performance anomalies.

Having said that, Ryzen processors provide an excellent gaming experience today, even if it's not the fastest at everything it's still very smooth. And things are only getting better! So, we have good reason to be optimistic.

BuildCrisp2213: Will the 6 Core Ryzen 5 processors be as fully utilized as the Ryzen 7 series for future applications, or do you think Ryzen 7 is a better investment in terms of future performance and longevity? Which processor do you think will most optimized for current applications, and which one will be best for future applications?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Many applications (Rendering/encryption/encoding) will take as many cores and threads as you can throw at them, right now. Those are the easy targets for multi-core optimization.

Aside from that, we expect game developers to make use of DirectX 12 and Vulkan to take better use of CPU resources going forward. This benefit all multi-core processors, but the more cores and threads, the more the benefit. In these situations, Ryzen 7 CPUs should perform better than Ryzen 5.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1500XView Deal

Enterprise, Best GPUs, CCX Latency, and Scheduling

mikeangs2004: Are the Ryzen CPUs stable enough for use in an enterprise environment? Are APUs a lower R&D priority compared to high core count CPUs?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Personally, I would have no reservations over recommending Ryzen for enterprise clients. It’s a crazy good part. Ryzen-based APUs are well on their way. I think it's great that we could stagger releases to make sure we could give each part the proper focus it deserves.

FireDFL: Which Ryzen CPU would you recommend for a gaming/overclocking/rendering build? I'll be doing light-intermediate rendering before I become an advanced renderer. Also, which GPU do you recommend to pair with any Ryzen CPU if I want to game in 1080p and 1440p at 60FPS?

DON WOLIGROSKI: If you plan to render at all, get the best Ryzen you can afford. It's that simple. The good news is that at every price point you're getting rendering performance that blows away the pre-Ryzen status quo, which was 4 threads below $275 (we deliver 12), and 8 threads under $400 (we deliver 16).

Honestly, you can get great 1440p game performance with a Radeon RX 480 or a GeForce GTX 1060 under $200. Only spend more if you want to crank up detail levels and anti-aliasing.

cryoburner: You mentioned that there are already performance optimizations for certain games such as Ashes of the Singularity. What exactly do some of these software optimizations for Ryzen entail? I've heard that communication between cores on the same CCX might be significantly faster than it is between cores on disparate CCX units. Are these optimizations due to updated code keeping threads that communicate often on the same CCX? Would this avoid the increased latency between different CCX cores?

DON WOLIGROSKI: It’s all over the map, there's no silver bullet, even though that's what people want to hear. The CCX latency is there, but it's not that bad and it's not responsible for the outliers.

I'll give you an example of the kids of things that are holding Ryzen back: a developer found that their game code automatically assumed that AMD CPUs had all-physical cores, because we didn't have SMT before now. Once the game was guided to behave as it does on Intel HyperThreaded CPUs, we saw a notable boost in performance.

It sounds simple, but this is what happens when a new architecture is introduced. It sounds trivial, once you know what's happening it can be easy to attack, but finding it takes work.

wildcard1978: When can we expect a fix for the BIOS, RAM speed bugs, and scheduling issues?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Ryzen RAM speed and compatibility is improving all the time. We have a huge BIOS update enabling 3200 MHz DDR4 that should hit most boards April 11^th, and there is another update scheduled for May.

As for scheduling issues, there aren't any “issues” per se. Windows is doing what it's supposed to do. The balanced power plan wasn't working optimally and we fixed that with an updated plan you can download from the AMD website.

That's not to say we can't work with Microsoft to make the schedulers work better in the future, but there's no problem right now. It's working as designed.

Bursar: What is the IPC improvement you are looking for between Ryzen and Ryzen 2?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Personally, I'm looking for as much performance uplift as possible! We haven't disclosed anything yet, but I'm quite optimistic.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1400View Deal

Mobile, Naming Scheme, and Naples

awetle: Theoretically, how fast can the Infinity Fabric clock? Will we see an iteration of this interconnect technology on Ryzen compatible with the higher speeds of DDR5?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I'm not aware of an Infinity Fabric ceiling. That's not to say there isn't one, but it's never come up as a limitation in the meetings I've been a part of.

