AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X CPU Review

Add Your Comments

Coming in swiftly behind its big brother we have Ryzen 5. This is AMD‘s offering for the more budget-minded PC user. Today we’ll be looking at the hex-core 1600X and the quad-core 1500X. These CPUs both have the XFR technology we’ve seen from the Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700X allowing for boost speeds over their typical max. Without further adieu, on to the main show.

Specifications and Features

Looking at the specifications table below, the 1600X is a hex-core with SMT for a total of twelve threads and the 1500X is a quad-core with SMT for eight threads. This total core/thread count comes from the use of two CPU Complexes (CCX), more on this arrangement in a second. The base clock comes in at 3.6 GHz and will boost two cores (four threads) to 4.0 GHz for the 1600X and 3.5 GHz boosting to 3.7 GHz on the 1500X. The inclusion of XFR (Xtended Frequency Range) technology allows another 100 MHz (200 MHz for the 1500X) over both the base and boost clocks, when temperature allows. TDP of these two CPUs comes in at 95 W for the 1600X and 65 W for the 1500X. The cooling medium between the die and IHS is solder, instead of thermal paste as Intel has used on their Mainstream CPUs.

The question on everyone’s lips regarding Ryzen 5 has been “how will AMD handle reduced core counts?” and I can tell you they will be balanced between CCX’s. The Ryzen 5 1600X has two CCX’s with three cores enabled on each. The Ryzen 5 1500X has two CCX’s with two cores enabled on each. AMD is keeping it balanced and using their selective core disabling functionality to drop the core count.

Memory on this CPU/platform supports a total of 128 GB with the base specification of DDR4-2400 in a dual channel configuration. It does not support ECC memory.

Regarding PCI Express (PCIe) support, Ryzen offers a total of 24 lanes out of the CPU allowing good flexibility for multiple cards, PCIe-based NVMe SSDs, and other PCIe-based devices. Sixteen of the lanes are dedicated to graphics, four are dedicated to the native M.2 PCIe NVMe slot, and the last four connect to the chipset. Different chipsets will provide their own additional PCIe lanes for even more device connectivity.

Windows 10 is the officially supported platform for Ryzen. That said, there will be drivers available for use with Windows 7 and 8.1, but know there is no official support for these older operating systems.

Specifications Ryzen 5 1600X Ryzen 5 1500X
# of Cores 6 4
# of Threads 12 8
Base Clock Speed 3.6 GHz 3.5 GHz
Boost Clock Speed 4.0 GHz 3.7 GHz
Instruction Set 64-bit 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions SSE 4.1/4.2/4a, AVX2, SHA SSE 4.1/4.2/4a, AVX2, SHA
Lithography 14 nm FinFET 14 nm FinFET
Transistor Count 4.8 billion 4.8 billion
TDP 95 W 65 W
Thermal Solution Spec Soldered Soldered
Integrated Graphics N/A N/A
L1 Cache 128 KB I-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB D-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB I-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB D-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
L2 Cache 3 MB (512 KB per core) 2 MB (512 KB per core)
L3 Cache 16 MB (8 MB per CCX) 16 MB (8 MB per CCX)
Memory Specifications
Max Memory Size 128 GB 128 GB
Memory Types DDR4-2400 DDR4-2400
# of Memory Channels 2 2
ECC Memory Support No No
Expansion Options
PCI Express Revision 3.0 3.0
PCI Express Configurations 1×16+1×4+1×4, 2×8+1×4+1×4 1×16+1×4+1×4, 2×8+1×4+1×4
Max # of PCI Express Lanes 24 Lanes 24 Lanes

The table below is a list of the Ryzen lineup. Every CPU on this list is overclockable, assuming you buy a motherboard with a chipset capable of doing so. Only SKUs with an X on the end have the new XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) technology, note. According to AMD, the X SKU processors are binned and manufactured to be better overclockers.

