AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Review
-
Page 1:Introduction
-
Page 2:Overclocking & Test Setup
-
Page 3:3DMark
-
Page 4:AotS: Escalation & Battlefield 1
-
Page 5:Civilization VI & Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
-
Page 6:Grand Theft Auto V & Hitman
-
Page 7:Shadow of Mordor & Project CARS
-
Page 8:Rise of the Tomb Raider & The Division
-
Page 9:Workstation Benchmarks
-
Page 10:Temperature & Power Consumption
-
Page 11:Final Analysis
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.
- image048
- image050
- image054
- image042
- image056
- image052
- image058
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
- image048
- image050
- image054
- image056
- image042
- image052
- image058
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
Great job overall by AMD, and would love to see a 'head-to-head' with an OC'd AM3+ rig (FX-6350 at 4.5GHz?)
Page 5 _ "Civilization VI Graphics Test" Heading
-- graphic says, "Resident Evil 7"
It sounds like Toms German and US labs need to communicate a bit more to set exact testing requirements for a review. That way the reader receives consistent data.
As it stands now. The review is haphazard. There are different data sources for gaming, workstation, temperature and power.
The 7600k results really don't interest me that much , I can understand why they're there as a comparison but the fact is the 7600k needs the addition of a $20-30 cooler to run even at stock on a cheaper b250 board - its pricepoint is completely different , to oc you can add another $30-40 for a z series comparative to a decent b350 board for the ryzen.
Once you've done that you're well past the ryzen 1600 pricepoint let alone the 1500x.
I agree though that the ryzen overclocking should have been done with the included spire - part if it's attraction / value for money aspect is the inclusion of a very good stock cooler.
From the few results I have seen, the spire is only marginally better (3-5C better under load with a 3.9GHz OC) than the stealth cooler. If you want performance per buck on a tight budget, the R5-1400 OC'd to 3.8-3.9GHz using the stealth cooler is the best option. Next up from there is the R5-1600. Also, Paul neglected to add the aftermarket HSF in his R5-1600X cost per core/thread - that is necessary for a fair comparison against the R5-1600 and other CPUs that come bundled with HSF.
I don't really see where any of the "X" Ryzen cpus make much sense from a value standpoint.
I would really rather know what to expect with a mid-range video card. But again all the reviewers seem to do it this way. It may help compare relative performance across all cpus but I does not feel like relevant real word information.
Similar results occur with Rise of the Tomb Raider (again with the i7-6700K, http://www.techspot.com/review/1209-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060/page4.html); again, neither the GTX 1060 nor RX 480 provide anywhere near the same performance with the i7-6700K, so the results of testing with Ryzen would have been even flatter than they are.
This is a CPU test/comparison - to do that you have to ensure that the GPU plays no limitation in the results.
That means using the most powerful GPU you can
Those results show you what maximum fps the CPU's can achieve in games rather than the GPU.
In a CPU test this is exactly what you want.
As I said the only issue I have is using the noctua cooler for overclocking because it was unnecessary.
99% of buyers will stick with the wraith cooler atcthe end of the day.
Someone's been watching too many episodes of Law & Order: SVU lately.
Is "short order" considered "within the next year or so"? : P
The heat sink of the 1400's Stealth cooler is only around half the size of the 1500X's Spire cooler. Maybe it's possible to manage a semi-decent overclock with the smaller cooler under the right conditions, but you can be pretty sure that it will make noticeably more noise to achieve that performance level, and I have doubts about it remaining stable under higher ambient temperatures. I found it a bit amusing that they would call it a "Stealth" cooler when its design will clearly make it more audible than the Spire that comes with the 1500X, 1600 and 1700.
Once Tom's finally gets around to reviewing the 1400, they really should test its Stealth Cooler against the Spire, noting not only their max stable overclock and temperatures, but also their sound data at various load levels. The Max could be tested as well, and maybe throw in a cheap tower cooler to see what the approximate price difference between a 1400 and 1500X could get you. A stock Intel cooler could also be tested on one or more Intel processors as a point of comparison. It could even be its own article if they wanted.
Sorry about the delay, we've had a bit of a hectic schedule lately with multiple GPU releases and Optane articles. 1600 and 1400 are very much on the radar.
I agree that factoring in the HSF is a relevant data point, but in this case, I was also attempting to highlight restricted pricing flexibility primarily at the silicon level. The Zeppelin die restricts AMD's pricing flexibility a bit.
The cooler wiht the 1500x & 1600 are exactly the same.
]Theyre also exactly the same as the cooler with the 8 core ryzen 1700 albeit missing the controllable led lighting.