AMD release the specification of their Ryzen 5 1500X

[WYP]

AMD has now released the specification of their Ryzen 5 1500X, their first Ryzen Quad core.



Read more on AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X CPUs.

 

[Daiyus]

Wow. The R5-1600X matches the R7-1800X in everything bar the extra cores/threads. Considering what we've already of the R7-1800X that makes it a very, very tempting. Sure it's not going to knock the i7-7700k off the top step, but it'll be really great middle ground for anyone who wants to have a couple of extra cores in reserve and aren't looking to run everything at 144Hz. Personally I'm aiming to upgrade over the next 12 months to a 2160p60 capable gaming system with a little bit extra for 3D design/modding work etc. Looks like a great chip to me if the price is right.

 

[tinytomlogan]

Its a tough one because clockspeed will go in Intels favor when the 7700K gets mentioned.....

 

[Celticbattlepants]

Do those clock/boost speeds suggest the R5s could run into the same thermal and stability limits as the 8-core you looked at?

 

[WYP]

Why would anyone compare the R5's to an i7 7700k? The R5's are the mid range, just like intels i5's, so lets compare apples to apples shall we.

That is the thing, apples to apples CPU core/thread count wise we are talking i7 competition.

Considering pricing it is likely to be more of an i5 comparison. You can't not compare it to both.

As I said in the article it is a moot point, as it will likely come at a price that is close to half the price of the 7700K, so that is where the best budget gaming performance will be.

Yeah Intel has the clock speed lead, but people forget that there is a difference between enough for gaming and the best at gaming.

 

[AlienALX]

Its a tough one because clockspeed will go in Intels favor when the 7700K gets mentioned.....

Yup and anything up to four cores the 7700k slaughters my 5820k. Any more though? the scales start to tip fast.

I think any one buying more than four cores should understand that.

Plus of course Intel have been working on their clock speeds since Sandy. It took them forever to actually get to 5ghz, and most I have seen will "only" do 4.8.

 

[RobM]

I would expect these to OC much better than the R7s

 

[Greenback]

I think the 1600x will be my choice for upgrade

Yup and anything up to four cores the 7700k slaughters my 5820k. Any more though? the scales start to tip fast.

I think any one buying more than four cores should understand that.

Plus of course Intel have been working on their clock speeds since Sandy. It took them forever to actually get to 5ghz, and most I have seen will "only" do 4.8.

I think people forget that Intel current CPU's have been work on and optimised for years, Ryzen is just getting started

 

[AngryGoldfish]

Why would anyone compare the R5's to an i7 7700k? The R5's are the mid range, just like intels i5's, so lets compare apples to apples shall we.

So why have reviewers compared the R7 1700 to a 6850K or a 5960X when their pricing is vastly different? Because there aren't really any apples to apples situations here. It's clear that Zen and Intel's designs are vastly different both in price, marketing, and performance metrics.

 

[shadow]

1500x if that price is close, looks like a good base for a build.

Eyes down for a price\release date then.

 

[NeverBackDown]

I think people need to relax on the intake vs AMD thing. Ryzen is an amazing CPU and basically just dethroned Intel's X99 chipset.
X99 was never aimed at gamers, so why should Ryzen?
Both still provide an amazing experience.
Overtime, it'll get better as more games can be programmed with it in mind. Just give it time and it'll age well.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

X99 was never aimed at gamers, so why should Ryzen?

If you base that theory on AMD's advertising and promotion of the Ryzen range, it is simply not true. It's plastered all over AMD's marketing that these chips were not just designed for prosumers. AMD wants gamers to buy an R7 1700 and they pushing it on them in the same way Intel pushes the 7700K. Where does it categorically state that these CPU's were not aimed at the gaming market? What slide or what specific trait about them was not designed for gaming machines? Maybe when the R5 range comes out, if it can clock to 4.4Ghz on air and has IPC improvements over the R7 range and is therefore better for gaming but not for content creation, then maybe we can say that R7 was not aimed at gamers.

Both still provide an amazing experience.

But this is true. With my Fury at 1440p, I will not lose any meaningful frames going from a hypothetical 7700K to a 1800X or even a 1700 with an overclock of 4Ghz. I will likely gain some coming from my actual 4670K at 4.5Ghz.

