AMD confirmed the official specifications for its upcoming Ryzen 5 CPUs stopping point week, which will become available in exactly tercet weeks. Even so, by announcing those specifications, the company has largely tattle.

We now have a go at it a hardly a things that we'd suspected for a while: Ryzen 5 is the same physical chip as Ryzen 7, so all models have two CCXs, apiece with four physicals cores, though not whol of them are enabled. The six-core models have one core out of action from each CCX, while the quadriceps femoris-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 you disable cores inside the CCX modules Beaver State disable an entire CCX altogether.

I've also been keen to test the eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs using a range of GPUs. To date I've only benchmarked gaming performance using the extreme Titan X Pascal, so I thought IT'd be interesting to test with not just a high-end GPU but too something more realistic wish the GTX 1070 and perhaps even the GTX 1060.

Now armed with the noesis of exactly how Ryzen 5 CPUs will be configured and the ability to mimicker those settings, I pulled a stack of GPUs prohibited of storage and got testing.

Uncalled-for to say, we preceptor't in reality have a Ryzen 5 CPU yet, we're merely disqualifying cores to simulate the specifications and carrying out for that serial publication -- or leastways for the 1500X and 1600X which have a full 16MB L3 cache. How close are we going to get? Pretty close, we think.

Being an accomplishable overclock for the flagship, I definite to shut away the Ryzen 7 1800X at 4GHz, but I've been small to 3.9GHz on some 1700X chips and 3.8GHz on one of my 1700 chips, so 4.0GHz is away no means guaranteed for all Ryzen 7 processors. To support everything equal, I ran every the Ryzen configurations in this writeup at 4GHz.

At that frequency I was able to feign overclocking performance of the Ryzen 5 1600X likewise equally Ryzen 5 1500X, assumptive both testament be able to incline complete cores at 4GHz.

For comparison's saki, I also tested with three Kaby Lake CPUs (the dual-core Core i3-7350K w/ HyperThreading, the quad-essence 7600K and quad-core 7700K w/ HT) since they represent the best gaming performance right nowadays in most titles. They also experience no incommode hitting 4.8GHz, which could be considered a mild overclock.

I won't be focusing on clock-for-clock comparison for this clause considering we bang Kaby Lake's IPC performance is slenderly better -- no need to cash in one's chips over that again.

Complete CPUs including the Ryzen models were paired with DDR4-3000 memory besides as GPUs including the GTX 1080 Ti, GTX 1070 and GTX 1060. We didn't use AMD graphics cards because no of them can copy the 1080 Ti's performance and I'd quite hold out the results consistent by using all Nvidia cards than swap the GTX 1060 for an RX 480 just to chip in AMD's GPUs a showing.

In the lead we hold the results of much 300 benchmark runs from six games using six CPU configurations and three GPUs...

Far Cry Primal

I wanted to include Far Scream Primal as this is a game where Ryzen rattling struggles and I likewise loved to see how quickly we prevail into a GPU constriction with less uttermost GPUs.

Disabling cores within the CCXs doesn't help improve performance here, though we never expected that it would. After this article I'd similar to test with the second CCX disabled to see what benevolent of a difference that makes in games like Far Outcry where Ryzen has a tough time.

With complete cores clocked at 4.0GHz, the Ryzen CPUs are still no match for even the Core i3 in Furthest Cry out Primaeval, and it's worth noting that we saw strong gains when moving from the 7350K to the 7600K so again to the 7700K.

When examination with the GTX 1070, the Kaby Lake processors appear all bunched ahead every bit this isn't a CPU-modifier title. The Ryzen CPUs aren't too far behind now though they are still lagging behind yet with a lesser GPU.

With the GTX 1060 handling the rendering work, the Ryzen CPUs are beautiful much on equality with Kaby Lake. IT's non that eight-day ago that this kind of execution (which is around the equivalent to the GTX 980) was considered extremely high-death.

Far Cry Primal has been highly-developed in a way that just doesn't work good with the Battery-acid computer architecture and IT's improbable that we'll see a maculatio for better support inclined the game's long time. I've found previously that disabling SMT really helps in Farther Cry Primal, boosting performance by around 15%.

Mafia III

Hyper-Threading can attain a massive difference in that title and knowing how much it loves threads, I made sure to include results from Sicilian Mafi III.

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

Likewise, out of the loge the 1800X is actually slightly quicker than the 7700K in this title, though overclocking would allow Intel's check to gain ground by about 10fps. The FALSE 1600X was also quicker than the 7600K while the 1500X was slightly slower for the norm but slightly faster for the minimum.

We see yet once again that when dropping falling 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 amended tokenish frame rates and these slower GPUs can't hit quite the same highs, ultimately dragging the moderate down.

When paired with the GTX 1070, the 1800X and simulated 1600X are both faster than the 7700K clocked at 4.8GHz while the 1500X is roughly on equality with the 7600K -- quite impressive result given that IT's clocked 17% lower.

Now with the GTX 1060 installed, all the CPU configurations supply pretty much the literal same performance, which is of course of instruction limited aside the GPU here.