Review Index:

The Ryzen 5 Review: 1600X and 1500X Take on Core i5

Author: Ryan Shrout
Subject: Processors
Manufacturer: AMD

Gaming Performance

Our gaming tests below are a small subset of what I would like to evaluate Ryzen with, but due to timing, this is what we could do and feel confident in. I decided to do testing at 1080p, but not any kind of “Low” or “Medium” presets as I just didn’t feel that was in any way indicative of how a consumer buying a $400-500 CPU would game. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that 1080p performance is NOT important as a great many gamers are still running 1080p displays. But at Very High to Ultra quality settings, we are right in the wheel house of what a user with a GTX 1070/1080 class GPU would do.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation (DX12)

View Full Size

This result is using the latest v26118 patch and shows the performance advantage to AMD in both comparisons.

Civilization VI (DX12)

View Full Size

The Civ 6 test is very frequency dependent and because of this the 1600X keeps up with the 7600K. The 1500X outperforms the Core i5-7500 by a noticeable gap.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (DX12)

View Full Size

Even at 1080p, the performance between these two platforms is identical, showing very little CPU to CPU variation.

Far Cry Primal (DX11)

View Full Size

Far Cry Primal is 21% faster with the 7600K than on the Ryzen 5 1600X, the first substantial disadvantage in noted performance. Interestingly, the Core i5-7500 drops down to the same performance levels as the Ryzen 5 parts.

Grand Theft Auto: V (DX11)

View Full Size

The Intel processors are faster, the 7600K by 17% over the Ryzen 5 1600X and the 7500 by 19% over the 1500X. These are noticeable and measurable differences that will likely continue the debate around 1080p gaming performance on the Ryzen platform.

Hitman (DX12)

View Full Size

Hitman in DX12 continues to be an interesting data point for Ryzen. It clearly can take advantage of higher thread counts (as noted by the 7700K result and our data from the Ryzen 7 launch review) but that advantage isn’t enough to for the Ryzen 5 to overtake the Core i5 processors in our testing here. It does match performance of the Core i5, which is a win for AMD overall, but sets up more for an interesting “gaming performance” debate later on.

Rise of the Tomb Raider (DX12)

View Full Size

The Intel Core i5 processors still have the strong advantage in Rise of the Tomb Raider’s integrated test. (One avenue to possibly dive into is the debate of integrated benchmarks versus in-game testing. This is a big rabbit hold to dive in at this point though, so tread lightly.)

Ghost Recon: Wildlands (DX11)

View Full Size

The Core i5-7600K and 7500 have the edge in Wildlands 1080p testing, by 6-7%. It’s not a huge delta but will be another data point to support the claim of superior gaming performance on Intel processors.

Results in our Ryzen 5 testing remains aligned with what we saw in our Ryzen 7 comparisons - the new AMD processors still have an issue with 1080p gaming performance results when going up against the current generation Intel architecture.

Video News

April 11, 2017 | 09:21 AM - Posted by Tspudz (not verified)

As excited I was about this the tanking Canadian dollar still makes the slightly older Intel i5's a more affordable option.

April 11, 2017 | 11:17 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

AMD just killed all locked Intel chips.
You should be able to get a great deal now in the used market.

April 11, 2017 | 12:21 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Disappointed that the $169 R5 1400 isn't on display here. That is likely the real bargain chip - like the R7 1700.

April 11, 2017 | 01:17 PM - Posted by Xebec

Yeah - the only useful "new and cheap" Intel chip at this point is the Pentium G4560 at $60.. Intel's $80-110 don't really offer much for the money, and as you approach $150 the Ryzen 5 is a real bargain..

April 11, 2017 | 02:32 PM - Posted by rukur

I think the AdoredTV video put it into focus best. You would have to be bat guano crazy to buy a quad core 4 thread CPU. Games are getting pegged at 100% on all 4 cores with nothing left already. While AMD has 8 threads and 12 threads and room for optimization to further improve.
People dont swap CPU's anywhere near as fast as say a GPU card. So if you buy 4 threads with Intel now you're stuck for years with that.

