vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

AMD announces Ryzen 5 CPUs

by Tarinder Sandhu on 16 March 2017, 02:00

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadfdf

Add to My Vault: x

The dust has just about settled enough on the Ryzen 7 launch for AMD to announce a quartet of further CPUs at lower price levels. Enter the Ryzen 5.

AMD vs. Intel: desktop CPUs

Model
Cores / Threads
TDP
L3 Cache
Base Clock
Turbo Clock
XFR
Memory
Package
Price
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
8 / 16
95W
16MB
3.6GHz
4.0GHz
100MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$499
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
8 / 16
95W
16MB
3.4GHz
3.8GHz
100MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$399
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
8 / 16
65W
16MB
3.0GHz
3.7GHz
50MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$329
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
6 / 12
95W
16MB
3.6GHz
4.0GHz
100MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$249
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
6 / 12
65W
16MB
3.2GHz
3.6GHz
100MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$219
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
4 / 8
65W
8MB
3.5GHz
3.7GHz
200MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$189
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
4 / 8
65W
8MB
3.2GHz
3.4GHz
50MHz
DDR4-2666
AM4
$169

On April 11, AMD will bring to bear the Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X, 1600 and 1600X. A key difference between these chips and the range toppers is the marketing choice to split Ryzen 5 into four- and six-core models.

Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500X will both use the established four-core, eight-thread architecture common on current Intel chips. As we already know all Ryzen chips are unlocked, the pair are split on base and boost frequencies, with R5 1400 chiming in at 3.2GHz base and 3.4GHz boost while 1500X increases this to 3.5GHz and 3.7GHz, respectively. What AMD is not disclosing know is exactly how these Ryzen 5 chips are built from a CCX point of view, though it would make sense that the four-core part is one CCX paired with 8MB of L3 cache.

All but the R5 1600 X will arrive at retail with coolers in the box. You may have heard of AMD releasing a slew of new heatsinks alongside the Ryzen launch, so the R5 1400 gets the Wraith Stealth while R5 1500X and R5 1600 receive the beefier Spire.

We'd argue it is far more important for AMD's bottom line to ensure that Ryzen 5 is successful against a host of Intel chips - each company will undoubtedly sell more of these than $300-plus models.

With that in mind, here is how the quarter line up against the price equivalent chips from Intel's current Kaby Lake stable.

AMD vs. Intel price comparison

AMD
Price
Intel
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X (6 / 12)
$249/$243
Intel Core i5-7600K (4 / 4)
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (6 / 12)
$219/$213
Intel Core i5-7600T (4 / 4)
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (4 / 8)
$189/$192
Intel Core i5-7500 (4 / 4)
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 (4 / 8)
$169/$168
Intel Core i3-7350K (2/4)

AMD offers more threads at each price point, replicating what Ryzen 7 has done at the higher end of the spectrum. Gaming performance is still up in the air, especially as each chip is using SMT, so we will only have a truer picture once the chips are benchmarked and reviewed.

Until then, has Ryzen 5 piqued your interest enough?

Update: 11:00

AMD has confirmed that all Ryzen 5 CPUs are Ryzen 7 chips that have been symmetrically disabled, so 3+3 across two CCXes for the six-core part, and 2+2 across the same two CCXes for the four-core part.

As they are based on the Ryzen 7, AMD has chosen to imbue the six-core part with the full 16MB L3 cache whilst the four-core part gets 8MB.



HEXUS Forums :: 25 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
From a marketing perspective wouldn't it be better for AMD to pitch the 1600X as it's answer to the 7700K?

A 6C 12T 1600X for £250 would look & sound a lot better to a potential buyer than a 4C 4T 7700K for £330.

Okay, the 1600X will still lose in single threading performance but those 50% extra cores and threads will still ensure better performance in most multi threaded apps and games or where the 7700K's slightly better IPC & much higher clock speeds will at best only match the 1600X in such tasks.

I've always seen these 6 core parts as the proper rival to the 7700K, not the 1700, as AMD seem to pitch.
From a commercial point of view it would be better for AMD if the 6 core chips could be 4+2, 3+3 or 2+4 parts as it would enable them to use more of the ones that didn't make the 8 core grade during manufacture.

However, because of infinity fabric connecting the CCX's being a bit of a bottleneck I can't see them being able to do so cause the 4+2 chips would perform differently to the 3+3 chips under heavy loads.
I think the 6-core on will tempt me. I'd like more cores than my current i7 4790K but without losing too much in the way of clockspeed for older applications. I don't currently do enough multi-threaded tasks for R7 to be worth the extra.

With regards to marketing, wouldn't it have made far more sense for AMD to go down this route:

R4=4 core (and it's bigger than i3)
R6=6 core (and it's bigger than i5)
R8=8 core (and it's bigger than i7)

Did they want to avoid the unlucky number 4 in China that much?
What have I missed with the most expensive CPU not including a stock cooler?
Marenghi
What have I missed with the most expensive CPU not including a stock cooler?
The 1600X has nearly 50% more heat to dissipate, little point charging the consumer for an inadequate cooler. Having said that my I5 2500K (also 95W) came with a cooler although it only proved useful as a paperweight (and a great way to test the buzzer on my PC when running multi-threaded applications).