Review AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X Review: Zen 5 brings stellar gaming performance

[jeremyj_83]

I probably should've worded it better. I meant that the cost of an EPYC CPU is lower than a Xeon CPU in the same class. I saw a listing for an EPYC CPU on Newegg once and, out of curiosity, looked at the prices of Xeons. I was shocked that the Xeon cost more than the EPYC despite having WAY fewer cores.

Lemme see if I can still find it (or something similar)... Ok, this should work. I wanted to use a single-socket EPYC as my example (because comparing dual-socket arrangements becomes way too complicated for a simple forum post) and the top one I could find on Newegg was the old Milan-based EPYC 7702P from Q3'2019. I'll compare that with a Xeon Platinum 8458P from Q2'2021. I know that there's almost a two year difference between them but it doesn't really matter:

Intel Xeon 8458P:

44 Cores, 88 Threads
Base Frequency: 2.7GHz
Max Boost Frequency: 3.8GHz
RAM Type: DDR5-4800
Max RAM Supported: 4TB
PCI-Express Generation: 5
Max PCIe Lanes: 80
TDP: 350W
Price: $8000

AMD EPYC 7702P:

64 Cores, 128 Threads
Base Frequency: 2GHz
Max Boost Frequency: 3.35MHz
RAM Type: DDR4-3200
Max RAM: 4TB
PCI-Express Generation: 4
Max PCIe Lanes: 128
TDP: 200W
Price: $4800

Now, I don't know about you but if I'm building a single-socket server, I am NOT going to pay an extra 67% for PCIe5, DDR5, higher clock speeds, 40 fewer threads and 150W more power use. Servers are all about throughput and that's why extra threads >>>>>>>>>>> clock speeds in servers. PCIe5 looks better on paper with a data transfer rate of ~32Gbps but I would rather have 128 PCIe4 lanes rather than 80 PCIe5 lanes because servers are all about data transfer over a network and PCIe4 lanes have a data transfer rate of ~16Gbps.

With the extra cores and PCIe lanes, more users can use the server at the same time without introducing any latency penalties. After all, the fastest Ethernet ports on Newegg's most expensive AMD SP3 and Intel LGA4766 motherboards is "only" 10Gbps so the motherboard's LAN port would be a bottleneck that erases any advantage that PCIe5 could have.

Please note that I am only referring to a data centre server's use-case, not that of a number-crunching supercomputer. I would note however, that Frontier, currently the world's most potent supercomputer, uses these same Milan cores found in the EPYC 7702P so clearly, the EPYC 7702P would be very suitable for a number-cruncher, especially if paired with a Radeon Instinct CDNA GPU.

Lastly, and for many, most importantly, the EPYC 7702P is far more efficient as its 64 cores use 150W less than the Xeon's 44 cores. For many server operators, that is the most important statistic because all server components are high-performance (fast enough) so greater efficiency = greater profitability.

Things get remarkably worse for Intel if we start talking about multi-socket solutions because the advantages relating to core-count, number of PCIe lanes and efficiency advantage that AMD already enjoys literally doubles.

Let's again remember that this EPYC CPU is two years older than the Xeon and still kicks it all over the place despite costing $3200 less.

I don't really know about the percentage of revenue invested because I'm not really into the server side of things. I based what I said on the pricing that I saw at Newegg on the server CPUs that they sell.

That is an Epyc Rome (2nd Gen) not Milan (3rd Gen) and the Intel is Sapphire Rapids (Q1 '23). Sapphire Rapids (SPR) is going to be faster overall than Rome based Epyc. In my experience performance goes Epyc = Ice Lake, Milan = SPR, and Genoa = Emerald Rapids (current gen Intel).

 

[SunMaster]

I probably should've worded it better. I meant that the cost of an EPYC CPU is lower than a Xeon CPU in the same class. I saw a listing for an EPYC CPU on Newegg once and, out of curiosity, looked at the prices of Xeons. I was shocked that the Xeon cost more than the EPYC despite having WAY fewer cores.

I think Intel is so used to be #1 it behaves like it's #1 - no matter what. I believe Intel is about to wake up, and the smell isn't coffee. Not because AMD is kicking their ass performance wise, but due to the 13/14 scandal which will taint their reputation for a decade.

 

[thestryker]

I probably should've worded it better. I meant that the cost of an EPYC CPU is lower than a Xeon CPU in the same class.

