Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600 Review

We have already reviewed the Ryzen top models 1700, 1700X, and 1800X, and we can now check the mainstream or entry-level segment, respectively. We will not repeat the information about the architecture and refer to our first Ryzen Test – the Ryzen 5 models are based on the Ryzen 7 die, but some cores are deactivated and the cache is adjusted.

The Ryzen 5 1400 is currently the slowest CPU from the series. It retails for around 170 Euros (~$191) and the four cores reach a maximum Turbo of 3.4 GHz, but the L3-cache has been reduced by half (8 MB) compared to the bigger chips. As with all the other Ryzen CPUs, the smallest chip also supports Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), so it can execute up to eight threads simultaneously.

The Ryzen 5 1600 offers two additional cores and twice the L3-cache (16 MB) for around 50 Euros (~$56) extra. Both the base frequency as well as the Turbo are 200 MHz higher compared to the entry-level chip at 3.4 and 3.6 GHz, respectively.

Cinebench R15 determines the raw CPU performance, and the tool almost scales linear to the clocks when the architecture and the cache size are identical. It is interesting that the Ryzen 5 1600 is on par with the Ryzen 7 1700 in the single-core test – despite the 100 MHz difference for the Turbo.

The 1400 on the other hand does not really stand a chance against the in-house competition: The Ryzen 5 1600 is already 11% faster, the 1800X 22%. We can also see the almost linear scaling between the clocks and the Cinebench result, so the cache does not have a big effect in this benchmark. The end result is still the same: If you require high single-core performance, you will basically have to get an Intel CPU.

It is not surprising that the situation is more drastic in the multi-core test: The Ryzen 5 1600 is more than 60% faster than the entry-level chip. Looking at the Intel competition, the 1600 sits between the Core i7-7700K and the i7-5960X. However, the Core i7-7700K is already ~100 Euros (~$112) more expensive.

Truecrypt is not a completely synthetic benchmark, which determines the encryption performance via different algorithms. The results show significant differences – both the different number of cores as well as the clocks and the size of the cache influence the scores.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1400 is slightly ahead of the Intel Core i5-7600K, but is clearly beaten by the remaining Intel rivals. The i7-7700K is about 40% faster, the Ryzen 5 1600 by even 60%.

The calculation of square roots supports the picture we have got so far: The difference between the Ryzen 5 1400 and the other models is comparatively big; the Ryzen 5 1600 on the other hand is much faster than the Intel Core i7-7700K. wPrime really benefits from the high number of threads that can be executed at the same time thanks to Simultaneous Multithreading.

We have listed the remaining synthetic benchmarks for the sake of completeness. They either support the previous results or do not seem very reliable, which is the case with WinRAR and x264 (Avisynth).

The synthetic benchmarks show that AMD's new Zen architecture can basically cover a wide price and performance range and that it scales well. There is a big price advantage over comparable Intel chips, but the single-core performance of the small Ryzen CPUs is rather low compared to Intel CPUs.

However, the synthetic tests also show the comparatively high performance deficit of the Ryzen 5 1400, which is equipped with only four cores.

We want to make sure that the GPU does not limit the results and ensure comparability, so we also test the smaller models with the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. The motherboard for this test is the Asus Prime B350-PLUS in combination with 16 GB of DDR4-3200 RAM.

Some parts of the test suite are once again not very practical – to determine the CPU performance adequately. Owners of a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti will most probably use a more powerful CPU.

In the low resolution and with low settings – the important test environment for the CPU – ranks the slower Ryzen CPUs ahead of the more expensive models in “For Honor”. We cannot completely rule out interferences due to different firmware version, so these results should be handled with care.

We can see a comparatively good scaling of the results in the most important benchmark – “The Witcher 3” in the relevant low resolution (low details). The 1800X is around 30% faster than the Ryzen 5 1400, but the difference compared to the 1600 is much smaller. However, the two Ryzen 5 CPUs do not stand a chance against the more expensive Intel competition. The difference between the 1600 and 1400 is significant at around 10%, but does not reflect the price difference between the two models adequately.

Considering the low price in combination with the free multiplier, the Ryzen 5 1400 seems to be a good candidate for overclocking, and at least our test sample was actually pretty good in this respect. We had no problems to increase the clock to 3.6 GHz without voltage modifications or stability issues. The result was a Cinebench score of 746 points, which is an 8% increase.

We do not want to recommend careless overclocking for inexperienced users at this point, but the risk is comparatively small without voltage increases and you get comparatively high performance benefits.