" Ryzen 7’s debut just under three weeks ago clearly kicked off an upgrade cycle for AMD fans and potentially some Intel converts — in the three weeks we’ve been watching, the Ryzen 1800X, 1700X, and 1700 have all maintained spots in the Top 20, and typically the Top 15. With 6-7 CPUs in the Top 20 compared with 2-3 prior to the launch of Ryzen, AMD is clearly better positioned (and earning at least somewhat more money, thanks to higher CPU prices). Still, the cheapest Ryzen 7 CPU clocks in at $329, and that’s not exactly affordable.
Today, AMD is announcing its new Ryzen 5 CPU family. While the naming evokes the Core i5, the products themselves do not.
First up, we’ve got a pair of six-core chips; the Ryzen 5 1600X and the Ryzen 5 1600. Both of them have SMT enabled, but the 1600X has a 3.6GHz base clock and a 4GHz Boost, while the 1600 has a 3.2GHz base clock and a 3.6GHz boost.
Drop down the stack again, and we’ve got the Ryzen 5 1500X and Ryzen 5 1400. Both CPUs offer quad-cores and eight threads, with clock speeds of 3.5GHz – 3.7GHz and 3.2GHz-3.4GHz respectively. While this is a touch lower than some of Intel’s Core i5s, the addition of SMT should more than compensate for lower clocks in multi-threaded workloads.
I wish i didnt have to upgrade my ddr3 ram and motherboard for these new entry level processors
*cries self to sleep.
Edit: a am4 motherboard is only 150 CAD and I found 90 CAD 8 gb DDR4 2400mhz ram with decent cas latency scores
maybe I will get an upgrade in april-june.
I think for now I will just use an amd fx 8350 and use it until it destroys my motherboard and get a few replacements and a beastly ryzen 5 1600x cpu
UPDATE, 3/16/17, 7:52am PT : AMD has confirmed that the Ryzen 5 processors employ a dual-CCX design. The 6-cores have a 3+3 alignment (three cores on each CCX), and the four-cores use a 2+2 alignment (two cores per CCX). This means the processors will likely suffer the same lower performance in gaming scenarios, and in some cases it might be worse, as the processor will be forced to allocate threads to the second CCX more frequently.
As long as they can benchmark at 120+fps of heavy load on modern games, then I personally couldnt care less how much performance I loss.
The problem with the current market is that a mid range GPU gets bottlenecked by a mid range CPU. An fx 8350 will have problems playing overwatch at 120+ fps, and has a minimum of 90fps performance at high load. So an mid range cpu like the Fx 8350 would bottleneck a mid range gpu like the rx 470,rx 480 and gtx 1060.
With the ryzen family being released, there is a new statement for what a mid range cpu is, the ryzen 5. Which seems to play a CPU intensive game like overwatch at 120+ fps which is great and finally solves the issue of buyers who can play at 120+fps with their gpu at a desired graphics quality without feeling the need to spend $500+ on a high end cpu so their system doesnt bottleneck. The ryzen 5 is the perfect statement for a mid range cpu that doesnt bottleneck a mid range gpu and doesn't force you to play below your monitors refresh rate.