Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor on box for our official risin 5 1400 review now I won't be going over everything arise on 5 for this video this is more of an extension of the original risin 5 review which looked at the 1600 X and 1500 X models I'll include a link in the video description to that video of course missing from our day 1 review was the 1400 the most affordable CPU in the horizon 5 series we also missed the cheaper six-course 6100 model but at this point I think we've pretty well established that you guys should purchase the 1600 over the 1600 X it's pretty much the ultimate and through the CPU right now in terms of value still if you can't afford to cough up $220 u.s. or $300 Aussie for the 6 chord champion what's the next best thing well given what we found in Monday's video which compared the 1500 X and 1400 o'clock 4 o'clock at 4 gigahertz it could very well be the risin 5 1400 at the more wallet-friendly 170 dollars u.s. or 220 dollars Aussie the 1500 X isn't much cheaper than the 1600 and frankly with such a small difference in price you might as well up for the 6 core also when compared to its fellow quad core the chief of 1,400 that extra level 3 cache made little difference for gaming this is particularly true for the likely scenario which would see budget shoppers pairing the 1400 with a mid-range graphics card rather than something hideously expensive like the GTX 10 atti as I said previously at these price points saving every dollar really helps and while having a full 16 megabyte level 3 cache would be nice if it's not going to net your set up any extra performance what's the point so I concluded that comparison by saying if you're on a tight budget I'd recommend picking up the 1400 rather than stretching your budget to accommodate the 1600 this is especially true for gamers if you're going to come up with that extra $50 u.s. I feel you're much better off investing that money back into your GPU instead after all that's the difference between a gtx 1050 and rx 570 for example what I'm yet to compare the 1400 to is the competition from Intel for the same money the core i5 7400 or Core i3 73 50k can be had already what we found when comparing this to end LCP uses the quad core Core i5 model is much more cost effective and for the most part ends up being as fast or faster once your overclock the 73 50k to something like 4.8 gigahertz so essentially this is a comparison between the horizon 5 1400 and the core i5 7400 then a battle of the sub $200 u.s. quad cores the core i5 7400 was tested on an Intel b250 motherboard using ddr4 2400 memory while the Rison 5 1400 was paired with a be 350 board using ddr4 29:33 memory both setups do cost roughly the same amount but the horizon CPU has the advantage of overclocking support and even with the little 65 watt ref stealth can push all course around 3.7 possibly even 3.8 gigahertz as we saw last week investing $20 and something like the cooler master 212 will greatly reduce temperatures and allow for a full gigahertz overclock assuming you get lucky enough with that silicon lottery anyway I've held you up long enough let's get to the good stuff first let's check out memory bandwidth performance here we see the Rison five processes are good for 35 gigabytes per second using ddr4 2000 33 memory this is around 3 gigabytes per second more than the kb lake core i3 73 50 k which was tested using DDR 3200 memory then we have the 7400 and G 45 60 which were limited to just 24 gigabytes per second with ddr4 2400 memory looking at raw CPU performance with Cinebench r15 we see the 1400 is 26% faster than the i5 7400 for multi-threaded workloads though the single thread performance was almost 10% down when compared to the overclocked core i3 73 50k it was interesting to see the stock 1,400 was 31% slower for this single thread performance but was still 34% faster for the multi-threaded workloads not only that but once overclocked to 1400 with 67% faster than the 73 50k in this test overclocking the 1400 improved performance by 25% our excel test taking just 5.17 seconds to complete the workload that meant it was 16% fast and the core i5 70 four hundred and thirty-five percent faster than the overclocked 73 50k out of the box the 1400 lays waste to editing has to offer at the same price point 7-zip test for decompression work the 1400 was over 40 percent faster than the i5 7400 and I 373 50k the compression margins were closer but the 1400 was still at least 15% faster than the Intel competitors of course once overclocked so the 1400 blows everything out of the water and it is able to roughly match the overclocked to 1500 X now a little bit of context before we discuss these results the core i7 1600 k100 98 seconds while the 7700 K took two hundred and thirty seconds to complete this very premiere workload so this means overclocked to 1400 was just 24% slow in the 7700 K not bad for half the price of course you can still overclock to 77 okay but even with that in mind an impressive result for the affordable AMD quad core compared to the overclocked 73 50k it was still 35% faster and there is simply nothing in this price bracket from Intel that can compete with the risin 5 1400 the power consumption figures are based on entire system load and the stress figures are based on the Premiere Pro CC benchmark just seen here the Rison 