April 11, 2017 | 09:25 AM - Posted by Xukanik

Did you do any CCX testing with the 1500x part?

Is it 2x2c/4t or just 1 module of 4c/8t?

April 11, 2017 | 01:36 PM - Posted by garwynn

1500X is reportedly 2 CCX with 2c/4t disabled per module.

April 12, 2017 | 09:30 AM - Posted by Xukanik

That is what I heard but if you look at the L3 Cache you see that it is cut in half vs the 6 & 8 core.

This makes me think that there is only 1 chip.

April 11, 2017 | 09:31 AM - Posted by Xukanik

FYI you have the 1500x listed twice in power consumption with 2 different results.

April 11, 2017 | 09:58 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Fixed. Thanks!

April 11, 2017 | 09:56 AM - Posted by eternalozzie (not verified)

no reason to buy these at this price point ... I was waiting to see Ryzen 5 results before I upgraded my existing skylake i3 to i5.

April 13, 2017 | 02:58 PM - Posted by Spunjji

Why would you have done anything other than that given you already have a system set up around Intel? I'm skeptical that was ever seriously on the cards, unless you had unrealistically high expectations.

April 11, 2017 | 09:59 AM - Posted by annonybous (not verified)

there's a shitload of missing data on the graphs, pathetic.

also, no mention of the R5 beating the R7 on at least one benchmark by a significant margin.

April 11, 2017 | 10:15 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Please wait. Intel and Nvidia are reviewing his documents and "fixing" any typographical errors.

April 11, 2017 | 10:27 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

All AMD with no monopolies!
All AMD with no monopolies!
All AMD with no monopolies!

Some Vulkan/Linux testing also, so no to M$ also!

Dual RX 480s, and RX 580s and Ryzen/AM4 and Linux/Vulkan and no vendor lock-in!

April 11, 2017 | 10:02 AM - Posted by annonybous (not verified)

tomb raider DX11 doesn't have the DX12 issues.
since there is no graphical difference, it makes no sense to run DX12 in its current state, i thought you guys were up to date on PC hardware or do you live in a vacuum?

April 11, 2017 | 12:23 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That's a combination of the Blue Flu(I'm too sick to benchmark fully/call us before you review) and the Green Goblin(The Goblin Manual), but really it's the brown envelopes with the prize inside from the BlueGreen meanies.

Oh how it screams!

April 11, 2017 | 10:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB" and there has to be some DX12 and RX 580 testing(Vulkan also) with even dual RX 580s/RX 580 testing for that "Ryzen of the tomb raider" sort of benchmarking testing with some ALL AMD syetem builds.

This can be done on RX 480s/RX 480 als, but some all AMD gaming benchmarking Please.

I want to see more dual GPU, AMD and Nvidia(where enabled) testing also.

April 11, 2017 | 10:28 AM - Posted by Crabbyprime (not verified)

Look like the 1600x and the 1500x might be worth upgrading to from my 4690K for video editing.

April 11, 2017 | 10:45 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Just wait for that AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture (AGESA) update coming in May and targeting memory overclocking. And really with the 1700 non X version overclocking to around the same level as an 1800X, maybe that Ryzen 5 1600 NON X is the sleeper hit for the Ryzen 5 series Price/Performance leader-board. I'd go for the 1700 and maybe get that golden sample for video encoding and those AMD tweaks and gaming/other software optimizations are incoming! More Benchmarking across all of AMD's Ryzen offerings are in order as the OS, games, gaming engine, video encoding, other optimizations arrive.

AMD and the OS/entire Software market will be tweaking for Ryzen and Zen/Naples, and the lower cost Zen server variants, over the following months.

Be sure to keep score of all the online websites and focus on the tests that any website fails to perform. Because what any website fails to test says much more about that website than any other "Objective" testing claims. Keep Score and let them Know that you are keeping score.

