AMD Ryzen 5 1500X Overclocked Benchmark Results At 4.2GHz

Jump To:

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X – Overclocking to 4.2GHz

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X is the newest 4-core, 8-thread processor to come out and at $189.00 it might make for a compelling budget system build that won’t break the bank. This AMD Ryzen 5 CPU is a 65W TDP part that has a base clock speed of 3.5GHz and can run all the way up to 3.9GHz thanks to AMD’s eXtended Frequency Range (XFR) technology. This processor is priced nearly $160 less than the Intel Core i7-7700K ($345.51 shipped), so the AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs might be the budget processor to get right now.

For example you can purchase the Ryzen 5 1500X CPU along with a motherboard like the Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3 ($124.95 shipped) and get out the door for under $314. That is over $30 less expensive than buying just the Intel Core i7-7700K processor and will be a big upgrade for any AMD user that happens to still be using an FX era processor. Sure, the AMD B350 motherboards won’t have as many PCIe lanes, SATA ports or USB 3 options and do not support multi-GPU setups compared to AMD X370 boards, but they are still overclocking friendly and are inexpensive. Building a high-end quad-core gaming system for a solid 1080P gaming experience has never been as affordable today!

AMD Ryzen 5

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Stock Specs

  • 65W TDP
  • 2+2 CCX config
  • 16MB L3 cache
  • 512K L2 cache per core
  • 3.5GHz Base
  • 3.6GHz All-Core Boost
  • 3.7GHz 2-Core Boost
  • 3.9GHz XFR

We already showed you the performance of a stock AMD Ryzen 5 1500X processor, but what about overclocked up to the max?

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X CPU Overclock

We were able to push the limits of our AMD Ryzen 5 1500X processor and was able to increase the all-core clock speed from 3.6GHz all the way up to 4.2GHz! To do this we needed to increase the CPU voltage up to 1.425 on the AMD X370 motherboard that we were using for testing, but our CPU temperatures barely broke the 70C mark since we were using the Corsair Hydro Series H110i Extreme Performance liquid CPU Cooler ($124.00). We were able to get 4GHz stable on all cores with no voltage increase, so overclocking this processor should be easily done.

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X at 4.3GHz

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X at 4.3GHz

It should be noted that you might be able to get 4.3GHz stable on the Ryzen 5 1500X as it felt like we were so close to getting it stable! We ended up settling for 4.2GHz as it was rock solid and wouldn’t crash on any of the benchmarks we run in out test suite.

Let’s take a look at the test system and then move onto the benchmarks!

Print
Jump To:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  Next »
  • leexgx

    could you at least color the Intel and AMD CPUs differently (Blue and Red and other color for this CPU review)

    i happy that you have a print button that puts all pages into one page, but your formatting the page (very narrow and low quality images, small text) yourself but makes everything blurry (i don’t print it i use to read all pages) should would like anandtech print button at the moment i have to zoom in 150% to read it on this site

  • Atomizer

    Great review but I think i7-3770K would have been the better choice over i7-2700K for comparison.

  • Timothy Isenhart

    You do know AMD coded the CPU to show 20°C more than what the actual temperature is to ensure consistent fan cooling right?

    • Josh Montano

      You do know that they only did that to the 1800x, right?

      • Timothy Isenhart

        You do know your wrong right. It was done on all of the Ryzen line up.

  • ThreeRing

    This is the least legit review I’ve seen in a while. These benchmarks are CLEARLY single-core cherry picked. That’s why the 1500 4c 8t seems faster than the 1700 8c 16t and why in every case, performance basically scales with clock speed. In addition, not enough attention was put forth to test R5 against i5 instead of i7. Just basically a lazy job. Budget CPUs not intended for workstation class activities shouldn’t be evaluated against workstation-class CPUs that cost twice as much and are marketed for different uses. It would be like evaluating a Snapdragon 835 against an i7 6950x.

  • HERETIC

    Hi Nathan,
    Could have left the “race to sleep”OFF the bottom of the charts,and

    added a couple i5’s-That’s the price point 1500X is aiming at.

  • H23

    I out benchmark you at stock clocks in every test. 1800x, odd

  • Amet Monegro

    Good review, i hope that at the next RYZEN review you uses the lastest BIOS with AGESA updated
    https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/X370-XPOWER-GAMING-TITANIUM.html#down-bios

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Amet – This review was done with UEFI 1.44 installed on the MSI X370 XPower Gaming Titanium. There was no newer build from MSI available internally at the time testing was done (days before this article was published). UEFI 1.44 has AGESA 1.0.0.4a, so 1.44 beta and 1.4 public might be damn near the same thing.

