Notebookcheck

Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600 Review

Silvio Werner, Klaus Hinum, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Andreas Osthoff), 06/05/2017

AMD now takes on the mainstream segment with the Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 5 1600. The hexa-core in particular performs well in our review, but the Ryzen 1400 is a bit on the fence – which is primarily a result of AMD's in-house competition.

For the original German review, see here.

Introduction

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600

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.

Model Cores - Threads Base frequency Turbo (1-2 cores) Turbo (3 and more cores) XFR overclocking L3-Cache TDP RRP
Ryzen R7 1800X 8-16 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 3.7 GHz 100 MHz 16 MB 95 Watts 559 Euros
Ryzen R7 1700X 8-16 3.4 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.5 GHz 100 MHz 16 MB 95 Watts 439 Euros
Ryzen R7 1700 8-16 3.0 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.2 GHz 50 MHz 16 MB 65 Watts 359 Euros
Ryzen R5 1600 6-12 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.4 GHz 100 MHz 16 MB 65 Watts 249 Euros
Ryzen R5 1400 4-8 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.2 GHz 50 MHz 8 MB 65 Watts 189 Euros

Synthetic Benchmarks

Cinebench R15

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.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Intel Core i7-7700K
194 Points ∼100% +31%
Intel Core i5-7600K
191 Points ∼98% +29%
Intel Core i7-6950X
164 Points ∼85% +11%
Intel Core i7-6950X
147 Points ∼76% -1%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
164 Points ∼85% +11%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
157 Points ∼81% +6%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
149 Points ∼77% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
148 Points ∼76%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
147.65 Points ∼76% 0%
Intel Core i7-5960X
139 Points ∼72% -6%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
134.5 (min: 133.01, max: 136.04) Points ∼69% -9%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
105 Points ∼54% -29%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
100 Points ∼52% -32%
AMD FX-8350
97 Points ∼50% -34%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Intel Core i7-6950X
1859 Points ∼100% +63%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
1657 Points ∼89% +45%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
1647 Points ∼89% +44%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
1557 Points ∼84% +36%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
1550 Points ∼83% +36%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
1417.69 (min: 1413.38, max: 1425.16) Points ∼76% +24%
Intel Core i7-5960X
1387 Points ∼75% +21%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
1143 Points ∼61%
Intel Core i7-7700K
984 Points ∼53% -14%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
738 Points ∼40% -35%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
692 (min: 676.26, max: 706.89) Points ∼37% -39%
Intel Core i5-7600K
688 Points ∼37% -40%
AMD FX-8350
636 Points ∼34% -44%

Truecrypt

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%.

Performance Rating
Intel Core i7-6950X
100 pt ∼100%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
82.4 pt ∼82%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
80.8 pt ∼81%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
78.4 pt ∼78%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
77.8 pt ∼78%
Intel Core i7-5960X
68.5 pt ∼69%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
56.5 pt ∼57%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
51.9 pt ∼52%
Intel Core i7-7700K
49.1 pt ∼49%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
35.5 pt ∼36%
Intel Core i5-7600K
32.5 pt ∼33%
TrueCrypt
Serpent Mean 100MB
Intel Core i7-6950X
1.4 GB/s ∼100% +114%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
0.945 GB/s ∼68% +44%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
0.917 GB/s ∼66% +40%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
0.898 GB/s ∼64% +37%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
0.862 GB/s ∼62% +32%
Intel Core i7-5960X
0.712 GB/s ∼51% +9%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
0.655 GB/s ∼47%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
0.649 GB/s ∼46% -1%
Intel Core i7-7700K
0.554 GB/s ∼40% -15%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
0.41 GB/s ∼29% -37%
Intel Core i5-7600K
0.367 GB/s ∼26% -44%
Twofish Mean 100MB
Intel Core i7-6950X
1.7 GB/s ∼100% +70%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
1.6 GB/s ∼94% +60%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
1.5 GB/s ∼88% +50%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
1.4 GB/s ∼82% +40%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
1.4 GB/s ∼82% +40%
Intel Core i7-5960X
1.3 GB/s ∼76% +30%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
1 GB/s ∼59%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
1 GB/s ∼59% 0%
Intel Core i7-7700K
0.939 GB/s ∼55% -6%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
0.647 GB/s ∼38% -35%
Intel Core i5-7600K
0.611 GB/s ∼36% -39%
AES Mean 100MB
Intel Core i7-6950X
10.5 GB/s ∼100% +57%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
9.6 GB/s ∼91% +43%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
9.4 GB/s ∼90% +40%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
9.3 GB/s ∼89% +39%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
8.7 GB/s ∼83% +30%
Intel Core i7-5960X
8.2 GB/s ∼78% +22%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
6.7 GB/s ∼64%
Intel Core i7-7700K
5.5 GB/s ∼52% -18%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
5.3 GB/s ∼50% -21%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
4.1 GB/s ∼39% -39%
Intel Core i5-7600K
3.7 GB/s ∼35% -45%

wPrime

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.

