I see, I see. That doesn't seem like a very good move from AMD since it basically means that the 1700 can perform as fast as the 1800X if manually overclocked right?

The 1600X and 1500X do look very tempting from a regular consumer point of view. Or would the middle 1600 non-X a better buy? Thanks for sharing the information with us, I'll be looking into your reviews for more insight.

I used to old time HD5770 before for display port two years ago with sold g3258 rig @@
its quiet many gc got display port, should not a big problem XD

Supposed to publish my 1500X / 1600X review on Tuesday but meh, taking my sweet time.

Yes if overclocking is your cuppa tea then non-X model it is.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dbt...dit?usp=sharing
Can check up tis ryzen oc databse which from overclock.net

All just silicon lottery if willing lower vcore to get better oc result.
From what latest review, seems 1500x is the best value ryzen,.

1600x can auto boost till 4ghz, 1600 need manually, for me, X version is good for save up eletric usage if u lazy clock up and down always.

This post has been edited by eDwanD: Apr 14 2017, 04:56 PM

Overclocking isn't really my cup of tea though, but, I do am interested.
Overclocked an atom netbook previously, it was running fine with the benchmark they recommend on trying, but somehow, refuses to ever turn on after several days.

Malaysia doesn't have 1500. In fact I don't know whether there's 1500.

Currently it is as follows

Ryzen 5 1400: 4C/8T, 3.2/3.4 GHz – RM 819
Ryzen 5 1500X: 4C/8T, 3.5/3.7GHz – RM 899
Ryzen 5 1600: 6C/12T, 3.2/3.6GHz – RM 1,039
Ryzen 5 1600X: 6C/12T, 3.6/4.0 GHz – RM 1,199

Given the above arrangement, I do feel that the 1600 has better value than the 1500X. Clock speeds aren't too much apart but you get additional cores.

Yeah, the difference of RM 900 and RM 1040 isn't that much to be missing out on the 2 additional cores, and if overclocked, can reach the 1600X's speed while saving RM 160. But, I do expect AMD to price the new Ryzen CPUs cheaper though, but hey, it's not too shabby still.

This post has been edited by Mubarak90: Apr 14 2017, 04:57 PM

My fault @@ should 1500x (only for gamer )

This post has been edited by eDwanD: Apr 14 2017, 04:58 PM

omg
it is sad to hear that > <
then i think just fork out rm 300 or less than that for normal gc
wait until vega gc out

1600x?

haha ok
i thrust u XD


actually i dont like over clocking
last time try before get a over clocking processor
but did not utilize it
but the x series seem like will auto oc till 4

gc is another 2nd issue

wao the price sheet thinking 1600x or 1500x now .> <
more on workstation , such as hyper v those

Do CPU intensive work? If yes, 1600X.

No? 1500X. Save you a bit, can use for gaming also. Plenty fast, actually still fast for work purpose, almost 7700K.

Only on one core iinm, in games you will never see auto 4Ghz.

haha
then i go for 1600
since i multi task , work stuff more than game


omg = =
so sad
i though it will all core
then i think might not go for x series

That's why overclock is better because it applies to all cores

you mean cpu bottleneck?

hows the performance ryzen5 compare to i7 ?

Check all the review.
But in my observation,

If about gaming performance, R5 1500x is 10% slower than i7 7700k at 30-40% price.
R5 1600 gaming performance also about the same but has more cores than i7 7700k, so it has much better performance in productivity.

weird
so what u means is
x series is for over clock and it apply on all core?

Yeah, some titles the gaming experience is fine but the framerate is not up to expectation.

X or non X also can overclock.

As for the XFR and such, take for example 1800X

Base clock is 3.6Ghz
Boost clock is 4Ghz.

Most time you will see it run at 3.7Ghz, the 4.1Ghz speed is only apply to single core.

It's exactly like Intel Turbo Boost.

ok XD
cause i though x series is give way more better for over clocking XD
cause i know intel is k for oc non k is cant oc