April 11, 2017 | 10:36 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Your benchmark results are not in line with what others get. Also you are benching software that no one else is using on other review sites. Seems you guys are shilling for Intel....I was wise to remove you guys from my list of review sites.

April 11, 2017 | 11:24 AM - Posted by annonybous (not verified)

I took time to write a lengthy comment but it was deleted. don't make mention that the DX12 ROTR has performance deltas that don't exist in the DX11 version. this site is funded by dozens of Intel/Nvidia "Patreons"

April 11, 2017 | 11:56 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That "Ryzen of the Tomb Raider" reviewer, I hope he does some Ryzen 5 testing also, with Dual RX 480s, abd the Dual RX 580s for the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 series SKU.

Ryzen and Radeon or bust, to the websites that we can no longer trust! All this Nvidia ONLY testing needs stop.

Test and retest every month for AMD Zen/Radeon SKUs with each of the new month's optimizations and AGESA update. Full CPU/AM4 UEFI/BIOS version numbers listed along with driver version numbers. FULL data disclosure and No Sloppy Joes. Keep score and let them know that you are keeping score.

April 11, 2017 | 10:41 AM - Posted by appaws (not verified)

Thanks Ryan and Crew for the excellent review, and all of the excellent content every day.

Go Big Blue!

April 11, 2017 | 11:15 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Big Blue is IBM, but there appears to be a Blue Flu in regards to some Full Ryzen testing on many websites and scores need to be tallied. Intel(Nefarious Blue-Blob) has deep pockets, deep pockets! Too sick to test fully(None are buying that) Keep score folks, this is the real time to keep score of every online review website, AMD is competative again but in the past the fix was in, so keep score now more than ever.

"Nicknamed Big Blue, IBM is one of 30 companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and one of the world's largest employers, with (as of 2016) nearly 380,000 employees. Known as "IBMers", IBM employees have been awarded five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science" (1)



April 11, 2017 | 10:58 AM - Posted by biohazard918

Is the civ 5 ai graph correct? You mention "the 1500X outperforms the Core i5-7500 by a noticeable gap." but the 7500 is shown as nearly 10 fps faster then the 7700k which doesn't sound right.

April 11, 2017 | 11:21 AM - Posted by annonybous (not verified)

he's probably talking about the graphics test.

April 11, 2017 | 01:03 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Correct, I was. I'll add a reference to the other graph shortly. Thanks for the heads up!

April 11, 2017 | 11:11 AM - Posted by Ram (not verified)

Would love to see how ryzen work with dx12 with amd cards. Seen another video showing nvidia dx12 stuff breaks with ryzen.

April 11, 2017 | 11:20 AM - Posted by annonybous (not verified)

i wrote a lengthy comment about this, but it was promptly deleted. please don't ask too hard, it makes them look bad.

April 11, 2017 | 12:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

#Ryzen-of-the-Tomb-Raider says it all.

Dual RX 480s and maybe dual RX 580s for some Ryzen/Radeon testing please.

DX12/Vulkan and Gaming on Radeon needs more tseting for games/gaming engines.

April 11, 2017 | 11:29 AM - Posted by remc86007

Are the R5 1400 and 7600k quad channel?

April 11, 2017 | 11:34 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

this ryzen platform doesn't support quad channel afaik, however they're probably running quad on Intel, adding that better RAM for ryzen helps... and then using the 2400mhz sticks. this is a joke, thank you for pointing out another flaw.

April 11, 2017 | 11:40 AM - Posted by remc86007

They should fix their table.

April 11, 2017 | 11:29 AM - Posted by khanmein

Why didn't use the latest version of handbrake v1.0.7?

April 11, 2017 | 11:49 AM - Posted by Puiucs (not verified)

Who made these graphs? They're incredibly hard to read and make no sense. Why the random positions for the CPUs and why are both AMD and Intel the same color?

April 11, 2017 | 12:59 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I agree. It is difficult to tell what is going on. Looks like quick review with limited time.