wPrime 2.0x
1024m
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
393.116 s * ∼100% -164%
Intel Core i5-7600K
259.5 s * ∼66% -74%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
237.3 s * ∼60% -59%
Intel Core i7-7700K
169.8 s * ∼43% -14%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
149 s * ∼38%
Intel Core i7-5960X
116.8 s * ∼30% +22%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
109 s * ∼28% +27%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
103 s * ∼26% +31%
Intel Core i7-6950X
94 s * ∼24% +37%
32m
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
12.308 s * ∼100% -137%
Intel Core i5-7600K
8.3 s * ∼67% -60%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
7.8 s * ∼63% -50%
Intel Core i7-7700K
5.5 s * ∼45% -6%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
5.2 s * ∼42%
Intel Core i7-5960X
4.25 s * ∼35% +18%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
4 s * ∼32% +23%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
3.8 s * ∼31% +27%
Intel Core i7-6950X
3.5 s * ∼28% +33%

* ... smaller is better

Other synthetic benchmarks

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).

Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Intel Core i7-6950X
26761 Points ∼100% +49%
Intel Core i7-5960X
22382 Points ∼84% +25%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
22009 Points ∼82% +23%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
21194 Points ∼79% +18%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
21038 Points ∼79% +17%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
19784 Points ∼74% +10%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
17937 Points ∼67%
Intel Core i7-7700K
17800 Points ∼67% -1%
Intel Core i5-7600K
15030 Points ∼56% -16%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
14026 Points ∼52% -22%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
12785 Points ∼48% -29%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Intel Core i7-7700K
5480 Points ∼100% +33%
Intel Core i5-7600K
5225 Points ∼95% +27%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
4499 Points ∼82% +9%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
4333 Points ∼79% +5%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
4321 Points ∼79% +5%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
4179 Points ∼76% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
4130 Points ∼75%
Intel Core i7-6950X
4049 Points ∼74% -2%
Intel Core i7-5960X
3980 Points ∼73% -4%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
3885 Points ∼71% -6%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
2961 Points ∼54% -28%
WinRAR - Result
Intel Core i7-6950X
8450 KB/s ∼100% +129%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
7269 KB/s ∼86% +97%
Intel Core i7-5960X
7049 KB/s ∼83% +91%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
6323 KB/s ∼75% +71%
Intel Core i7-7700K
5823 KB/s ∼69% +58%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
4120 KB/s ∼49% +12%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
3999 KB/s ∼47% +8%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
3687 KB/s ∼44%
Intel Core i5-7600K
3570 KB/s ∼42% -3%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
3147 KB/s ∼37% -15%
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0
Pass 2
Intel Core i7-6950X
101 fps ∼100% +47%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
95 fps ∼94% +38%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
90.6 fps ∼90% +32%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
85.16 fps ∼84% +24%
Intel Core i7-5960X
82.3 fps ∼81% +20%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
79.1 fps ∼78% +15%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
68.7 fps ∼68%
Intel Core i7-7700K
61.6 fps ∼61% -10%
Intel Core i5-7600K
46.2 fps ∼46% -33%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
43.4 fps ∼43% -37%
Pass 1
Intel Core i7-7700K
230 fps ∼100% +30%
Intel Core i5-7600K
223 fps ∼97% +26%
Intel Core i7-6950X
196 fps ∼85% +11%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
195 fps ∼85% +10%
Intel Core i7-5960X
191 fps ∼83% +8%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
186 fps ∼81% +5%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
177 fps ∼77%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
164.84 fps ∼72% -7%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
154 fps ∼67% -13%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
136.6 fps ∼59% -23%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5234 Points ∼100% +18%
Intel Core i7-7700K
5167 Points ∼99% +17%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
4529 Points ∼87% +2%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
4511 Points ∼86% +2%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
4487 Points ∼86% +1%
Intel Core i7-6950X
4451 Points ∼85% 0%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
4431 Points ∼85%
Intel Core i7-5960X
4413 Points ∼84% 0%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
4402 Points ∼84% -1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
4401 Points ∼84% -1%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Intel Core i7-7700K
5042 Points ∼100% +14%
Intel Core i5-7600K
4749 Points ∼94% +7%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
4746 Points ∼94% +7%
Intel Core i7-4790K
4624 Points ∼92% +4%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
4613 Points ∼91% +4%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
4485 Points ∼89% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
4437 Points ∼88%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
4346 Points ∼86% -2%
Intel Core i7-6950X
4323 Points ∼86% -3%
Intel Core i7-5960X
4122 Points ∼82% -7%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
4069 Points ∼81% -8%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
3816 Points ∼76% -14%
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy CPU
Intel Core i7-6950X
9697 Points ∼100% +75%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
8470 Points ∼87% +53%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
8252 Points ∼85% +49%
Intel Core i7-5960X
7884 Points ∼81% +42%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
7806 Points ∼80% +41%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
7806 Points ∼80% +41%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
7415 Points ∼76% +34%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
5542 Points ∼57%
Intel Core i7-7700K
5490 Points ∼57% -1%
Intel Core i7-4790K
4970 Points ∼51% -10%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
4189 Points ∼43% -24%
Intel Core i5-7600K
4152 Points ∼43% -25%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
3700 Points ∼38% -33%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Physics
Intel Core i7-6950X
21692 Points ∼100% +37%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
18915 Points ∼87% +20%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
18407 Points ∼85% +16%
Intel Core i7-5960X
16942 Points ∼78% +7%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
16830 Points ∼78% +6%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
16522 Points ∼76% +4%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
16369 Points ∼75% +3%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
15818 Points ∼73%
Intel Core i7-7700K
14325 Points ∼66% -9%
Intel Core i7-4790K
12492 Points ∼58% -21%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
10848 Points ∼50% -31%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
10455 Points ∼48% -34%
Intel Core i5-7600K
9292 Points ∼43% -41%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance Physics
Intel Core i7-6950X
16403 Points ∼100% +47%
Intel Core i7-5960X
15217 Points ∼93% +36%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
14150 Points ∼86% +27%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
13219 Points ∼81% +18%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
13124 Points ∼80% +18%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
13047 Points ∼80% +17%
Intel Core i7-7700K
12026 Points ∼73% +8%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
11164 Points ∼68%
Intel Core i7-4790K
11053 Points ∼67% -1%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
9462 Points ∼58% -15%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
8177 Points ∼50% -27%
3DMark 06 - CPU - ---
Intel Core i7-6950X
10658 Points ∼100% +30%
Intel Core i7-7700K
10156 Points ∼95% +24%
Intel Core i7-5960X
9924 Points ∼93% +21%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
8940 Points ∼84% +9%
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
8843 Points ∼83% +8%
Intel Core i5-7600K
8532 Points ∼80% +4%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
8222 Points ∼77%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
8174 Points ∼77% -1%
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7761 Points ∼73% -6%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
6599 Points ∼62% -20%