I can't comment on memory technologies that don't even have a defined specification yet. I can say that AMD has committed to keeping the AM4 platform around for years to come, and we're very committed to the Ryzen brand, so we'll have to see if that collides with the consumer release of DDR5.

skgs2017: Are there plans to release an 8-Core Ryzen CPU for Laptops this year?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We haven't publicly released the specifications of our Ryzen-based laptop APUs, so I can't comment.

LordStreetguru: Why weren’t the Ryzen series of processors named Ryzen 4, Ryzen 6, Ryzen 8, Ryzen 12, and Ryzen 16?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We did a ton of research and found that the vast majority of people just want a good/better/best brand segmentation scheme. They value the simplicity and clarity of it. Good = Ryzen 3, better = Ryzen 5, best = Ryzen 7. Boom! Done.

randomizer: Do you ever miss writing reviews?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Sometimes, but not nearly as much as I miss playing with all the new hardware that used to come across my desk.

The opportunity I miss most is reporting on the VR industry when the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive were released. I was there before it started; I made a polarized 3D projector before you could buy them, and I tested the crap that was out before the first Oculus Rift Development kit. I met Palmer Luckey in a tiny hotel room at CES where he showed me the very first DK1. I'll always feel it's a story I never got to delve in to as much as I expected I would.

chriscambridge: We do data processing using single and dual Xeons. We actually know very little about AMD and the new Ryzen CPUs, as we are more Intel/Nvidia users. Would Ryzen processors and their related motherboards have anything to offer us? We require high core counts with hyper-threading, at the quickest frequency possible, with AVX/AVX2, auto-overclocking, and DDR4 RAM?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Ryzen has single-threaded IPC comparable to Intel's Broadwell-E. Clock for clock, we're about 6% behind Kaby Lake, Intel's best.

At the same time, we offer colossal multithreading advantages over the competition. Our 6-core/12 thread Ryzen 5's start at just over $200 USD. Our 8-core/16 thread Ryzen 7s start at just over $300 USD. The $499 Ryzen 7 1800X offers multithreading performance about 9% better than the Core i7-6900K, which costs over $1000.

Ryzen CPUs can use ECC memory, but Intel consumer CPUs cannot (although Ryzen boards are not qualified for this). Ryzen also uses DDR4 RAM. It's a new platform so we're ramping up memory, but we're stably at 3200 MHz and making fast progress with BIOS updates.

If you use Xeons, though, do some research on AMD's upcoming Naples server parts. Quad-channel RAM, unholy amounts of I/O bandwidth, 32-core/64-thread CPUs. Absolutely killer server value coming your way.

XaveT: Are there any plans to release a low-power Ryzen processor, such as one with a TDP of 25W less, designed in the same vein as the Athlon 5300-series? I love those little workhorses, and am hoping to see an AM4 version with PCIe 3.0 and DDR4 support. Any chance of us seeing this?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Nothing we've announced specifically. Although we're making mobile Ryzen processors in the future, so that's some indication.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Best Gaming Processor, Clock Speeds, and Development

AMD Radeon RX 480 8GBView Deal

johnson151168: Which processor do you recommend strictly for gaming, priced less than $250? I don't really play anything besides League of Legends and World of Warcraft, but I would like to try out quite a few upcoming games, and I know my FX CPU is not be up to the challenge. I am currently using a Radeon RX 480 8GB graphics card.

DON WOLIGROSKI: Strictly gaming, well, assuming your “strictly gaming” goal doesn't include gaming and streaming to twitch (which can really take advantage of the 12-threaded Ryzen 5 1600X and Ryzen 7 processors), I'd steer you to the Ryzen 5 1500X. High clocks and the most XFR clock rate headroom in the Ryzen stack so far (up to 200 MHz over the Precision Boost spec with capable cooling), four cores and 8 threads so it has enough resources to take advantage of the games that value more cores. $189. Sweet little part, basically a Core i7 equivalent in a lot of ways, but for about half the price.

SinxarKnights: Did you have a party once the first Ryzen chips rolled off the line to celebrate?

DON WOLIGROSKI: I work from home in Canada, I wasn't at the AMD campus when they had the Ryzen launch party.

jaymc: Do you expect to hit higher and higher clock speed as AMD further refines and tweaks the Ryzen platform? Will Ryzen ever hit clock speeds equal to an overclocked Kaby Lake?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Until we have new silicon spins, anything I say is speculation. But we're all quite optimistic about how fast we got this first architecture/process to go in its first go round, and bolstered that we have a lot of opportunity to crank up the clocks.