5 series actually looks very impressive out of the box the 1400 consumes slightly more power than the core i3 73 50k not bad given it features twice as many cause then overclocked at only push total system consumption 12 percent higher than the overclocked 73 50k and given it was 35% faster in this test that's an amazing result for AMD ok time for the games first that we have battlefield 1 and in total there are four graphs to discuss here let's start with the GT X 1080 TI results arranged by the average frame rate looking the average figures the 1400 does come in second to the 73 50k in Bo's it's out of the box configuration as well as the overclocked configuration it was also a good bit slower than the core i5 7400 at least before we overclocked however let's arrange the graph by the all-important minimum or 0.1% frame time figures now the rise and 5 processors look much more potent the 1400 comes in second only to the 1500 X though clock for clock at 4 gigahertz it's not a great deal slower the only difference here being of course the level 3 cache capacity out of the box the 1400 match the 7400 while it good bit faster than the stock 70 350 K even overclocked 273 50 K couldn't catch up overclocked the 1400 closes in on the 1500 X and we see a very strong 74 FPS minimum with the GT X 1080 Ti great stuff here for the 1400 but how do things look with a more realistic GPU something like the RX 480 let's take a look shall we so here we have the same test but this time the gtx 980ti has been swapped out for the much more affordable RX 4 80 something to note here is that for the faster CPUs tested the frame rate only drops by a little over 30% so the gtx 980ti was clearly being limited by these mid-range CPUs though I'm sure that won't surprise many of you arranging the data by the average frame rate we see a very minor difference between the fastest and slowest CPUs tested just a for fps Delta this arrangement isn't particularly flattering for the Rison 5 processes and while not much slower than the Intel competitors they are dead last at 84 fps on average however if we arrange the data by the minimum frame rate the overclocked 1500 X actually matched the overclocked 73 50k meanwhile the overclocked 1400 easily beats the core i5 7400 and roughly matches the much higher clocked 73 50k so where it counts the most the minimum frame rate the 1400 is very strong that's one CPU intensive title down five more to go testing mafia 3 with the mighty GTX 1082 oh we said the 1400 is able to match the 73 50k when both CPUs left at their stock operating frequencies overclocked the 1400 does fall behind the 73 50k by a slight margin and is roughly on par with the core i5 7400 now now when arranging the data by the minimum results we see that the only real change here is between the core i5 7400 and Rison 5 1400 the 1400 now actually slips behind the Intel processor albeit by one FPS margin now something really odd happens when we test with the RX 480 here the rising cpus are able to pull ahead of the intel parts well ahead when looking at the minimum results though we will get to those in a minute something odd happened with mafia 3 recently either through a game update or a change to the way the Nvidia display driver works in this title I still haven't had time to work out what's actually going on previously using an NVIDIA GPU the Rison seven process has crushed any and all cable eight processes now with this recent change the seventy-seven okay is actually pulled back ahead we just saw the rise in five CPUs struggling to compete with the gtx 1080i whereas now with the RX for ad they look quite dominant if we arrange this graph by the minimum result the rise and 5 processors take out the top four spots even stock the 1400 beat out the core i5 7400 albeit by a single frame while it comfortably sits ahead of the 73 50k once overclocked the 1400 match the overclocked 1500 ex with a minimum result of 40 fps and this minute was almost 30% fast and the core i5 7400 the fastest Intel CPU tested in this game ashes of the singularity escalation is a super CPU intensive game and it's the only DX 12 title I know of right now that can be tested using an NVIDIA GPU without completely crippling Verizon that said it's still by far the best example we have of a well-put-together DirectX 12 title anyway with the gtx 1080i we find some mighty impressive results with the 1400 before any overclocking takes place the 1400 had no trouble locking off the core i5 7400 and even the overclocked core i3 73 50k it was 6% so on the 1500 x1 matched at full gigahertz so that's the impact the larger level 3 cache has in this title now with the RX for an e we find similar margins though with the GPU bottleneck creeping into the results we are seeing the performance shape to around 70 FPS this has resulted in a few things firstly the cache difference between the 1400 and 1500 X has been neutralized and now they can be seen delivering the same performance it has also allowed the overclocked 73 50k to catch up and edge out the stock 1400 by a slim margin that said once overclocked the 1400 did pull ahead and was able to max out the RX 480 overall we saw a strong showing frame DS rise and 5 processes in ashes hitman is another CPU intensive game and here we see when comparing the average frame rate with the gtx 1080i that the 1400 looks very