It's not though and the prices you see on Newegg and the like aren't indicative of what a business actually pays. Intel has been marking down Xeons since Ice Lake due to the competitive disadvantage they've been at.

Servers are all about throughput and that's why extra threads >>>>>>>>>>> clock speeds in servers. PCIe5 looks better on paper with a data transfer rate of ~32Gbps but I would rather have 128 PCIe4 lanes rather than 80 PCIe5 lanes because servers are all about data transfer over a network and PCIe4 lanes have a data transfer rate of ~16Gbps.

With the extra cores and PCIe lanes, more users can use the server at the same time without introducing any latency penalties. After all, the fastest Ethernet ports on Newegg's most expensive AMD SP3 and Intel LGA4766 motherboards is "only" 10Gbps so the motherboard's LAN port would be a bottleneck that erases any advantage that PCIe5 could have.

Nobody is using motherboard LAN on a server for throughput if they're using high speed networking. PCIe is actually the primary limiting factor for networking at the top end right now. PCIe 4.0 networking maxes out at 2x 100gb which means it can't run the current 400gb NICs. 800gb NICs are one of the big drivers of PCIe 6.0 so one cannot understate the importance of PCIe bandwidth in servers. PCIe 4.0 maxes out at 4x 100gb/2x 200gb/1x400gb for networking which is rapidly becoming a density problem. PCIe 4.0 flat out cannot run the 800gb standard which was approved earlier this year. (was looking at wrong chart these are applicable to PCIe 5.0 not 4.0)

You may also think that the 128 lanes is 128 lanes exposed to the user and it's not because of socket to socket communication usage. AMD maxes out at 160 lanes for 2p at best, but also have 128 lane configurations whereas Intel is always 160. This is why the workstation parts for both companies have more usable lanes than the server counterparts (Intel is 112).

Things get remarkably worse for Intel if we start talking about multi-socket solutions because the advantages relating to core-count, number of PCIe lanes and efficiency advantage that AMD already enjoys literally doubles.

Already explained the PCIe thing (you're still wrong), but Intel also scales to 4p and 8p which AMD doesn't play in which means if absolute compute density is your game Intel wins by a lot.

I don't really know about the percentage of revenue invested because I'm not really into the server side of things. I based what I said on the pricing that I saw at Newegg on the server CPUs that they sell.

Which isn't an accurate example of anything at all because there aren't any direct market sales of these parts. The view normal consumers get is certainly not indicative of what is actually going on in that market. That's why you have to look at the public figures the companies do release which is what's most impressive about AMD's gains. Until Zen 3 AMD was having to sell their enterprise parts at a discount and now they're commanding a premium. They've had around a 7% higher amount of revenue share than volume since the Zen 3 server CPU launch.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Nobody is using motherboard LAN on a server for throughput if they're using high speed networking. PCIe is actually the primary limiting factor for networking at the top end right now. PCIe 4.0 maxes out at 4x 100gb/2x 200gb/1x400gb for networking which is rapidly becoming a density problem. PCIe 4.0 flat out cannot run the 800gb standard which was approved earlier this year.

A single PCIe 4 x16 can only do 200Gb at line rate. That means dual port 100Gb or single port 200Gb. It cannot do 400Gb. Remember PCIe 4.0 is 16GT/s which is 256GT/s on an x16 link. PCIe 5 is 32GT/s which bring it up to 512GT/s for an x16 link. Hyper converged infrastructure and AI are the driving forces for all this network bandwidth.

 

[thestryker]

A single PCIe 4 x16 can only do 200Gb at line rate. That means dual port 100Gb or single port 200Gb. It cannot do 400Gb. Remember PCIe 4.0 is 16GT/s which is 256GT/s on an x16 link. PCIe 5 is 32GT/s which bring it up to 512GT/s for an x16 link. Hyper converged infrastructure and AI are the driving forces for all this network bandwidth.

Thanks for catching that. Was referencing the wrong chart when double checking bandwidth and was staring at PCIe 6.0 without realizing it. Boo for not focusing well right after getting up.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's not though and the prices you see on Newegg and the like aren't indicative of what a business actually pays. Intel has been marking down Xeons since Ice Lake due to the competitive disadvantage they've been at.