Interim Verdict

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.

Gaming Benchmarks

Test System

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.

Frame rates

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.

For Honor
3840x2160 High Preset AA:T AF:8x
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
79 (min: 47, max: 115) fps ∼100% +2%
Intel Core i7-7700K
79 (min: 46, max: 117) fps ∼100% +2%
Intel Core i7-6950X
78 (min: 50, max: 93) fps ∼99% +1%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
78 (min: 63, max: 91) fps ∼99% +1%
Intel Core i5-7600K
77.9 (min: 23, max: 105) fps ∼99% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
77.6 (min: 63, max: 91) fps ∼98% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
77.1 (min: 62, max: 89) fps ∼98%
Intel Core i7-4790K
77 (min: 58, max: 131) fps ∼97% 0%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
77 (min: 62, max: 91) fps ∼97% 0%
Intel Core i7-5960X
76 (min: 30, max: 107) fps ∼96% -1%
1280x720 Low Preset
Intel Core i7-7700K
333 (min: 184, max: 467) fps ∼100% +33%
Intel Core i7-4790K
318 (min: 198, max: 467) fps ∼95% +27%
Intel Core i5-7600K
263 (min: 17, max: 383) fps ∼79% +5%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
250 (min: 187, max: 317) fps ∼75%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
248 (min: 86, max: 333) fps ∼74% -1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
233 (min: 145, max: 317) fps ∼70% -7%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
230 (min: 187, max: 300) fps ∼69% -8%
Intel Core i7-5960X
224 (min: 168, max: 283) fps ∼67% -10%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
208 (min: 159, max: 273) fps ∼62% -17%
Intel Core i7-6950X
161 (min: 125, max: 187) fps ∼48% -36%
Farming Simulator 17 - 3840x2160 High Preset AA:2xMS AF:2x
Intel Core i7-6950X
211 (min: 195, max: 258) fps ∼100% +12%
Intel Core i5-7600K
205 (min: 191, max: 241) fps ∼97% +9%
Intel Core i7-4790K
204 (min: 190, max: 250) fps ∼97% +9%
Intel Core i7-7700K
204 (min: 188, max: 248) fps ∼97% +9%
Intel Core i7-5960X
191 (min: 175, max: 228) fps ∼91% +2%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
191 (min: 180, max: 203) fps ∼91% +2%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
188 (min: 177, max: 194) fps ∼89%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
181 (min: 172, max: 189) fps ∼86% -4%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
179 (min: 167, max: 198) fps ∼85% -5%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
170 (min: 164, max: 177) fps ∼81% -10%
The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Intel Core i7-7700K
100 (min: 86, max: 113) fps ∼100% +5%
Intel Core i7-6950X
99 (min: 85, max: 114) fps ∼99% +4%
Intel Core i7-4790K
98 (min: 83, max: 112) fps ∼98% +3%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
98 fps ∼98% +3%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
97 (min: 83, max: 110) fps ∼97% +2%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
96.3 (min: 83, max: 110) fps ∼96% +1%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
95 (min: 80, max: 108) fps ∼95%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
89.5 (min: 77, max: 105) fps ∼90% -6%
1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing
Intel Core i7-4790K
322 (min: 297, max: 348) fps ∼100% +27%
Intel Core i7-6950X
317 (min: 279, max: 360) fps ∼98% +25%
Intel Core i7-7700K
313 (min: 284, max: 344) fps ∼97% +23%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
297 (min: 267, max: 336) fps ∼92% +17%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
274 (min: 243, max: 310) fps ∼85% +8%
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
269.8 (min: 234, max: 312) fps ∼84% +6%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
254 (min: 237, max: 292) fps ∼79%
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
225 (min: 202, max: 256) fps ∼70% -11%