AMD Ryzen CPU Model Cores/
Threads
Base Clock Boost Clock L3 Cache Cooler Included XFR TDP
Ryzen 7 1800X 8/16 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W-SR3+
Ryzen 7 1700X 8/16 3.4 GHz 3.8 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W-SR3+
Ryzen 7 1700 8/16 3.0 GHz 3.7 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire No 65 W
Ryzen 5 1600X 6/12 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W
Ryzen 5 1600 6/12 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire No 65 W
Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire Yes 65 W
Ryzen 5 1500 4/8 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz 16 MB Wraith Stealth No 65 W
CPU Clock Speed Breakdown

To make it absolutely clear what the clock speed is in all loading/temperature scenarios, please see the table below.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X High Temp Speed
(No XFR)
Low Temp Speed
(XFR Active)
All Cores Loaded 3.6 GHz 3.7 GHz
Two Cores (Four Threads) Loaded 4.0 GHz 4.1 GHz
One Core (Two Threads) Loaded 4.0 GHz 4.1 GHz
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X High Temp Speed
(No XFR)
Low Temp Speed
(XFR Active)
All Cores Loaded 3.5 GHz 3.6 GHz
Two Cores (Four Threads) Loaded 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz
One Core (Two Threads) Loaded 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz

Product Tour

Below are some images from AMD of the product packaging for the new Ryzen 5 CPUs. The 1600X has no cooler with it, the 1500X comes with Wraith Spire (pictured later).

Retail Boxes – Front

Retail Boxes – Rear

Taking a look at the Wraith coolers, we see one more than was in the retail box! AMD also supplied a Wraith Max for testing purposes, which I’ll get to in a later article. On the left is the Wraith Spire which was included with the 1500X.

Wraith Spire and Max – Front

Wraith Spire and Max – Rear

Next up are pictures of the two Ryzen 5 samples we have, front and back. I see no discernible differences between the CPUs other than the laser markings on the IHS.

AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs – Front

AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs – Rear

Benchmarks

The data we have gathered will give us a great idea of its performance both at stock (no turbo), and matching clockspeeds to see IPC performance differences between them all. I have included Kaby Lake results with the i7-7700K, the hex core HyperThreaded Haswell-E i7-5820K, and the big-boy Ryzen 7 1800X.

i7-7700K
i7-5820K Ryzen 7 1800X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Z270X-Gaming 8 ASRock X99 OC Formula ASUS Crosshair VI Hero
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX 2×8 GB DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35 Kingston Hyper X 4×4 GB DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 G.SKILL Trident Z 2×8 GB DDR4-3866 18-19-19-39
HDD OCZ Trion 150 480 GB Samsung 950 Pro 512 GB OCZ Trion 150 480 GB
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W EVGA SuperNova G2 750 W EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W
Video Card EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING GIGABYTE GTX 980 Ti Xtreme Gaming EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING
Cooling CoolerMaster Glacer 240L Custom Loop with EK LTX CPU Block and 5.120 Radiator Custom Loop with Alphacool XP3 and 3.120 Radiator
OS Windows 10 x64 Windows 10 x64 Windows 10 x64

And the test system:

Test Setup
CPU AMD Ryzen 5 1500X/1600X
CPU Cooler Custom Loop with Alphacool XP3 and 3.120 Radiator
Motherboard ASUS Crosshair VI Hero
RAM G.SKILL Trident Z 2×8 GB DDR4-3866 18-19-19-39
Graphics Card EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING
Hard Drive OCZ Trion 150 480 GB
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W
Operating System Windows 10 x64
Benchmarks See Below
Equipment
Digital Multimeter

Up first is the MSI B350 Tomahawk motherboard sent by AMD in their care package, seems to be quite a nice budget motherboard for Ryzen. This board boasts a six-phase VRM, isolated audio section, and plenty of connectivity features. There are display outputs on the Tomahawk, allowing a Ryzen-based APU to be used later down the road. Pair this with something from the Ryzen 5 lineup, a decent GPU, and you’ll have a fantastic gaming build without breaking the bank.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Geil “Hardcore Gaming Memory” sent by AMD is from their RGB lineup. Beware tower air coolers though, these sticks are incredibly tall. These require external power for the RGB LEDs, keeping them from drawing extra power over the DIMM slot.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Benchmarks Used

