Since the announcement of AMD’s mid-range offerings, it was clear that Ryzen 5 is going to have some major advantages over its direct price competition. For $250, the top Ryzen 5 1600X gives six cores and twelve threads of AMD’s latest microarchitecture. For the same price from Intel with a Core i5, you get four cores and no extra threads. Even though the Intel Core i5 based on Kaby Lake will have an instructions-per-clock advantage, it’s a hard hill to climb when the competition has 50% more cores and 200% more threads. In this review, we take the Ryzen 5 1600X and see if it smashes the market wide open.

Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 (...Ryzen 9?)

Today marks the retail availability of AMD’s Ryzen 5 line of desktop processors. As the name suggests, Ryzen 5 sits between Ryzen 7, which was launched in March 2017, and Ryzen 3, to be launched in Q2 2017. The launch of Ryzen 7 last month was a return to the high-performance market for AMD, with its new x86 microarchitecture and core design built on GlobalFoundries 14nm process offering equivalent performance to Intel’s high-end desktop (HEDT) parts for under half-the-cost. Ryzen 5 is a step below that HEDT market, aiming more at mainstream users on more reasonable budgets.

One of the throwbacks to the Ryzen 7 launch for AMD was that the competition in that space was invariably overpriced to begin with – having had no competition for so many years, Intel was able to dictate the price and performance ratios without losing market share. While Ryzen 7 came out fighting in that market, ultimately it was up against a two-generation old CPU design from Intel, and not the latest, due to the way that Intel staggers its design cycle between mainstream and high-end processors. Ryzen 5, on the other hand, is coming out against processors that Intel has launched this year, on their leading design.

So while Ryzen 7 undercut the HEDT market by offering the same performance (in most cases) for half the price, Ryzen 5 can’t do the same. The midstream market is more price sensitive, and as a result AMD is launching Ryzen 5 at similar price points to Intel in this field. So while AMD can’t compete on price, it tackles the midstream market with more cores and more threads instead. Where Intel offers four cores, AMD offers six. Where Intel offers four threads, AMD offers twelve. This has implications for performance and power, which will be a part of this review. 

(I'm joking about Ryzen 9 in the title to this section. No Ryzen 9 has been announced.)

The Ryzen Series

Without further ado, here is where the Ryzen families stand:

AMD Ryzen 7 SKUs
XFR L3 TDP Cost Cooler
Ryzen 7 1800X 8/16 3.6/4.0 +100 16 MB 95 W $499 -
Ryzen 7 1700X 8/16 3.4/3.8 +100 16 MB 95 W $399 -
Ryzen 7 1700 8/16 3.0/3.7 +50 16 MB 65 W $329 Spire
AMD Ryzen 5 SKUs
XFR L3 TDP Cost Cooler
Ryzen 5 1600X 6/12 3.6/4.0 +100 16 MB 95 W $249 -
Ryzen 5 1600 6/12 3.2/3.6 +100 16 MB 65 W $219 Spire
Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5/3.7 +200 16 MB 65 W $189 Spire
Ryzen 5 1400 4/8 3.2/3.4 +50 8 MB 65 W $169 Stealth

Normally we see parts with with fewer cores having a higher clock frequency, however perhaps due to the voltage scaling of the design, we see a matched Ryzen 5 1600X in frequency to the Ryzen 7 1800X, but the rest of the Ryzen 5 family are offered at a lower TDP instead.

All the Ryzen 5 parts are unlocked, similar to the Ryzen 7 parts, and all four exhibit some movement in their ‘Extreme Frequency Range’ (XFR) mode, with the 1500X offering +200 MHz when there is sufficient cooling at hand.. AMD is going to offer some of these SKUs with their redesigned Wraith coolers, except the 1600X.

It is worth noting that the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 5 will not have RGB lighting, whereas the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 7 does use an RGB ring. OEMs will be able to use the higher-end Wraith Max stock cooler for their pre-built systems. AMD stated that at present, there are no plans to bring the Wraith coolers to retail as individual units, however they will keep track of how many users want them as individual items and regularly approach the issue internally.

To clarify some initial confusion, AMD has given me official TDP support numbers for the coolers. The entry level Wraith Stealth is 65W, the Wraith Spire is 65W for high-ambient conditions (AMD states this might be considered an '80W' design in low-ambient), and the Wraith Max is 95W for OEM builds using Ryzen 7 95W parts.

All the Ryzen 5 parts will support DDR4 ECC and non-ECC memory, and the memory support is the same as Ryzen 7, and will depend on how many modules and the types of modules being used. Recently companies like ADATA announced official support for AM4, as some users have found that there were memory growing pains when Ryzen 7 was launched.

Platform support for Ryzen 5, relating to PCIe lanes and chipset configurations, is identical to Ryzen 7. Each CPU offers sixteen PCIe 3.0 lanes for graphics, along with four lanes for a chipset and four lanes for storage. Chipsets can then offer up to eight PCIe 2.0 lanes which can bifurcated up to x4 (AMD GPUs can use chipset lanes for graphics as well, however at reduced bandwidth and additional latency).


The high-end Ryzen 5 1600X, at $249, is a shoe-in to compete against Intel’s i5-7600K at $242. Intel’s CPU is based on the Kaby Lake microarchitecture, and we’ve already shown in the Ryzen 7 review that by comparison Ryzen is more circa Broadwell, which is two generations behind. AMD won’t win much when it comes to single-threaded tests here, but the multi-threaded situation is where AMD shines.