April 11, 2017 | 12:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Will ddr5 and ryzen finally compete with consoles. If amd is recommending using higher speed memory to unlock performance shouldn't we just wait for the performance to be revealed.

April 11, 2017 | 12:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I dont always laugh but when I do I read PCPER reviews.

April 11, 2017 | 12:31 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Be sure to always keep score of each and every online review, what was omitted says a lot more about things in the end!

Keep Score, Keep Score, and Keep Score of the reviews.

Keep score of what sites re-review and how often the re-reviews correspond with the arrival of essetial AGESA updates and OS/Game/gaming engine optimizations.

Some Ryzen/Radeon testing is needed also.

April 11, 2017 | 12:28 PM - Posted by realjjj (not verified)

Nvidia has issues with more than 4 cores under DX12 and that's why people game with DX11 in such cases.
Half of the reviewers know this but the other half doesn't...

April 11, 2017 | 12:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If the point of testing games with a GTX 1080 is to prevent GPU bottle-necking and get at the "true" performance of the CPU, then why are you testing games in DX12 where Nvidia drivers are known to be an issue?

You should be testing Ryzen processors in DX11 with Nvidia graphics cards, or test DX12 games with crossfire RX 480s. These DX 12 benchmarks are effectively penalizing Ryzen for bad Nvidia drivers and not highlighting Ryzen's true performance (i.e. you're testing a bottleneck, the thing that you were trying to avoid).

April 11, 2017 | 12:39 PM - Posted by anonz (not verified)

to be fair PcPer isn't completely bad it has some smart people like Brian Moltavano (don't know how to spell it) and a couple of their other guys. it's just people like Ryan Shrout that have no business doing reviews or technical analysis. if you watch a few of their videos, you can see that he struggles with the more advanced subject matter and gets constantly corrected throughout most videos. you can see it in his "i haven't slept in a week" face, he's ashamed to be the face of PcPer.

April 11, 2017 | 01:22 PM - Posted by 2400_Baud

"Brian" Moltavano? I assume you're talking about their resident Storage specialist.
His name is Allyn Malventano.

Somewhat unusual spelling I suppose, but that helps me remember it.

April 11, 2017 | 01:26 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Yeah, that certainly made me chuckle. I'm used to the last name being butchered, but completely changing the first name is a new one on me :)

April 11, 2017 | 01:38 PM - Posted by WhiteZero

I thought it was Byron Malwaretano

April 11, 2017 | 01:28 PM - Posted by Xebec

OK - I'll go full defense of PCPer. I'm not sure why there's mega trolling here. This review is a very good technical review because:

- Only site with core ping times, giving detail to the architecture
- Memory scaling and Power mode in simple, useful format
- They listened - charts are now higher contrast, easier to see
- Good mix of useful benchmarks (audio, video, games)
- Sale links to all products used is always good
- A Video summary adds a lot to an article like this imo

Could use work:
- Please show 12/16 thread scaling in 7-Zip in future
- How does this compare to the Geekbench estimate from September? :)
- A bit too many synthetics (Cinebench, SiSoft, Geekbench) that i'm not sure actually mean anything
- Where's the $180 i3-7350K and $60 Pentium G4560? :)

I look forward to the commentary on the podcast.

April 11, 2017 | 01:55 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thanks for the feedback and positive input. :)

April 11, 2017 | 02:26 PM - Posted by m18xr2

tom hardware also layed out the latency incase you didn't notice, just not a graph but a table chart. but imo tom is a bit biased towards intel hardware, testing benchmark at 5ghz but when comes to power consumption, they test it at default clock instead of 5ghz, biased and misleading.

April 11, 2017 | 04:39 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Toms showed OC results but they also included base clock speed as well on their charts. They overclocked both sides as well. Seemed legit to me.

April 11, 2017 | 03:09 PM - Posted by Shambles

Looks pretty good overall. I'm looking forward to what tweaks they do on Zen+ to iron out some of the downsides. These chips would be unbelievable if they were a monolithic chip.