 

[Shingara]

Its not like there dead when it comes to gaming, they can game now though and its smooth. And so what if there a bit behind at 1080p right now when stuff isnt optomised for em.

Anyone would think these cpus were limiting in 1080p to 12fps with all the reactions.

 

[NeverBackDown]

If you base that theory on AMD's advertising and promotion of the Ryzen range, it is simply not true. It's plastered all over AMD's marketing that these chips were not just designed for prosumers. AMD wants gamers to buy an R7 1700 and they pushing it on them in the same way Intel pushes the 7700K. Where does it categorically state that these CPU's were not aimed at the gaming market? What slide or what specific trait about them was not designed for gaming machines? Maybe when the R5 range comes out, if it can clock to 4.4Ghz on air and has IPC improvements over the R7 range and is therefore better for gaming but not for content creation, then maybe we can say that R7 was not aimed at gamers.



But this is true. With my Fury at 1440p, I will not lose any meaningful frames going from a hypothetical 7700K to a 1800X or even a 1700 with an overclock of 4Ghz. I will likely gain some coming from my actual 4670K at 4.5Ghz.

We are talking about the 1800x though. And that was not marketed at gamers. It was aimed at taking down the 6900k. Sure games were used, but they always are. Doesn't mean it's the focal point of what the 1800x is aiming to achieve. If you want to be overly critical and analytical, sure it is marketed for gamers. But reality is, it was not.
BTW, it is not possible to state what specific trait a CPU has that was not designed for games. It's a CPU. It quite literally just processes 0s and 1s. It doesn't care what it is. AMD or Intel. It really is not possible to point out specific things. Games use math and CPUs do math. So it really can't be used as a basis for an argument.
For the 1700/x, they were never really marketed for anything other than price comparisons to Intel. And while yes the Ryzen has mostly 1080p issues, give the BIOS's time and game devs a month or two to optimize performance. This should have been expected. It's a brand new uArch. It's just much worse this time due to the fact EVERYTHING has been going for Intel. So games are optimized with those.

As for the R5. I won't bother speculating. Still got months for any reviews for those.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

We are talking about the 1800x though. And that was not marketed at gamers. It was aimed at taking down the 6900k. Sure games were used, but they always are. Doesn't mean it's the focal point of what the 1800x is aiming to achieve. If you want to be overly critical and analytical, sure it is marketed for gamers. But reality is, it was not.
BTW, it is not possible to state what specific trait a CPU has that was not designed for games. It's a CPU. It quite literally just processes 0s and 1s. It doesn't care what it is. AMD or Intel. It really is not possible to point out specific things. Games use math and CPUs do math. So it really can't be used as a basis for an argument.
For the 1700/x, they were never really marketed for anything other than price comparisons to Intel. And while yes the Ryzen has mostly 1080p issues, give the BIOS's time and game devs a month or two to optimize performance. This should have been expected. It's a brand new uArch. It's just much worse this time due to the fact EVERYTHING has been going for Intel. So games are optimized with those.

As for the R5. I won't bother speculating. Still got months for any reviews for those.

That's my point. You are suggesting the 1800X was not designed for gaming yet then claim it's not possible to say what it was designed for as it only processes 0's and 1's, without prejudice and without much specificity beyond software programming. How can you say it's clearly not designed for gaming, despite advertising campaigns insisting the contrary, but then say, "It really is not possible to point out specific things"?

So from a marketing standpoint one of its purposes was to render frames in a video game (and another arguably more important purpose was for it to edit and process heavily-laden files at a more cost effective rate than the competitor) and a CPU can only process what it's told to process, what are you basing the idea that the R7 range wasn't designed for gaming? The R7 range are the same CPU's. You can overclock a 1700 to offer almost exactly the same performance as an 1800X, which basically overclocks itself. When we talk about the 1800X we are talking about the 1700 and the 1700X as well as they are the same chip.

The emails I received from AMD marketed Ryzen (and the 1800X is amongst them) as a gaming CPU as well as a CPU for other tasks. If I'm missing something I do apologise. I just don't understand why people are saying that the R7 range wasn't designed for gaming and that it cannot be judged on that just because its closest competitor in other tasks is a range that targets prosumers more so than gamers. To me, Ryzen is the chip that bridges the gap. It offers excellent performance in one and solid performance in another at a reasonable price. This was never afford before.