AMD Ryzen 5 1500X Overclocked Benchmark Results At 4.2GHz

Jump To:

Web JavaScript & HTML5 Benchmarks

Mozilla Kraken 1.1: link

Kraken is a JavaScript performance benchmark created by Mozilla that measures the speed of several different test cases extracted from real-world applications and libraries. Kraken uses a test harness based on the SunSpider benchmark. Results are reported in milliseconds (lower is better).

Google Octane 2.0: link

Octane 2.0 is a benchmark created by Google that measures a JavaScript engine’s performance by running a suite of tests that is supposed to be representative of today’s complex and demanding web applications. Octane‘s goal is to measure the performance of JavaScript code found in large, real-world web applications, running on modern mobile and desktop browsers. The latest Octane 2.0 benchmark includes four new tests to measure new aspects of JavaScript performance, including garbage collection / compiler latency and asm.js-style JavaScript performance.

JetStream 1.1: link

JetStream combines a variety of JavaScript benchmarks, covering a variety of advanced workloads and programming techniques, and reports a single score that balances them using geometric mean. JetStream includes benchmarks from the SunSpider 1.0.2 and Octane 2 JavaScript benchmark suites. It also includes benchmarks from the LLVM compiler open source project, compiled to JavaScript using Emscripten 1.13. It also includes a benchmark based on the Apache Harmony open source project’s HashMap and a port of the CDx benchmark, hand-translated to JavaScript.

WebXPRT 2015: link

WebXPRT 2015 uses scenarios created to mirror the tasks you do every day to compare the performance of almost any Web-enabled device. It contains six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workloads: Photo Enhancement, Organize Album, Stock Option Pricing, Local Notes, Sales Graphs, and Explore DNA Sequencing.

Web JavaScript & HTML5 Benchmarks Results Summary: When it comes to online browsing we saw some great performance increases by overclocking the Ryzen 5 1500X CPU up to 4.2 GHz. WebXPRT shows performance went up 12.8% and we went up 7.3% in JetStream.

Jump To:
  • 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.


    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

    • 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, 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