Comparison: Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5-7600K
Ryzen 5 1600X
Features Intel
Core i5-7600K
6 / 12 Cores/Threads 4 / 4
3.6 / 4.0 GHz Base/Turbo 3.8 / 4.2 GHz
16 PCIe 3.0 Lanes 16
16 MB L3 Cache 6 MB
95 W TDP 91 W
$249 Price (MSRP) $242

Here we have twelve threads against four, at a 95W TDP compared to a 91W TDP (the 1600 is 65W, which looks better on paper). It is expected that for situations where a compute workload can scale across cores and threads that the AMD chip will wipe the floor with the competition. For more generic office workloads, it will interesting to see where the marks fall.

On the quad-core parts, there are several competitive points to choose from. The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, at $189, sits near Intel’s Core i5-7500 at $192. This would be a shootout of a base quad-core in the Core i5 versus a quad-core with hyperthreading.

Comparison: Ryzen 5 1500X vs Core i5-7500
Ryzen 5 1500X
Features Intel
Core i5-7500
4 / 8 Cores/Threads 4 / 4
3.5 / 3.7 GHz Base/Turbo 3.4 / 3.8 GHz
16 PCIe 3.0 Lanes 16
16 MB L3 Cache 6 MB
65 W TDP 65 W
$189 Price (MSRP) $182

The reason why I didn’t pull out the Core i3-7350K there, at $168, is because the performance of the 7350K sits near the Pentium G4560, which is only $64 (and the subject of an upcoming review). That all being said, the $168 price of the i3-7350K matches up to the $169 price of the Ryzen 5 1400, although the 1400 has double the cores and double the threads of the 7350K.

Chipsets for Ryzen 5

The chipsets for AMD’s AM4 CPUs come in three main forms: the high-end X370 designed for premium Ryzen 7 systems and multi-GPU gaming (or multi-PCIe card workstations), mid-range B350 motherboards that still support overclocking but are more targeted at Ryzen 5 systems with a single graphics card, and the more budget range A320 which does not have overclocking and will be a fit in for Ryzen 3 later this year.

We are now at a point where the motherboard manufacturers are swimming in AMD motherboards, and distributors are building stock of various models. For Ryzen 5, AMD is pitching the B350 chipset based motherboards as a suitable solution, especially when compared to Intel’s B250 motherboards for Kaby Lake processors.

The B350 configuration matches that on the X370, save for a couple of PCIe lanes from the chipset and the focus on a single GPU.

Ryzen 5, Core Allocation, and Power
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Phiro69 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Thank you Ian!
    Maybe at some point as part of your benchmark description you have a url to a page showing basic (e.g. exactly the level of information you provided above but not step by step hand holding) benchmark setup instructions. I know I wonder if I've configured my builds correctly when I put together new systems; I buy the parts based on benchmarks but I don't ever really validate they perform at that level/I have things set correctly.
  • qupada - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I was curious about this too. Obviously a direct comparison between your Windows test and my Linux one is going to be largely meaningless but I felt the need to try anyway. Since Linux is all I have, this is what we get.

    My Haswell-EP Xeon E5-1660v3 - approximately an i7-5960X with ECC RAM, and that CPU seems to be oft-compared to the 1800X you have put in your results - clocks in at 78:36 to compile Chromium (59.0.3063.4), or 18.31 compiles per day (hoorah for the pile of extra money I spent on it resulting in such a small performance margin). However that's for the entire process, from unpacking the tarball, compiling, then tarring and compressing the compiled result. My machine is running Gentoo, it was 'time emerge -OB chromium' (I didn't feel like doing it manually to get just the compile). Am I reading right you've used the result of timing the 'ninja' compile step only?

    I only ask because there definitely could be other factors in play for this one - for the uninitiated reading this comment, Chromium is a fairly massive piece of software, the source tar.xz file for the version I tried is 496MB (decompressing to 2757MB), containing around 28,000 directories and a shade under 210,000 files. At that scale, filesystem cache is definitely going to come into play, I would probably expect a slightly different result for a freshly rebooted machine versus one where the compile was timed immediately after unpacking the source code and it was still in RAM (obviously less of a difference on an SSD, but probably still not none).

    It is an interesting test metric though, and again I haven't done this on WIndows, but there is a chunk in the middle of the process that seems to be single-threaded on a Linux compile (probably around 10% of the total wall clock time), so it is actually quite nice that it will benefit from both multi-core and single-core performance and boost clocks.

    Also with a heavily multi-threaded process of that sort of duration, probably a great test of how long you get before thermal throttling starts to hurt you. I have to admit I'm cheating a bit by watercooling mine (not overclocked though) so it'll happily run 3.3GHz on a base clock of 3.0 across all eight cores for hours on end at around ~45°C/115°F.
  • rarson - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    14393.969 was released March 20th, any reason you didn't use that build?
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, April 14, 2017 - link

    Because my OS is already locked down for the next 12-18 months of testing.
  • Konobi - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I don't know what's up with those FPS number in rocket league 1080p. I have ye olde FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz and a GTX 1070 @ 2.1GHz and I get 244fps max and 230FPS average at 1080p Ultra.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I'm running a 4x4 bot match on Aquadome. Automated inputs to mimic gameplay and camera switching / tricks, FRAPS over 4 minutes of a match.
  • jfmonty2 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link

    Why Aquadome specifically? It's been criticized for performance issues compared to most of the other maps in the game, although the most recent update has improved that.
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, April 14, 2017 - link

    On the basis that it's the most strenuous map to test on. Lowest common denominator and all that.
  • Adam Saint - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    "Looking at the results, it’s hard to notice the effect that 12 threads has on multithreaded CPU tests"

    Perhaps you mean *not* hard to notice? :)
  • coder543 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I agree. That was also confusing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now