vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

AMD Ryzen 5 the most warmly welcomed CPUs in seven years

by Mark Tyson on 9 May 2017, 15:01

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadhag

Add to My Vault: x

German language tech site 3DCenter.org periodically surveys its readership to assess their feelings about products that have recently become available in the CPU market. A staple of this activity is the first impressions data it collects. The latest survey analysis reveals that AMD has done something very right with its Ryzen 5 processor lineup, as it has scalped the best-ever first impressions score among readers. 3DCenter has been doing these surveys for the last seven years.

AMD Ryzen 5 processors have received an 83.9 per cent positive rating from 3DCenter readers, with 9.4 per cent indifferent towards the launch and 6.7 per cent of respondents expressing a negative feeling towards the launch (see chart above). That's a very positive score from the survey of 1800+ respondents.

Looking through the history of surveys it beats the second most warmly welcomed processor range, Intel Sandy Bridge, by a significant margin. Intel's second generation Core processors got a 75.9 per cent positive warm welcome back in January 2011.

Recent history harvests some interesting scores in the survey. For example the Intel Kaby Lake desktop processor launch in January 2017 only garnered a 12 per cent positive score, with the rest of the respondents pretty evenly split between being indifferent or negative towards the new Intel product range.

AMD Ryzen 7 processors have also done well this year with a 74.6 per cent positive impression from 3DCenter readers. AMD does however have the lowest rated processor in the history of these same charts. The Bulldozer launch in October 2011, during the 'Intel Sandy Bridge era', could only muster a 6.8 per cent positive impression.

Does AMD Ryzen 5 really warrant the best first impression score of all processor families released in the last 7 years? In case you missed it, or have forgotten it, why not have a look back over the HEXUS review of the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and Ryzen 5 1600X (14nm Zen) processors from last month.



HEXUS Forums :: 26 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Might have pushed 85-88% if they'd just called it “Zen” with model numbers. :P
Ozaron
Might have pushed 85-88% if they'd just called it “Zen” with model numbers. :P

I'm not convinced - they seem to have managed to differentiate Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 quite nicely, with Ryzen 5 getting the main plaudits (presumably for their combination of performance and pricing). I'd say AMD's got it spot on - people love Ryzen 5, which are also their mainstream offerings (Ryzen 5 1400 is less than £160 now, and 6 core Ryzen 5 1600 is only £199 at Scan - that strikes me as phenomenal value…).
Might have got 100% if they weren't so crap at overclocking….
Bagpuss
Might have got 100% if they weren't so crap at overclocking….

A process which would overclock higher might be far less efficient at the current clock especially the stock clock of the 1700 or far more importantly the Naples server parts.

Beside, the only parts which are a poor clockers (stock vs max) is really the R7-1800X and R5-1600X. The R5-1600 and R7-1700 manage a respectable +33% or so taking them from 3GHz to nearly 4GHz. That the process doesn't manage past to get past 4GHz even with crazy volts is probably why it gets very good perf/watt at 3GHz or less. The Stilt's work showed at least two critical points where perf/watt declined:

Obviously if AMD were a much bigger company with far larger sales they might have access to a different process which worked well at 4.5-5.0GHz but if they have to make a choice (excellent under 3GHz performance vs being able to hit 4.5GHz+) then what they currently have is the correct choice.
kompukare
if they have to make a choice (excellent under 3GHz performance vs being able to hit 4.5GHz+) then what they currently have is the correct choice.

I dunno. Being able to hit 4.5Ghz+ would have given them the crown of the fastest CPU bar none, whereas now they still lose to Intel for single-threaded perf.

The choice you claim they made might give them more efficient high-volume mainstream parts but leaves them without a market leading halo product.