All benchmarks were run with the motherboard being set to optimized defaults (outside of some memory settings which had to be configured manually). When “stock” is mentioned along with the clockspeed, it does not reflect the boost clocks, only the base clocks. I tested this way as it seems motherboards are different in how they work out of the box. This takes out any differences in how AMD/Intel utilize their turbo features and how the motherboards handle turbo, so this is more of a “run what you brung” type of testing for stock speeds. Memory speeds were set at DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 for all testing, regardless of the kit specifications. The only exception to this is the AMD system running at DDR4-2933 16-15-15-35, this is due to how the memory dividers and timings are handled.

After the testing, we then shifted to comparing the AMD and Intel systems all at the same clockspeeds (4 GHz). This testing will flesh out the difference in Instructions Per Clock (IPC) between the samples. This also applies to the gaming tests.

Please note, I re-ran all the 1800X tests for the most consistent results possible. This way all the Ryzen results you see here are on the Crosshair VI with the current BIOS, same cooling, and same Windows 10 updates. Typically I would not have done this, but with a brand new architecture the improvements/tweaks/fixes (both in BIOS and Windows) are rapid-fire.

CPU Tests
  • AIDA64 Engineer CPU, FPU, and Memory Tests
  • Cinebench R11.5 and R15
  • x265 1080p Benchmark (HWBOT)
  • POVRay
  • SuperPi 1M/32M
  • WPrime 32M/1024M
  • 7Zip

All CPU tests were run at their default settings unless otherwise noted.

Gaming Tests

All game tests were run at 1920×1080 and 2560×1440. Please see our testing procedures for details on in-game settings. Due to availability of some of the older CPU’s we will be using a 980Ti for testing the games.

  • 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
  • Crysis 3
  • Dirt: Rally
  • Ashes of the Singularity
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider

AIDA64 Tests

Up first, the AIDA64 CPU tests. These tests are at the AMD/Intel base clock speeds listed. We can see the 1500X and 1600X making a great showing against the 7700K and 5820K here, coming in trading blows through Queen, PhotoWorxx, and Zlib. The Hash score is far and beyond the i7’s due to the utilization of the SHA extensions. AES tests utilize some benefits of the Zen architecture, which is why Intel trails there.

AIDA64 CPU – Stock

AIDA64 CPU – Raw Data
CPU Queen PhotoWorxx Zlib AES Hash
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 46108 18836 328.3 31122 10568
1600X @ 3.6 GHz 65529 20964 501 46784 16312
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 83640 20600 663.8 63986 21749
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 51215 23117 378.5 19141 4817
i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz 59395 30319 434.1 22974 5179

Next we see the FPU tests. In VP8 most of the testing was close to the same due to it only utilizing up to 6 threads, this made the clock speed differences really show up. In Julia and Mandel the Intel CPU’s shine due to some microarchitecture constraints of Zen, much how AMD shone above in AES and Hash. SinJulia is based on the classic x87 instruction set, but we can see how cores scale for this test here.

AIDA64 FPU – Stock

AIDA64 FPU – Raw Data
CPU VP8 Julia Mandel SinJulia
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 6691 17749 9239 5995
1600X @ 3.6 GHz 7273 26624 14269 9252
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 7949 36515 19025 12337
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 7980 35687 19197 5060
i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz 6674 39957 21475 6448

The memory tests pretty much speak for themselves. We can see the benefit of quad-channel on the 5820K, but otherwise it’s a pretty flat set of results. Memory latency is a bit high on Ryzen currently, but BIOS tweaks are working on that. Let’s be honest here, the vast majority of users will never notice the extra 20-30 ns since most usage cases are not memory constrained.