April 11, 2017 | 03:53 PM - Posted by Butthurt Beluga

Good to know that, even with the knowledge that RotR DX12 is an anomaly in that Nvidia has shit DX12 drivers and it tanks the Ryzen CPU performance, PCPer is still trucking along only using Nvidia GPUs in their test bed and are using a benchmark that have been confirmed to be unreliable at best.

Sad really. I expected better.

April 11, 2017 | 04:47 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

The NV GPU used is still far faster than any available AMD part. When testing CPUs, ensure the GPU is not the bottleneck (or the least amount possible). Spinning up a different testbed config for a single game is not something we have enough hours in the day for.

April 12, 2017 | 03:44 PM - Posted by James

It might be interesting to see how many people are running Nvidia cards with their Ryzen processors. You are, to some extent, testing Nvidia's drivers and they are not going to be optimized for AMD processors. I am not saying that it isn't a valid test, since there certainly will be people running Nvidia cards. I would like to see some numbers with lower end cards though, especially with the more mid-range to low end parts to see if those differences actually will be noticeable. With this high end card, the differences, even when extreme are often a difference between something like 80 and 100 fps. While this is noticeable, it isn't really much of an issue. I would expect the gaps to be smaller for lower performance video cards, but without testing, we don't know how much smaller.

Also, if anyone has time and a test setup it would be interesting to run the AotS benchmark before and after the patches with different memory speeds. I am wondering if the performance boost from higher memory clock disappears with code more optimized for Ryzen's cache set-up.

April 11, 2017 | 06:55 PM - Posted by rybot

Could you change the your latency chart look something closer to a correlation matrix? I don't know if that's the correct term, but presenting the data in that format would better show how local pings are faster than cross-CCX pings.

I would expect the diagonal to be close to 0, the upper left and bottom right quarters to be fast, and the lower left and upper-right quarters to be slow

You could format it something like this but I expect the data to look like this

April 11, 2017 | 11:43 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I like that style, let me look into it!

April 12, 2017 | 03:42 AM - Posted by ehoeks

@Ryan I have spotted a small typo in the legend of graph 'Ryzen 5 Memory Speed Tesing' on page Memory-Speed-Scaling-and-Windows-10-P.

RedBrown is labeled DDR4-200 (but should probably be DDR4-2400)

April 12, 2017 | 10:21 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout're correct!

April 12, 2017 | 07:12 AM - Posted by roseblake

Great processor.

April 12, 2017 | 07:20 AM - Posted by roseblake

Also, I think that it will be a new word in the performance speed run. Now this build show great possibilities, but it is only a start. Ryzen architecture was developed to prove that you can get high performance for the considerable price. I ordered a research paper help about next microsoft configurations. Results were pretty impressive, but as we can see now, AMD is getting higher and higher in performance, but lowering price of components. In today's market it is the only smart way to make business.

April 12, 2017 | 08:12 AM - Posted by PCPerFan

We can't comment anymore without logging in. That really really sucks.

April 12, 2017 | 10:21 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Really, I think it's great so far. :)

April 12, 2017 | 11:26 AM - Posted by CNote

Yay no more anonymous AMD-heads

April 12, 2017 | 03:47 PM - Posted by Speely

Yes. You're right. It was *only* AMD fans causing problems in the comments. Anonymous Nvidia fans *never ever ever* randomly abused people here.


April 13, 2017 | 11:38 PM - Posted by CNote

I was talking about this thread but yeah sigh away

April 12, 2017 | 03:48 PM - Posted by Speely

Seriously, truly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you guys for finally making this happen. :)

April 12, 2017 | 03:45 PM - Posted by Speely

I love it. It's like we can actually have discussions in the comments now, instead of having to plod through 250 post of abusive fanboy nonsense in the hopes of finding a comment of substance.

It took way too long, but I'm so glad they finally did it that I might start coming back to the site again. (Today is my first visit in months.)