Nobody is using motherboard LAN on a server for throughput if they're using high speed networking. PCIe is actually the primary limiting factor for networking at the top end right now. PCIe 4.0 networking maxes out at 2x 100gb which means it can't run the current 400gb NICs. 800gb NICs are one of the big drivers of PCIe 6.0 so one cannot understate the importance of PCIe bandwidth in servers. PCIe 4.0 maxes out at 4x 100gb/2x 200gb/1x400gb for networking which is rapidly becoming a density problem. PCIe 4.0 flat out cannot run the 800gb standard which was approved earlier this year. (was looking at wrong chart these are applicable to PCIe 5.0 not 4.0)

You may also think that the 128 lanes is 128 lanes exposed to the user and it's not because of socket to socket communication usage. AMD maxes out at 160 lanes for 2p at best, but also have 128 lane configurations whereas Intel is always 160. This is why the workstation parts for both companies have more usable lanes than the server counterparts (Intel is 112).

Already explained the PCIe thing (you're still wrong), but Intel also scales to 4p and 8p which AMD doesn't play in which means if absolute compute density is your game Intel wins by a lot.

Which isn't an accurate example of anything at all because there aren't any direct market sales of these parts. The view normal consumers get is certainly not indicative of what is actually going on in that market. That's why you have to look at the public figures the companies do release which is what's most impressive about AMD's gains. Until Zen 3 AMD was having to sell their enterprise parts at a discount and now they're commanding a premium. They've had around a 7% higher amount of revenue share than volume since the Zen 3 server CPU launch.

As I said, I don't know much about that side of the industry and I wasn't sure about what I was seeing. That's why I "showed my work" because, if I'm doing it wrong, someone (like you) who does know what's going on can do exactly what you just did and pick my logic apart.

Being told that I'm wrong by someone who shows me where and how isn't something that I get annoyed at, it's something that I appreciate because I don't let my ego get involved.

That's how I got to know as much as I do and I have good people like you to thank for it. Your explanation has given me an education and that's valuable to me.

So, thank you for setting me straight. I'm not the kind of guy who wants to be spouting nonsense (if I can help it that is....LOL).

 

[-Fran-]

This is an interesting analysis

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQNYY4BH-z4


Mouse man Daniel Owen cooking something there 😛

Regards.

 

[thestryker]

As I said, I don't know much about that side of the industry and I wasn't sure about what I was seeing. That's why I "showed my work" because, if I'm doing it wrong, someone (like you) who does know what's going on can do exactly what you just did and pick my logic apart.

Being told that I'm wrong by someone who shows me where and how isn't something that I get annoyed at, it's something that I appreciate because I don't let my ego get involved.

That's how I got to know as much as I do and I have good people like you to thank for it. Your explanation has given me an education and that's valuable to me.

So, thank you for setting me straight. I'm not the kind of guy who wants to be spouting nonsense (if I can help it that is....LOL).

FWIW it was pretty obvious you weren't doing the arrogant fan boy thing so many do. Perspective is super important to understand where someone's coming from so where you were at makes sense.

I'm frustrated by the lack of transparency from the companies with regards to how stuff works. Like the PCIe bit you'd only know if you read through the full platform information and how that works because TR and Epyc work differently but the specs pages show the same thing. The fact that all of these things tend to be public but are obfuscated is just dumb yet all companies are guilty.

 

[SunMaster]

Mouse man Daniel Owen cooking something there 😛

Yeah, incredible credible to insist comparing locked to unlocked processsors.

 

[redgarl]

Interesting. YouTube Channels ... Level1Techs, JayzTwoCents, GamersNexus, LinusTechTips, PaulsHardware, etc. all said it was just so-so in performance for their reviews and tests. I do know the Power Savings and temps were great, but performance was just okay.

I watched them all and only JTC and HU really had a negative view on the CPUs. GN said the efficiency is really good, but didn`t go beside that.
Wendell from Level 1 literally praised the CPUs because he saw the gain in Linux which are massive.

If you read Phoronix and Anandtech reviews, you understand that the techtubers literally missed the boat and literally focused on games for defining the IPC gain which was a huge mistake.

 

[redgarl]

Come on now. 😆

The 9700x is launching at a higher price than the 7700 and's it's barely faster or more efficient. Also usually you don't care about launch prices but current, at least when you are comparing to intel chips. How much does the 7700 cost currently?

The 7700x launched at 399$ and the 9700x is launching at 359$.

Stop Gaslighting like a good old intel fanatic.

