AMD confirmed the official specifications for its upcoming Ryzen 5 CPUs last calendar week, which will become available in exactly three weeks. Withal, past announcing those specifications, the company has largely allow the cat out of the purse.

We now know a few things that we'd suspected for a while: Ryzen 5 is the aforementioned physical bit as Ryzen vii, so all models have two CCXs, each with four physicals cores, though not all of them are enabled. The half-dozen-core models accept 1 core disabled from each CCX, while the quad-core parts disable two cores per CCX.

Since reviewing Ryzen 7, we've been meaning to explore the downcore functionality found in the BIOS of all AM4 motherboards. This setting lets y'all disable cores within the CCX modules or disable an entire CCX birthday.

I've too been great to test the eight-cadre Ryzen 7 CPUs using a range of GPUs. To date I've only benchmarked gaming performance using the extreme Titan X Pascal, so I idea it'd be interesting to test with not just a loftier-end GPU but also something more realistic like the GTX 1070 and possibly even the GTX 1060.

Now armed with the knowledge of exactly how Ryzen 5 CPUs will exist configured and the ability to mimic those settings, I pulled a stack of GPUs out of storage and got testing.

Needless to say, we don't really have a Ryzen v CPU yet, we're merely disabling cores to simulate the specifications and performance for that serial -- or at least for the 1500X and 1600X which accept a full 16MB L3 cache. How close are nosotros going to get? Pretty close, we call up.

Existence an doable overclock for the flagship, I decided to lock the Ryzen seven 1800X at 4GHz, only I've been limited to 3.9GHz on some 1700X fries and 3.8GHz on i of my 1700 chips, so four.0GHz is by no means guaranteed for all Ryzen 7 processors. To continue everything equal, I ran all the Ryzen configurations in this writeup at 4GHz.

At that frequency I was able to simulate overclocking operation of the Ryzen 5 1600X also equally Ryzen 5 1500X, bold both will exist able to run all cores at 4GHz.

For comparison'due south sake, I also tested with three Kaby Lake CPUs (the dual-core Core i3-7350K westward/ HyperThreading, the quad-core 7600K and quad-cadre 7700K w/ HT) since they correspond the best gaming performance correct at present in near titles. They also take no trouble hitting 4.8GHz, which could exist considered a mild overclock.

I won't be focusing on clock-for-clock comparison for this commodity considering we know Kaby Lake's IPC functioning is slightly better -- no demand to go over that again.

All CPUs including the Ryzen models were paired with DDR4-3000 memory equally well as GPUs including the GTX 1080 Ti, GTX 1070 and GTX 1060. We didn't use AMD graphics cards because none of them can replicate the 1080 Ti'southward performance and I'd rather go along the results consistent by using all Nvidia cards than bandy the GTX 1060 for an RX 480 just to give AMD'due south GPUs a showing.

Alee we have the results of more than 300 benchmark runs from 6 games using six CPU configurations and iii GPUs...

Far Cry Cardinal

I wanted to include Far Weep Primal equally this is a game where Ryzen really struggles and I also wanted to meet how quickly nosotros run across a GPU bottleneck with less extreme GPUs.

Disabling cores inside the CCXs doesn't help improve performance here, though we never expected that it would. After this commodity I'd similar to test with the second CCX disabled to run into what kind of a deviation that makes in games like Far Cry where Ryzen has a tough time.

With all cores clocked at 4.0GHz, the Ryzen CPUs are still no lucifer for even the Core i3 in Far Cry Primal, and information technology's worth noting that nosotros saw stiff gains when moving from the 7350K to the 7600K and then over again to the 7700K.

When testing with the GTX 1070, the Kaby Lake processors appear all bunched upwards as this isn't a CPU-intensive title. The Ryzen CPUs aren't too far behind now though they are however lagging behind fifty-fifty with a lesser GPU.

With the GTX 1060 handling the rendering work, the Ryzen CPUs are pretty much on par with Kaby Lake. It'south not that long ago that this kind of performance (which is roughly the equivalent to the GTX 980) was considered extremely high-end.

Far Cry Central has been developed in a way that just doesn't work well with the Zen architecture and it'due south unlikely that we'll run across a patch for better back up given the game'due south age. I've found previously that disabling SMT actually helps in Far Cry Central, boosting performance by effectually 15%.

Mafia III

Hyper-Threading can make a massive difference in this championship and knowing how much it loves threads, I fabricated sure to include results from Mafia III.

Immediately notable, the Cadre i7-7700K was 41% faster than the 7600K when comparing the minimum frame rates, while the simulated Ryzen 5 1500X configuration managed to lucifer the higher-clocked 7600K, which was impressive to encounter.

Likewise, out of the box the 1800X is actually slightly faster than the 7700K in this title, though overclocking would permit Intel'south fleck to pull alee by about 10fps. The simulated 1600X was also faster than the 7600K while the 1500X was slightly slower for the average but slightly faster for the minimum.

We run into nonetheless again that when dropping downwards to the GTX 1070, the Ryzen CPUs seem to perform better than Intel's parts. I assume this is down to the fact that they provide amend minimum frame rates and these slower GPUs tin't hit quite the same highs, ultimately dragging the boilerplate downwards.

When paired with the GTX 1070, the 1800X and fake 1600X are both faster than the 7700K clocked at 4.8GHz while the 1500X is roughly on par with the 7600K -- quite an impressive upshot given that information technology's clocked 17% lower.

Now with the GTX 1060 installed, all the CPU configurations provide pretty much the exact same performance, which is of course limited by the GPU hither.