Martell1977: Could tell us a little about Ryzen's development, as in, how long ago was it that it was started? Was it before the Bulldozer release? Shortly after?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Off the top of my head, I believe it was 4 or 5 years ago now, around 2012. Before my time at AMD, I started my tenure here at the beginning of 2015. The promise of the Zen architecture is one of the reasons I came to AMD in the first place.

Martell1977: The benchmarks I have seen for Ryzen 7 have made it difficult to know exactly which CPU to recommend. There are 4 SKU's out to challenge Intel’s. Is there a chart or list you have that show exactly what your intended CPU vs CPU matchups are?

DON WOLIGROSKI: You can compare on price or on ability. The Ryzen 7 1700X ($499) actually also beats the Core i7-6900K in a lot of multi-threaded benches, but on a price standpoint it's closer to the Core i7-6800K, which it dominates.

We usually pit the Ryzen 7 1700 ($330) and the i7-7700K because their price is so close. From a productivity rendering/encoding/encrypting standpoint the 1700 kicks the crap out of Kaby. The 7700K does have higher clocks and IPC, so there's a 1080p gaming advantage, but once you raise resolution to 1440p the gaming advantage is very muted. At 4K and in VR, it barely shows up in benchmarks. So, if you're spending over $300 on a CPU, I think the Ryzen 7 1700 is an easy choice because folks in this segment would be buying 1440p or higher resolution monitors. You're not giving up any real-world game performance at 1440p and above, but you're getting colossal application advantages.

The new Ryzen 5 1600X ($249) is 6 cores/12 threads and priced similarly to the Core i5-7600K. Literally 3x the threads on Ryzen, this is the easiest battle for us. Productivity is on a different level entirely, while some modern games really appreciate more than 4 threads and the 7600K can suffer significantly compared to the 7700K. So, games trade blows at 1080p. No real argument to choose Kaby Lake here.

The Ryzen 5 1500X ($189) is priced opposite the Core i5-7500. With twice the threads of the core i5, the Ryzen 5 1500X is a good gaming part for people who like the idea of Core i7 class productivity for half the price, should they ever want to exercise that power. And games are becoming more threaded all the time thanks to DirectX 12 and Vulkan.

Dragonsmint878: Any update on the availability to purchase Wraith coolers? Will the Wraith Max, might it be available to purchase at R5 Launch? Will stock RGB coolers be able to be bought separately?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We're very aware of the demand from AMD customers for standalone wraith coolers. We haven't announced anything publicly. I personally think it would be very cool if they were offered as a standalone item.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 7 1700XView Deal

Update Schedule, 1600X Microarchitecture, and Optane

lightofhonor: How has developing/updating the BIOS process been different then supporting previous AMD sockets or Intel sockets? I've noticed a lot of updates since release on my Killer board. When will the BIOS stop being updated several times a month? When do you think the BIOS will be "done"?

DON WOLIGROSKI: On any new platform, there's going to be more development than usual. It happens with every major socket update, on both AMD and Intel for those who have been around long enough to remember a number of turnovers.

But we're making really good progress, and very quickly. My gut feeling is that the upcoming April update gets us to a place where people are generally satisfied, and then we'll hone that edge in the months to come.

Aris25: Is the 1600X manufactured as a 3x3 or is it a 1800X with one core on each side turned off or is it an 1800X with one core that failed on each side that was then turned off or something else altogether?

DON WOLIGROSKI: The 1600X is essentially an 1800X with one core disabled per CCX (a 3+3 configuration). All 16MB of L3 cache is still enabled, BTW.

Evilwumpus: Can we expect a significant performance difference of Vega or the Polaris refresh when used in conjunction with Ryzen 7 vs an Intel Core i7-7700k?

DON WOLIGROSKI: From a CPU perspective, we try to be graphics-agnostic so everyone can enjoy Ryzen regardless of their choice of GPU.

Nope 1151: Will you ever go back to the green AMD logo?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Your answer lies within (your username).

aeriolwinters: Would the Athlon brand still be active? With the R7 for Enthusiasts, the R5's for mainstream high computing and the R3 for mainstream computing, how do you see the Athlon fit in with all the APU's still not in tow?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Athlon will be used for CPUs that sit below the Ryzen 3 brand, just as it sits below the current FX brand. It will live next to A-series APUs in the same segment. Bristol-Ridge-based APUs and Athlons will be available for Socket AM4 motherboards at an undisclosed date. Stay tuned!

valeman2012: Any plans for Intel Optane support?