  • Tiberiu Lupescu

    Page 11: 1600x doesn’t come with a cooler in the box.

    • Amet Monegro

      then… 1600 (non-X) is the best bang for the buck lol

  • Dante

    Good review. Here is my criticism and it is not just in this review it is with most of the reviews in general. People reading reviews are trying to evaluate new hardware to buy. And the review often concludes that for 1080p gaming Intel gives the best performance and then cites the i7 7700. This is true. But does it matter? If a pure gamer was going to buy a new rig, would he be buying it for 1080p gaming? And if so why would someone buy a leading edge CPU like an i7700 to buy/build a rig to game in trailing edge 1080p??

    So let’s be fair honest here. If someone is buying a new rig to ‘game’ it would be to game at 1440 or (likely) higher. When you get at those resolutions generally there are a few percentage points between competing Ryzen and Intel parts. So why pay $100-300 extra dollars for a more expeinsive intel motherboard/cpu combination when that money should really be spent on better graphics card/monitor.

    I think the conclusion here is that anyone buying a new rig, would be foolish to spend the several hundred dollar premium on Intel hardware. I think in almost all circumstances when it comes to buying a new rig AMD wins. With regard to gaming at 1440 and above there is almost no difference between the platforms. Then when you consider the that AMD handily beats Intel in most non-gaming benchmarks it would be mostly foolish to buy a new Intel platform.

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Great points. What would be the best budget gaming monitor monitor today?

      • Coach

        I’ve been trying to locate one. The 2K (2560×1080 or 2560×1440) are the more affordable ones. Personally, I have a 2560×1080 at 75hz. The refresh rates and latency are very important and of course, if I were buying one today, I’d want Free-sync (G-Sync with an Nvidia card). 4k is just too expensive. If you’re saying “BUDGET”, unfortunately, you’re likely still buying a 1080p monitor this spring. I’m thinking sub $200 when I say budget. I’m helping a friend pick out parts and right now, he’s going to stay with his 1920×1080 monitor and possibly upgrade that later.

    • alrightmate

      Depends on the games you’re playing, I think.

      Sure, for all the AAA titles that are decently optimized for more cores/threads you can pick whatever you want at 1080p, but with a lot of the more popular titles being older competitive games or early-access bug-fests the extra single thread horsepower that an OC’d 7700k provides can’t be overlooked – even at 1080p.

      If I’m building a rig right now for 1080p/144hz I’m still picking a 7700k. The price difference between it and a 1700 is only really in the motherboard(if you opt for a B350 board) and, at least in Australia, you only really save another ~$150 by opting for an R5 1600.

      Then you run into issues with an immature platform; extra work to get RAM running at rated speeds, a need to overclock as the 1600/1700 have pretty low stock clocks, issues getting mounting hardware for coolers etc.

      I can see why a lot of people still recommend grabbing a 7700k over Ryzen, budget allowing of course. The 1600/1600x vs i5 is another story for sure, and I’d take a 1600 every day of the week in that scenario.

      • Dante

        A lot of it depends on what games you play and the current hardware you have. When building a new machine I try to get 4 years out of it. So I personally would not build a new machine with the idea that I’d be using it moving forward for playing old games at 1080p.

        AM4 is going to give a better upgrade path than LGA 1151. Essentially if you buy a Kaby now, your upgrade path is going mostly end there. Intel is likely changing sockets next year. AMD is committed to AM4 for years to come and since it is a SOC most those upgrades now come on the chip and not the board. So anyone who has an AM4 now and wants to upgrade to zen2/3..etc will have a clear upgrade path.

        More cores is the future DX12/Vulcan..etc. Games are being optimized for threading because it is the only way to better performance and reach VR goals. Titles that don’t are going to fall behind.

        You should also consider Microsoft’s recent announcement with Scorpio which will be able to game in 4k resolutions at 60 fps using a Polaris based APU with Jaguar cores. Jaguar cores are weak and they are accomplishing this by using a command processor on GPU and advances in DX12. The weak old jaguar cpu cores are hardly a factor bc they now are able offload more of the game load direct to the integrated GPU. This is where gaming are going and that is why it is better to put the money saved into a better GPU/monitor.

        I think that in all but the most specific scenarios, buying a new rig now for gaming or otherwise, a 1600/X is a significantly better decision than an i7