AMD Ryzen 5 1400

SUP­PLIER www.over­clock­ers.co.uk

Custom PC - - CONTENTS -

An over­clock­able quad-core for £150 sounds like a dream come true, or maybe just a nos­tal­gic look back to 2009 when the Core i5-750 was do­ing the rounds, but the Ryzen 5 1400 is just that. Not only does it of­fer four phys­i­cal cores for £20 less than the dual-core Core i3-7350K, but the CPU sup­ports Si­mul­ta­ne­ous Mul­tiThread­ing too, so it can han­dle eight threads si­mul­ta­ne­ously – the same num­ber as the Core i7-7700K. How­ever, the Ryzen 5 1400 is the first Ryzen CPU on test to dip down to 8MB L3 cache, with even the Ryzen 5 1500X quad-core sport­ing the same 16MB of the Ryzen 7 CPUs.

The Ryzen 5 1400 has very lowly clock speeds too, with a base fre­quency of just 3.2GHz, a Pre­ci­sion Boost clock of 3.4GHz and XFR is limited to adding just 50MHz. Its £149 inc VAT price tag is clearly very at­trac­tive, but the Ryzen 5 1500X costs just £20 more and the 6-core Ryzen 5 1600 costs barely £40 ex­tra, so the Ryzen 5 1400 has a tricky task to per­suade you to hand over your money for it.

Sadly, that lack of grunt in the fre­quency depart­ment didn’t do the Ryzen 5 1400 any favours at stock speed, com­ing last in our im­age edit­ing test, with only the dual-core In­tel Core i3-7350K be­ing slower in the other RealBench tests. It did gain some ground in the ren­der­ing tests, though, where it was sig­nif­i­cantly faster than the Core i3-7350K, and not too far away from the Ryzen 5 1500X. The Core i5-7600K was faster in Ter­ra­gen 4 and in RealBench, but the Ryzen 1400 still man­aged to beat the In­tel chip in Cinebench.

De­spite not be­ing an X-edi­tion CPU, the Ryzen 5 1400 also man­aged to get to the same 4GHz over­clock as the Ryzen 5 1500X, us­ing a vcore of 1.425V, and it had the low­est over­clocked load tem­per­a­ture of any CPU on test too. This over­clock ac­tu­ally saw the 1400 eclipse the Ryzen 5 1600 in the im­age edit­ing test, thanks to a slightly higher fre­quency, and it was again much quicker in Cinebench com­pared to the over­clocked Core i5-7600K.

How­ever, the Ryzen 5 1500X was no­tice­ably quicker in a num­ber of key tests, which is likely down to it hav­ing twice the amount of L3 cache. The Ryzen 5 1400 wasn’t too pretty in games ei­ther, with the Ryzen 5 1500X be­ing quicker at stock speed, and the Ryzen 5 1400 was no­tably slug­gish in

De­spite not be­ing an X-edi­tion CPU, we man­aged to over­clock the 1400 to 4GHz

To­tal War: Warham­mer when over­clocked too, although it still con­vinc­ingly beat the Core i3-7350K in both game tests.

Con­clu­sion

The Ryzen 5 1400 isn’t bad for its price, but it isn’t quite cheap enough to war­rant step­ping down from the Ryzen 5 1500X, while the Ryzen 5 1600 is ab­so­lutely worth the ex­tra cash. It of­fers rea­son­able per­for­mance when it’s over­clocked, but the lowly amount of cache has an im­pact in sev­eral tests, es­pe­cially games, where the Ryzen 5 1500X per­formed much bet­ter. The Ryzen 5 1400 poses a prob­lem for In­tel at the low end, though, with the likes of the mul­ti­plier-locked Core i5-7400 re­tail­ing for £20 more yet sport­ing sig­nif­i­cantly lower fre­quen­cies than the Core i5-7600K, mean­ing they would likely lag be­hind the Ryzen 5 1600.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.