According to the official AMD slides that have been leaked online, AMD’s upcoming quad-core and six-core Ryzen CPUs will be released on April 11th. AMD will offer four CPU models; Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 5 1600X. The first two models will be quad-cores, while the latter two models will be six-cores.
Ryzen 5 1400 will be priced at $169, while Ryzen 5 1500X will be priced at $189. On the other hand, Ryzen 5 1600 will be priced at $219 and Ryzen 5 1600X will be priced at $249.
All of these new Ryzen CPUs will support SMT, meaning that the quad-core CPUs will support eight threads and the six-core CPUs will support twelve threads.
According to AMD, the Ryzen 5 1600X CPU offers a 69% performance boost in Cinebench over Intel’s Core i5 7600K CPU.
Last but not least, AMD’s Ryzen 3 CPUs are planned for a 2H 2017 release!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Here we go again. the benchmark leak hype.
THEY WILL BE SH*T FOR GAMING. PERIOD.
yeah. that’s why 1700x, in best case scenario, it’s just as good as a 7600k for gaming. are you expecting r5 to be better than r7?
“are you expecting r5 to be better than r7?”
For gaming, yes. Just like a 7700k is better than a 6900k.
only time will tell.
but I recommend not going all pre-order berserk like people did with r7.
And know we know it’s not. These chips are just cut down binned r7’s. Unless they overclock like crazy the r5’s will perforn the same as r7’s meaning slower than the i7 in games.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7206b768edd1e1271397d10864f82b8a8a61e264feea9028f0cf04561bef2db5.png
I think you need a hug. *hugs*
Comparing intel 4core with ryzen 8c/16t is just plain stupidity.
Because the 4c will beat the 8c in most games.
Idiot. It’s brand new architecture no one has ever seen before. It takes time to patch and include in development.
@disqus_yJms9H0kCE:disqus
Says the guy who hasn’t used the chips that aren’t even out. Biased much brah?
aaaaaaaaaand:
I was right.
1600x fall short compared with and 7600k in gaming.
So what happened to Ryzen 1, 2, 4 and 6? 😉
I don’t think the IPC will be any better. Most likely Ryzen 5 will overclock more because of less complexity, lower TDP, or perhaps the cache will be shared by less cores and that will increase performance.
The real deal here seems to be the price. 6 cores/12 threads at $ 250 is sweet. And you get better multithreaded performance than Intel at that price point. They’ll be nice for gamers in a budget though.
Yep, I’m in agreement with all of that likely being the case. Exciting times in the CPU market at long last!
1.- being like 7600k in the best case. and we are talking about r7 here. i expect r5 to have less performance, obviosuly.
2.-1600x and 7600k will have the same price. 250 $
3.-10 years with the same story… single core performance will always be key in gaming
1-R5 1600X could probably have either the same performance of 1800X but overclock slightly better, so that might be useful in gaming, or it’ll be just faster as the same cache is split in less cores, and possibly overclock slightly better.
2-Yeah but i5s will be dead very soon, 4 cores 4 threads will become the new dual core
3-10 Years ago i was playing with a top dual core the E8500, guess what changed? I got a 4 core 8 threads, 6 years ago, and it’ll all repeat itself, i5s are becoming useless right now, hence the differences in benchmarks between i7 7600k and i7 7700k, especially in latest games. 4 cores 8 threads will last probably slightly more than 4 core 4 threads, but with slightly more we’re talking about 1 year, maybe 18 months, as more and more games will be able to use more threads
They’re no ‘sh*t for gaming’. kid. They’re quite alright. You’ll have, say, 10~20 FPS (tough quite a bit more in Tomb Raider as I recall) difference with a 7700K, in CPU bound resolutions and min details. If you’re so hard into gaming, you’ll have at least a GTX 1070, and will play maxed out, so you’ll get GPU bound quick.
Ryzen 5 will get you, for far less money, lower TDP, and most important, more cores/threads. Superb multitasking performance for that price.
Conveniently ignoring the graph I posted from one of the most reputable German sites, uh?