AIDA64 Mem – Stock

AIDA64 Mem – Raw Data
CPU Read Write Copy Latency
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 43487 43080 37839 83.9
1600X @ 3.6 GHz 44057 42882 38167 84.4
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 43833 43109 37892 84.6
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 42147 44416 37689 49.8
i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz 51596 46939 58553 59.9

Real World Tests

In the next set of testing the 1600X really stood out to me. In all tests except x265 it beat out both Intel offerings, only the 7700K won over this test in regards to the 1600X. The 1500X was mostly sitting 15-20% behind the 7700K here, which is huge considering the targeted competition for it is an i5.

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – Stock

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – Raw Data
CPU R11.5 R15 POVRay x265 7Zip
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 8.72 796 1654.53 20.92 21812
1600X @ 3.6 GHz 13.39 1218 2496.02 30.61 31642
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 17.68 1600 3299.77 39.75 39713
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 10.07 918 1960.54 33.25 25772
i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz 11.0 1012 2082.87 22.42 30617

Pi-Based Tests

In SuperPi the clock speeds and Intel’s IPC advantage really showed up due to it being a single threaded test. In wPrime though the 1600X came up and played with both Intel offerings seen today.

SuperPi 1M/32M, wPrime 32M/1024M – Stock

SuperPi and wPrime Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU SuperPi 1M SuperPi 32M wPrime 32M wPrime 1024M
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 11.829 609.316 6.671 191.333
1600X @ 3.6 GHz 11.501 591.600 5.032 125.124
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 11.548 592.350 4.374 100.900
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 8.796 463.495 5.201 153.589
i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz 10.883 541.953 4.763 142.087

Game Results

Just a reminder, all tests from this point forward have all CPU’s running at 4GHz instead of their stock speeds. And as we expected, almost all game results were within a margin of error of each other. The only really notable difference here is in Ashes DX12, which has been optimized for Ryzen now and can also utilize a lot of cores.

1080p Gaming Results – Head to Head

1440p Gaming Results – Head to Head

Most of the scoring differences here in 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme came from the scaling of cores in the Physics test. Recall from my review of the 1800X how SMT is more efficient than HT, we see this benefit here where the 1500X has a higher Physics score than the 7700K. Note also the 1600X had a higher Physics score than the 5820K!

3DMark Fire Strike Extreme – Head to Head

Head to Head Results

In our head to head results, we ran all of the systems at 4 GHz. This shows the differences in IPC and cores directly. Overall, we see good scaling when upping the CPU speed. I was really impressed with how the 1600X performed beside the 5820K while clock speeds are equal, nice to see it’s still trading blows.

AIDA64 CPU – 4 GHz

AIDA64 FPU – 4 GHz

AIDA64 Mem – 4 GHz

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – 4 GHz

SuperPi 1M/32M, wPrime 32M/1024M – 4 GHz

Overclocking

Ryzen 5 1600X

Up first for pushing the overclock further is the 1600X. It reached a max speed, on all cores and threads, of 4125 MHz. This was while running DDR4-3200 16-15-15. Below is a screenshot running Cinebench R15 and SuperPi 1M at the elevated speed. There were nice gains over the previous results.

To go further here, I also ran 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme again at these elevated settings. The GPU settings remained the same as gaming testing above. Most of the gain here was in the physics score. It went from 18313 to 18978 here!

Ryzen 5 1500X

Next I turned the screws on the 1500X for a bit. It reached a max speed, on all cores and threads, of 4050 MHz. This was while running DDR4-3200 16-15-15. Below is a screenshot running Cinebench R15 and SuperPi 1M at the elevated speed. Again on this CPU the change in scores was impressive.

To go further here, I also ran 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme again at these elevated settings. The GPU settings remained the same as gaming testing above. Again, most of the gain here was in the physics score. It went from 13338 to 13592 here!

Information from AMD Regarding Overclocking

As a general guideline: a CPU voltage of up to 1.35 V is acceptable for driving everyday overclocks of the AMD Ryzen processor. Core voltages up to 1.45 V are also sustainable, but our models suggest that processor longevity may be affected. Regardless of your voltage, make sure you’re using capable cooling to keep temperatures as low as possible.