April 13, 2017 | 02:54 PM - Posted by Spunjji

You and the trolls are the only people on that side of the argument :D

April 12, 2017 | 10:27 AM - Posted by Activate_AMD

What a sh*t show the comments turned into.

Not sure why all the AMD fans feel the need to nitpick every last little bit to find something that invalidates the results. The conspiracy theories run so deep its hilarious. Tests take time, money and effort. The reviewers aren't perfect, they might not be able to do every last test between receiving a sample and embargo lifting... thats a fact of life, not some deep-seated bias.

Bottom line, when I look at PcPer's results for the Ryzen 5 I see the same thing I've seen at every other review site: a compelling product for AMD that doesn't win every test. Finally, you can buy an AMD chip instead of the i5 and not feel like you were "taking one for the team". The fact that it has weaknesses is objective fact, its up to the reader to decide whether or not those weaknesses are an issue for them.

April 12, 2017 | 11:04 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thank you sir.

For someone with AMD in their username, I appreciate the input.

April 12, 2017 | 11:22 AM - Posted by Activate_AMD

Ah, don't read too much into that ;) Been a forum member under that nick since 2003 when this place was AMDMB and figured I'd keep it on this side of the fence for the sake of continuity

April 12, 2017 | 01:15 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Well then all we can say there is thank you for sticking around for so long! :)

April 12, 2017 | 11:56 AM - Posted by FuzzDad

It's not just "AMD-Heads"...PC v Console, FPS v RPG, Pinky v The World, and so on. Removing the anonymity on technical sites removes zealots w/o perspective...which is smart. The most interesting thing to watch for here isn't how much tweaking AMD does over the next few's how much does Intel respond to and how they respond. Lowering prices will not get them back to a dominating lead they grew complacent with.

April 12, 2017 | 05:06 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I would agree and I would not expect them to lower prices. 

April 13, 2017 | 06:53 PM - Posted by StephanS

To differentiate your review you could do this.

Graph the CPU / GPU usage during your gaming test, along side frame time.

Because nobody test CPU/GPU scaling anymore buyer need to guess if the CPU is good enough for the GPU, (or vice versa) and have no clue how well the CPU will hold up in the future.

For example if you see "i5 get 85FPS, r5 gets 80fps"
You would choose the i5, right ?

But what if the i5 was 100% pegged to get 85fps, but the r5 only 40% ?

April 14, 2017 | 12:11 PM - Posted by Papacheeks

What makes me angry is no one is testing the differences with a Radeon card compared to the Nvidia drivers.

It's a known issue, they ran the same benchmarks and game test's on other sites with a Radeon card and showed better improvements on ryzen.

The issue is all your test's are with nvidia cards who have drivers that react shitty with Ryzen.

April 19, 2017 | 10:08 PM - Posted by skline00

Ryan: Thank you for a fair review of the 1600x and 1500x. I have a 5960x with a GTX 1080 and a 6700K with a GTX980TI and just recently built a 1800x with RX480s in CF. I'm using an Asus Crosshair VI mb and Gskill FlareX DDR4-3200 ram so I'm able to get great performance out of the Ryzen. Tomorrow I will begin a 1600x build coupled with a GTX 1050ti.

Where AMD has finally shown it mettle and relevance is producing cpus that legitimately can stand toe to toe with Intel and have a chance. Quite an accomplishment.

April 20, 2017 | 07:56 PM - Posted by Hikingmike

You should probably mention that the Ryzens have lower idle power consumption than the Intels in your last graph. That's awesome. And it probably matters more (in probably most cases) than load consumption, thinking solely electricity bill, due to how much time is spent in either state.

April 27, 2017 | 06:44 PM - Posted by playboysmoov

Is it just me or did you list out the test bed components?

I have a friend looking to build a Ryzen 7 1700x with a B350 board and it would beneficial to know what DIMM's were used to obtain the 2400 MHz - 3200 MHz speeds. As some DIMM cannot go above 2400 with the current BIOS out there from some vendors.

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.