5 by 5, AMD versus Intel in the $200 price range

Subject: Processors | May 9, 2017 - 03:26 PM |
Tagged: ryzen, amd, 1500X, 1600X, ryzen 5

The pricing of AMD's Ryzen 5 line spans from $170 to $250, similar to Intel's Core i5 line and may wwll tempt those a generation or two out of date to consider an upgrade.  In order to demonstrate differences in CPU performance Ars Technica tested both Intel and AMD processors paired with a GTX 1080 Ti.  By doing so at lower resolutions which the card can more than handle they expose differences in the performance of the two architectures, which seem to follow AMD's offerings into higher resolutions albeit with a smaller performance delta.  Check out the wide gamut of tests that were performed to see which architecture makes more sense for your usage, especially if you do more than just gaming and surfing.

View Full Size

"The Ryzen 5 range is made up of four chips. At the top is the £240/$250 Ryzen 5 1600X, a 95W six-core chip that boasts simultaneous multithreading (SMT, the equivalent of hyper-threading), 16MB of L3 cache, and a 3.6GHz base clock."

Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:



Source: Ars Technica

May 9, 2017 | 08:40 PM - Posted by StephanS

"the extra headroom on the Intel chips may make them the better long-term investment"

This is utter BS.. they didn't show the CPU usage and are expecting game/engine to go backward (use less thread VS more thread)

This render the entire speculation worthless.

AMD sell 50% more compute.core for the same price.
The future is not going to be more single threaded workload, to the contrary.

And when you have a 4 core intel maxed out, but a 12 thread Ryzen with plenty of cycle untapped.. what CPU will age better ?

BTW, if the game test where done at 4K, you can see often Ryzen get the same of better FPS.

May 9, 2017 | 08:42 PM - Posted by StephanS

Stop testing 1080ti at 1080p, its 100% meaningless to predict future gaming or even todays gaming performance.

At least, test at 1440p on this class of HW.

May 9, 2017 | 10:48 PM - Posted by pdjblum

agree with both posts

what is cool is how people who bought zen are finding it is truly a great cpu despite the many tech reviewers who want us to believe it isn't because of that 1080p shit

did i mention the stock will be $20 by the end of the year, but it takes investors with vision, and not those focused on quarterly reports, to see that

May 10, 2017 | 10:42 AM - Posted by psuedonymous

Looks like someone didn't read the linked article. Hint: they tested right up to 3140x2160.

May 10, 2017 | 03:49 PM - Posted by StephanS

The conclusion is based on my two issues.
1080p results, and no CPU usage measurements:

"Kaby Lake has headroom to spare, and for gamers with an eye on the future or a penchant for high frame rates, the i7-7700K remains the chip of choice."

"The ugly
Ryzen users may be left wanting as GPUs continue to improve

If you indeed look at the 2160p result, the 1600x often beat the 7700K. GTA V for example: 55 : 104 FPS vs 51 : 101 FPS
And the 1600x is over $100 cheaper then the 7700k.

May 11, 2017 | 12:29 AM - Posted by Godrilla

AMD 16 core ryzen cpu called Whitehaven clocked at 3.6 base and 4ghz boost incoming at different tears as well fyi source wfftech source sisoftsandra database on their home page.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.