While there are never guarantees with overclocking, the majority of users should find that an eight core, sixteen thread, AMD Ryzen processor will achieve 4.2 GHz at a core voltage of 1.45 V. Advanced and accomplished overclockers trying to push record frequencies may find more headroom by disabling cores and/or disabling SMT on motherboards that offer these options in the BIOS.

Overclocking specifics

CPU clockspeed is configured with MULTI*Ref_Clk. AMD Ryzen™ CPUs have 0.25X multipliers.

  1. Ref_clk is 100MHz.
  2. While the ref_clk value is adjustable, system stability may be compromised when deviating from this value.
  3. Users are encouraged to use the unlocked multipliers.

AMD Ryzen™ processors do not use pre-programmed VID tables.

  1. Therefore, there is no fixed Vcore when the CPU runs in its out-of-box condition.
  2. Default Vcore will vary depending on workload and will range from 1.2-1.3625 V.
  3. Overclocking an AMD Ryzen™ processor will snap the voltage to 1.3625 V, but this value can be changed.

Voltages to look for:

  1. CPU Vcore: Look for CPU VID value (type in value)
  2. CPU SoC voltage: Look for VDDCR_SOC value (type in value). Default is 0.99 V. Adjusting this to 1.1 V may help stabilize memory overclocks.
  3. Memory voltage: Look for MEM_VDDIO (type in value) and MEM_VTT (set MEM_VTT to ½ of MEM_VDDIO). VDDIO is voltage (“memory voltage”) supplied to the DRAM ICs, and MEM_VTT powers termination logic inside the DRAM ICs. These values are OFFSETS and will read as zero. Boost Memory VDDIO to stabilize memory overclocking. (e.g. MEM_VDDIO set to +0.025 will bring 1.5 V DRAM to 1.525 V.)

AMD Ryzen Master v1.0.1

AMD recently released v1.0.1 of Ryzen Master, here are the major changes to the software:

  1. Ryzen Master now reports junction temperature, rather than tCTL. See the “temperature reporting” section of this blog for more context on tCTL.
  2. The installer no longer enables or requires HPET when Ryzen Master is installed with a system running an AGESA 1.0.0.4-based BIOS. See the “let’s talk BIOS updates” section of this blog for more context on AGESA 1.0.0.4.

Power Consumption and Temperatures

Here we see a comparison of the power consumption of the overall system for the 1500X, 1600X, and 1800X all running both their base speed and locked at 4 GHz. This was all done with the same GPU settings, motherboard, BIOS, cooling, and number of fans so any differences here are purely due to core count and clock speeds.

Power Graph

As above with the power graph, this spread of temperatures represents the 1500X, 1600X, and 1800X all running both their base speed and locked at 4 GHz. This was all done with the same GPU settings, motherboard, BIOS, cooling, and number of fans so any differences here are purely due to core count and clock speeds.

Note: These temperatures were taken with Ryzen Master prior to the release of v1.0.1.

Temperature Graph

Conclusion

Well, the performance is pleasantly surprising. The 1500X, in most cases, performed on par with the i7-7700K. Even though you can overclock the i7 further, the MSRP of the Ryzen 5 1500X is only $189. That’s a monstrous difference in price/performance. Enough to take a gaming build from a GTX 1060 to GTX 1070, etc. You’d notice the GPU much more than a slight drop in CPU performance. Then the Ryzen 5 1600X is performing well above the i7-7700K and even outperforming the i7-5820K in anything multi-threaded while holding equal in gaming performance. Again, MSRP plays a huge role here with the 1600X coming in at $249, the price of an i5-7600K currently.

Temperature is easily controlled, especially on the 1500X, and system power consumption is surprisingly low. Once we see even more BIOS and OS support coming out for Ryzen performance, stability, and compatibility will continue to get better.