Frame Times

The small Ryzen 5 1400 clearly differs from all the other CPUs in the frame time diagram – the visible difference directly shows the lower frame rate. This CPU also produces big outliers compared to the other models. This can result in stutters in some scenarios and indicates that the processor is hitting its performance limit. The Ryzen 5 1600 has some "outliers" as well, but their intensity is much less distinct.

The statistical analysis of the frame times supports the results. The number of "outliers" is very similar between the Ryzen R7 1700 and the Ryzen R5 1600, but the number is much higher for the Ryzen 5 1400. Around 0.9% of all frames are delivered with a time deviation of at least 50%, and the average frame times – which are increased anyway – even intensify the situation.

Frame times
Frame times
Model Core i7-4790K Ryzen R7 1700 Ryzen R5 1600 Ryzen R5 1400
Frame times (median, in µs) 3084 3823 3840 6527
Deviating by at least 20% 2.711% 1.129% 1.104% 3.771%
Deviating by at least 50% 0.276% 0.213% 0.176% 0.862%
Deviating by at least 100% 0.049% 0.066% 0.047% 0.284%
Deviating by at least 300% 0.005% 0.053% 0.020% 0.046%

Overclocking

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.

Verdict

Our verdict for the Ryzen 5 1600 is pretty clear: AMD's hexa-core (also) manages to offer high performance at a very competitive price. The performance of the CPU, which currently retails for around 220 Euros (~$248), is sufficient for complex games as well as all other usage scenarios – in short: Even ambitious users just do not need a more powerful CPU right now.

As with the more powerful Ryzen CPUs, however, we have to mention the lower single-core performance compared to (much more expensive) Intel CPUs. This is getting less important though, so we do not think it is a big deal and it does not really affect our positive impression of the 1600, because the CPU can beat even the expensive i7 models from Intel in the majority of practical scenarios.

The Ryzen 5 1400, however, which is currently around 50 Euros (~$56) less expensive, requires more attention from the user: Four cores and eight threads can still be considered "modern", but they are much less future-proof compared to six cores. The combination of the lower clocks and the smaller cache that results in lower performance figures is not reflected in the price difference, so the price-performance ratio is worse compared to the Ryzen 5 1600. The performance of the smallest Ryzen 5 is still sufficient for occasional gaming sessions and office work, and overclocking can make sense as well.

Test Samples

Most of the test samples for this review were provided by AMD (Ryzen CPUs, Asus motherboard, memory kit, Noctua cooler). Intel provided the Core i7-6950X and i7-5960X, while the X99-E Motherboard was a courtesy of Asus. Noctua provided the NH-U12S cooler for AMD AM4 and the X99 motherboard. We also want to thank the company PCO Computer-Handels-GmbH, which provided Core i7-7700K, 7600K, memory kit, and Gigabyte motherboard (available in the online shop).

The company PCO in Wels provided a lot of hardware for the review.
The company PCO in Wels provided a lot of hardware for the review.
Noctua NH-U12S CPU cooler
Noctua NH-U12S CPU cooler
Asus X99-E Motherboard
Asus X99-E Motherboard
Read all 3 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600 Review
Silvio Werner, Klaus Hinum, 2017-06- 5 (Update: 2017-06- 6)
Andreas Osthoff
Andreas Osthoff - Senior Editor Business
I grew up with computers and modern consumer electronics. I am interested in the technology since I had my first computer, a Commodore C64, and started building my own PCs after that. My focus here at Notebookcheck is the business segment including mobile workstations, but I also like to test new mobile devices. It is always a great experience to review and compare new products. My free time is filled with a lot of sports, in the summer mainly on my bike.