DON WOLIGROSKI: The short answer is no. The long answer is:

1. Optane is Intel-proprietary technology, and the Optane M.2 slot is exclusive to some Intel motherboards

2. Intel partnered with Micron to create 3D Xpoint memory technology that Optane is based on. I don't know if Micron's 3D Xpoint-based memory will ever be available as an agnostic solution. I would assume that Intel has an exclusivity clause, but I don't know how long it'd last.

3. In its current form for consumer desktop, Optane is basically an SSD cache drive with a maximum (pitiful) 32GB of storage. They don't even recommend pairing it with an SSD because you wouldn't notice a performance difference. They suggest you pair it with a mechanical hard drive. Lots of hype and little substance.

On the consumer desktop, you're better served with an SSD that actually has decent amount of storage space.

anironbutterfly: I've been reading on the new Ryzen CPUs, in hopes that they're a good successor to the FX-series (I'm currently using an FX-8350 on an original Sabretooth FX990 motherboard with 32 GB DDR RAM). I'm not a gamer, but a hobbyist graphic artist who uses Poser and DAZ|Studio. It's starting to show its age, and I'm looking at options to upgrade. the Ryzen series are the first new straight CPUs I've seen come out of AMD in several years.

I'm curious how this new series of chips might perform for 3d graphics rendering with the Nvidia Iray render engine (and the alternative 3Delight rendering) in comparison to the i5 and i7 Intel CPUs and compatibility with the Nvidia GeForce video cards. (I'm currently using an EVGA Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 4GB that will be progressing into my new build).

DON WOLIGROSKI: I'm not familiar how the Nvidia iRay engine works - I'll assume because it's Nvidia, it's CUDA based. It may not be CPU dependent.

For any CPU-dependent renderer, though, Ryzen will give you colossal - and I mean COLOSSAL - performance increases over FX. And in general, it's just a lot faster and enables multi-tasking in a much more responsive way. Even the sub-$200 Ryzen 5's will give you a tremendous upgrade over the FX. But I encourage you to read the launch day reviews on April 11^th.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 7 1700View Deal

M.2 Performance, FreeSync Vs G-Sync, and CCX Performance

Onoref: With the new M.2 SSD's coming out, will the restriction on Ryzen PCIe lanes be an issue and what is your take on it?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Our M.2 performance is very good, especially NVMe, as a lot of Ryzen's I/O goes direct to the CPU - not through a chipset. I encourage you to check out the storage benchmarks in Ryzen 5 reviews.

tanke001: I'm saving to update my computer from a Phenom II X6 1055 to a full Ryzen platform. I use it mainly for video games. My question is: if it has been confirmed that L3 shared cache memory is creating bottlenecks with its actual config, can it be a good idea to split it into 4MB per CCX by software?

DON WOLIGROSKI: There's a lot of cache FUD out there about Ryzen, and a lot of people are making assumptions based on limited info. Just keep an eye on actual reviews. As we ramp up the platform and get rid of bottlenecks like memory speed, we get faster. And I can confidently say Ryzen is a lot faster than the Phenom II out of the box when it comes to gaming.

orifiel: Is AMD working with RAM vendors for more RAM options to be available for Ryzen? All I want is an AMD Ryzen 1700X with 32GB of RAM at 3000MHz or 3200MHz. Can I hope for a fix with a Rev2 BIOS and firmware updates?

DON WOLIGROSKI: RAM compatibility is one of our top priorities right now, and we're working hard to get regular BIOS updates until the situation is ideal. Expect a new BIOS around April 11^th, and in May to make memory work faster on Ryzen.

PandaNation: Why are FreeSync monitors so much cheaper than their G-Sync counterparts? I know you won't be able to say much, but how does Vega compare to the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and the Nvidia Titan Xp? Big fan of AMD, thinking of doing a Mini-ITX Ryzen 5 build. Keep up the good work!