Ryzen 7 performed incredibly, but Ryzen 5 is the people’s processor. Six core i7 performance for an i5 price.

Click here to find out what this means.

Click here to find out what this means.

-Austin (ATMINSIDE)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discussion
  1. Alaric
    Very well written. I like the breakdown of instruction set advantages in the test results. The nuts and bolts part didn't lose me, which is saying something! :thup:


    Thanks! Glad it was a easy read still!

    ssjwizard
    The lack of the cooler with the 1600X is slightly disappointing. Im looking at one for my office build and wont be overclocking it, so I want the X edition for XFR. Still looks like the 1600X is definitely not a disappointment from a performance standpoint and I doubt I will notice the difference between it and the 1800X.


    There are plenty of good, cheap coolers out there that will handle the 1600X quite well. I wouldn't want a Spire cooler with it, and I'm not sure if the Max will be widely available.

    ||Console||
    I think will be seeing alot of ppl buying a 1600 over 7600k

    Even more if they clock to 4.1 and can get the ram speed up


    I agree, it'll steal a ton of the budget market. I could even see the 1600X taking 7700K and maybe 6800K sales.

    tbris84
    So not only did you not compare the R5 to their direct competitors (i5's) throughout the entire review, but you underclocked the i7's and overclocked the R7/R5's for the gaming benchmarks? :confused:


    If you notice, we don't have a i5 review sample on our front page. I'm not paid to do this, so buying another processor for $250 just to compare to in one review and have it lose value while doing so isn't in the cards.

    All our gaming results are standardized at 4GHz, not just in this review. This is an overclock for all CPUs used except the 7700K.
    tbris84
    So not only did you not compare the R5 to their direct competitors (i5's) throughout the entire review, but you underclocked the i7's and overclocked the R7/R5's for the gaming benchmarks? :confused:


    If you read the review clearly for the gaming results all chips were set to 4.0Ghz which give a true level playing field. Yes its widely known that the Intel chips included in the review can all be clocked well past 4.0Ghz but that isnt the purpose of that part of the review.
    So not only did you not compare the R5 to their direct competitors (i5's) throughout the entire review, but you underclocked the i7's and overclocked the R7/R5's for the gaming benchmarks? :confused:
    The lack of the cooler with the 1600X is slightly disappointing. Im looking at one for my office build and wont be overclocking it, so I want the X edition for XFR. Still looks like the 1600X is definitely not a disappointment from a performance standpoint and I doubt I will notice the difference between it and the 1800X.
    Very well written. I like the breakdown of instruction set advantages in the test results. The nuts and bolts part didn't lose me, which is saying something! :thup:
    trents
    Okay, I was looking at a NewEgg promotion for the 1600X and it said it didn't come with the fan or cooler. So it comes with the others.


    Correct. 1600 X does not come with a heat sink. However most overclocking enthusiasts would probably replace it with something bigger or liquid cooling.
    IIRC AMD said in the Max was only for OEMs and not for sale for normal folks. I think I recall reading that when they introduced the new wraith coolers. I remember some not being happy on Reddit about it.
    Blaylock
    Excellent review as all ways Mr. INSIDE. The 1600x for dismalDIRGE's build is ready for pickup from MC along with an ASUS Prime X370 Pro. :D


    Sounds like a nice finish to that build!

    ShrimpBrime
    Nicely done. One of the best write ups for AMD RyZen around!


    Means a lot, thanks Shrimp!

    trents
    Yes, very well done review. Makes it easy to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

    As of now, the Wraith Spire is included only with the R7 1700. Strikes me as odd they only bundle it with that one CPU. Is the Max available yet?


    Haven't heard anything about availability of the Max.
    Okay, I was looking at a NewEgg promotion for the 1600X and it said it didn't come with the fan or cooler. So it comes with the others.
    Yes, very well done review. Makes it easy to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

    As of now, the Wraith Spire is included only with the R7 1700. Strikes me as odd they only bundle it with that one CPU. Is the Max available yet?