“7600K based case scenario”, while the graph shows a 9% advantage, with that logic we can conclude the 7700K is trash since the delta is even lower.
“1600x and 7600k will have the same price.”
You’d have to be severely brain damaged to choose a 4c/4t over a 6c/12t. As I said, the Core i5 line as we know it is done.
There’s no point buying a CPU with only 4 cores. And buying the 7700K just to get hyper-threading is a bad deal as well when the price is factored in.
$250 7600K + more expensive mobo + good cooler to OC. All you get is quad core with no HT.
Or $219 1600 + B350 mobo and cooler included, you get 6 cores and 12 threads that you can probably OC’d to 1600x levels.
Oh yeah, tough choice lmao
Sorry but “German and reputable” BWHAHAHAHAHA. thanks for the laugh!
But ryzen IPC is actually very good as you can see in cinebench and other benchmarks. Games need more than IPC alone, they need actual optimization. Thats why RYZEN is so fast in sniper elite, because they could actually optimize for it.
How does Ryzen’s performance in Cinbench effect the way you use your PC?
And Sniper Elite was demo’d at a resolution that caused a GPU bottleneck, that’s why the performance between the cpu’s was so close.
Quake Champions beta is soon, possibly less than a month away. Looking forward to Ryzen benchmarks.
The i5 as we know it is done. i7 will be a tough sell.
i cant wait to see the bias intel reviewers fake benchmarks…lol
AMD’s 1400 at 4C/8T is cheaper than Intel’s 7350k at 2C/4T. TFW Intel’s price gouging gets BTFO. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/984e1080032f8a7030a244853dd4e7dd36eb386bf1f59a38623e81ec6e4d64ae.jpg
Fellow centipede?
OMG it’s 69% faster in Cinebench! This changes everything! I mean it’s Cinebench of all things, it’s… ugh… has to be important somehow… right?
Enough with this SOHO market bs. Bring out the big guns.
My god, it’s clockwork with AMD fanboys.
We’re not even 1 month into the R7 launch, and all the same hype is being repeated ad nauseum with the R5 lineup.
The R7 line doesn’t beat Intel in gaming, but somehow the R5 lineup holds the magical performance boost.
It’s seems clockwork also with Intel fanboys. As if a CPU that is 10~20 FPS under Intel’s offerings at CPU bound situations (lower resolutions and min details mostly) but outperforms it in many multithreaded task has to suck, because you know, gaming is the only thing people do.
Bringing 8 cores/16 threads at a great price point shouldn’t count, because, gaming at 1080p or min details is really a thing now.
This is a gaming site you know so gaming performance will be important for most people viewing this site. We also know from the Steam surveys that most PC gamers are gaming at 1080p. So a cpu’s performance at 1080 is a thing.
Yeah, and the performance difference in maxed out new titles is 10~20 FPS. You’ll have a hard time noticing it when you’re sitting above, say, 80 FPS. And in some titles, at max details, even at 1080p, performance is the same as the bottleneck is the GPU (and I’m talking about the Guru3d review, they used a GTX 1080).
We also know from Steam surveys that the most popular VGA is the GTX 970. So, play any modern title maxed out with a 970, at 1080p, and performance will be the same on AMD and Intel CPUs. Because the bottleneck, again, is in the GPU.
“kiddo” he says. you are so full of yourself, aren’t you?
I hear that Ryzen 5 1600 calling my name down the road. Need a GPU upgrade first but after that it’s Ryzen time.
Here we go again with amd releasing benchmarks they made probably testing a 1000 chips and selected the highest score one. All hype no action just like 1800x
“releasing benchmarks they made probably testing a 1000 chips and selected the highest score one”
Because that’s not a practice that everyone else does, too?
If it is then that’s messed up
It is messed up, but then again, that is the tech industry.
Since Ryzen’s launch AMD fanboys where saying the r5’s would have higher clock speeds because of lack of cores and now we know that’s not true. What happened backseat chip designers? Lol