DON WOLIGROSKI: FreeSync is cheaper because it's an open standard. In many cases a panel manufacturer can make a FreeSync panel by changing their monitor's firmware and having it meet the spec. For G-Sync, Nvidia charges a licensing fee. Because of this differentiation alone, I think the inevitable future is FreeSync.

(re Vega): It looks really nice.

I am also waiting for my MiniITX Ryzen board!

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1600XView Deal

Tweaks & Support, Power Plan, and Game Benchmarks

Eric_010: Is AMD working with Battlefield 1 developer DICE to improve performance on Ryzen CPUs?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We're engaging with every major developer we can to make sure the Ryzen gaming experience only gets better. For now I'd play with the Battlefield 1 DirectX setting and detail to optimize the game, offhand I don't recall hearing about these issues on BF1 and Ryzen so this might be a problem specific to your system. That said, there's a lot of data being tracked and I apologize if it's a known issue that I can't recall at the moment.

fourseven: I live in Indonesia. Do you know when AMD plans to launch the Ryzen 5 in South East Asia, specifically in Indonesia?

DON WOLIGROSKI: Official on-shelf launch day is April 11^th worldwide. I'm not sure if your specific country has any challenges that would prevent that, but that's the day we expect Ryzen 5 to be available on shelf.

cstephenson: When do you expect the Ryzen chips to be competitive with Intel in terms of gaming? The potential is certainly there!

DON WOLIGROSKI: I'd argue that Ryzen is already competitive. There's been a lot of reviewers talking about outliers where we don't do as well, and bringing a lot of focus to them. And those outliers are where we've focused our first-round of developer engagements. Games like Ashes of the Singularity, Total War: Warhammer, and DOTA2 already have improvements.

With the new faster memory support, we average game performance delta between Ryzen and Kaby Lake is a lot closer than you'd think over a wide swath of games at 1080p. And Ryzen can hit over 60 FPS in pretty much every game I've seen at 1080p, and usually over 80 FPS and 120 FPS. It's never slow, it's just not the fastest. At 1440p, 4K, and in VR, the delta becomes insignificant between Ryzen and Kaby.

Based on that, I think it's fair to say we're already quite competitive, we're just not just not the fastest at 1080p gaming. Saying Ryzen isn't a competitive gaming CPU because Kaby is a bit faster is like saying the Ferrari 488 isn't a competitive sports car because the Bugatti Veyron is faster. It's a gross oversimplification.

Ditt44: Having just read that AMD has a new power plan available, is this something that we will see integrated with Ryzen after "Date X" or will users have to manually download and update?

DON WOLIGROSKI: For now it’s a manual download. Our long-term goal is to get it automatically updated in Windows, but I don't have a target date on that yet, sorry.

Tech_TTT: Are we expecting an AMD APU with onboard HBM2 Memory as shared memory for both System and GPU and no DIMMs slots any time sooner? What are your plans for very low voltage CPU? The Ryzen managed a good 65W TDP for 8 cores. Can we expect a 15W 4 core Ryzen APU to compete with a low voltage Intel CPU?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We're definitely considering different HBM implementations, but we haven't announced anything I can talk to. In a lot of ways the Zen architecture gets more impressive as you provide less power. I can't comment on unannounced laptop parts, but there are great things coming!

Tech_TTT: Why did you choose to go dual channel memory and not quad or eight channels for the Ryzen? Why doesn’t AMD manufacture their own motherboards?

DON WOLIGROSKI: We decided to focus on what’s best for the market. Our goal is to have a platform that competes with low-end Intel boards all the way up to high-end Intel Extreme. After analyzing the benefits, the real-world advantage of quad-channel RAM doesn't outweigh the extra costs or trade-offs. The vast majority of users will never see the difference. Heck, the dual-channel 1800X can still beat the tar out of the quad-channel 6900K in many benchmarks. I think it was a good compromise for the vast majority of users. From an enthusiast perspective, it's always nice to have more, though, so I get it.

AMD does not manufacture their own motherboards because, frankly, our partners do a better job and offer more differentiation and flavor than AMD would want to. We're happy to concentrate on the processors and leave the boards to the specialists.

Thanks again to everyone who participated! If you haven't yet, now is your final chance to enter our giveaway for the ASRock X370 Taichi AM4 Motherboard. New to the Tom's Hardware Community? Head to the forums and sign up to become a member of the largest enthusiast community on the planet.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

AMD Ryzen 5 1600View Deal