competitive out of the box it just beat the core i5 7400 and once overclocked it pulled well ahead to roughly match the overclocked core i3 73 50k arranging the graph by the minimum results favors the much clock 73 50k though again we see the overclock 1400 is able to beat the core i5 7400 with relative ease testing with the RX 480 again hands an advantage to the risin 5 CPUs and now the overclocked 1400 is able to slightly edge out the overclocked 73 50k for every performance metric Deus Ex mankind divided was tested using the high quality preset and like all other games the 1080p resolution was used interestingly the 1500 X seems to max out the gtx 1080i as overclocking this EP provided no extra performance that's not because we know using the same settings and hardware the 1800 X can reach 115 fps on average so I'm not a hundred percent sure that's limiting the 1500 X here anyway out of the box the 1400 is able to match the average framerate of the 73 50k and that made it slightly solid in the core i5 7400 that's it once overclocked the 1400 blows the Intel processors out of the water if we arrange the graph by the minimum frame rate this really only changes the standings of our stock 1400 configuration allowing it to leapfrog the Intel CPUs now with the our X 480 we see that almost all the CPUs are able to max out this mid-range GPU in fact the g40 560 is really the only exception that said once again arranging the graph by the minimum frame rate is a little more telling here the 1400 pulls ahead of the overclocked 70 350 K before any overclocking for the horizon 5 processor even takes place so an easy win for AMD then total war Warhammer is where we're going to end the benchmark session first up we again have the gtx 1080i results and here the 1400 is able to best the 73 50 K in fact Intel CPU is only able to come back once overclocked the 1400 also requires some overclocking tinkering to overtake the core i5 7400 using the our X 480 we see similar standings though the margins are greatly reduced thanks to the good old GPU bottleneck it's really only my much-loved Pentium G 45 60 that falls away a bit in this test when looking at the minimums well there you have it there really isn't any need to break down or analyze the data or any closer I think what we've seen was pretty conclusive for productivity workloads that utilize multiple cores the Rison v 1400 easily beats the core i5 7400 and that's before accounting for overclocking performance what's more if we look at the power consumption an application such as Premiere Pro which we did the 1400 is actually more fuel efficient than the core i5 7400 given its superior performance so that's a bit of an unexpected result and also a very exciting result for AMD then when it came to gaming the 1400 still remained in charge especially once overclocked CPU limited scenarios like what we're seeing when testing with ashes of the singularity is in the gtx 980ti the 1400 was vastly superior even at the stock clock speeds meanwhile overclock did enjoyed commanding leads in games such as battlefield 1 deus ex mankind divided and hitman for example even with a realistic mid-range GPU such as the RX 4 80 the 1400 was able to flex its muscles and demonstrate a clear performance advantage over the core i5 processor particularly if you focus on the minimum results in my opinion the Rison 5 1400 ensures a smoother experience for gamers and this will become even more apparent in the future as games become more demanding on the CPU as a locked part the core i5 7400 can't mask its lack of resources with high clock speeds so we'll start to fall further behind the 1400 and a more rapid rate than say the 7600 k.will in any case putting speculations regarding future performance aside right now there are Aizen 5 1400 has already proven to be the smarter and better value choice of these two sub $200 u.s. quad-core processors for those wondering I wasn't able to include temperature data for the Rison v 1400 with the race stealth as I don't actually have that box cooler AMD sent along just the chip itself so I will have to try and get my hands on our race stealth cooler soon finally I realize there are quite a few people who are Pro horizon but even so still don't like the 1400 because it is just a quad core I get that I really do but it still at least 20% cheaper than the 1600 and foremost the difference simply won't be realized especially if the game is using a sub $300 US graphics card my prediction is by the time the 1400 starts to feel inadequate there will be a better selection of upgrade choices available it's much the same with the whole Rison 5 memory situation I don't see the value in spending 50 or so dollars more high-frequency memory if it's not going to result in and a performance under realistic gaming conditions which are almost always GPU limited again in my opinion you're better off saving your money or upgrading an opponent that will provide noticeable performance gains such as the graphics card anyway that's about it for this one in summary I think Amy's Rison v 1400 is a smart choice and it will have you covered for some time to come of course the beauty of the anaphor platform being that upgrading the future will simply be a matter of dropping in a new processor and that's it and well that is really for this video I'm your host Eve see you again soon you