 

[redgarl]

Quite frankly it's the difference between tech journalism and techtubers. HUB/GN are primarily focused on gaming and consumer value whereas the other two take a broad view and focus on the parts themselves. Tom's also has a much more dim view of the 9700X than 9600X but since the reviews were combined for initial coverage I don't think that comes through very well. TPU was also more down on the 9700X than 9600X.

Exactly...

If you want a real review of the 9600x and the 9700x, I would go back to good old Anandtech. Their CPU reviews are setting the bar of what a real CPU review should be.

Those techtubers twisted the perception that Gaming IPC == IPC, which is NOT the case. AMD came with the 16% IPC with a suite of test that many are SP and FP benchmarks, which collaborate AMD`s claims.

It is sad that we are coming to this point and age of information, and the only thing we have is pure Gaslighting by fanboys or trolls on internet that are bias by emotions.

 

[redgarl]

Reviews and commentary within the review are based on the current price, not what it may drop to in the future. It's irrelevant that these CPU's will be $10 in 2035. You basically missed the entire point that was being made, or intentionally ignored it to try an make up some sort of counterargument. All of the power usage and efficiency charts for Techpowerup reviews are all on one page, and you couldn't even be bothered to read through that one page. Power usage is calculated at 1080p, not 720p, so the chart you posted is useless. I even gave you the performance difference, and you still managed to post the wrong chart. This is the performance chart you're supposed to be looking at.

3.5% faster than a 7600x.
They were even kind enough to post the efficiency comparisons for you, but I guess you didn't make it that far down the page.

That's not a 40% efficiency gain. That's almost 3%. Even better the stock 9700x had worse efficiency in gaming in their testing than the 7700x.

This was a really lazy and uniformed attempt at a counterargument.

My god... the gaslighting...

Gaming Efficiency is a paradox in itself because games are NOTHING close to being efficient. They are a mess unable to utilize resources properly.

Are we done now?

 

[redgarl]

The issue is that no one is running at stock settings, and comparing performance at a frequency lower than what most users will use is misleading, especially when the cpus scale differently with ram frequency, and different generations get varying frequencies.
Every am5 cpu is able to do 2x16gb at 6000MT/s, and that's what most people will be using, testing at 5200MT/s for 7000 series and 5600MT/s for 9000 series, when the kit used would work at 6000MT/s for both is misleading, and gives an otherwise nonexistent advantage to the 9000 series chips because they're advertised to support a faster JEDEC profile. Don't even get me started on enabling EXPO only for the PBO results, further inflating the number and making the "+X% performance from PBO" claim false.

With everything happening and the mess Intel is in at the moment trying to specify what are Intel DEFAULT settings...

I find your comment to be funny and ironic...

 

[TheHerald]

The 7700x launched at 399$ and the 9700x is launching at 359$.

Stop Gaslighting like a good old intel fanatic.

The 7700 was launched at 330$ with a cooler included. Choosing to compare it with the 9700x is what amd wants you to do, that's why they added the X on the name. Basically your argument is that the X on the end is what makes this a good CPU, if it was launched without the X it'd be. Do you find it a good argument?

 

[Hotrod2go]

What do you use your computer for?

Because a 7800X3D costs less, uses a similar amount of power and is much better for gaming. On the other hand, if you are looking for a productivity CPU, the 13600K can be had for much less, while offering slightly higher multicore performance...

I have a spare B650 board sitting here doing nothing, why would I use an Intel cpu? doesn't make economic sense to me, but you didn't know that.

 

[bit_user]

The 7700 was launched at 330$ with a cooler included. Choosing to compare it (i.e. 7700X?) with the 9700x is what amd wants you to do, that's why they added the X on the name.

Their use of the "X" suffix on the 9700X suggests that it's their top-end, 8-core, chiplet-based AM5 CPU of this generation. It leaves room for a 9700 to launch below it, possibly with an even lower TDP and probably lower boost limits.

When comparing the 7700 vs the 7700X, I'm most curious how they compare under PBO, where I expect the biggest advantage of the 7700X might exist. Unfortunately, I didn't find data on this. Likewise, if AMD launches a 9700 (non-X), it might be a compelling alternative, save for its performance under PBO.

The 9700X has already shown itself to be a good overclocker. This might not be true of the 9700, if one is launched.

 

[bit_user]

It's not though and the prices you see on Newegg and the like aren't indicative of what a business actually pays. Intel has been marking down Xeons since Ice Lake due to the competitive disadvantage they've been at.

This is quite a whopper. I work at a big multinational and Dell is one of our preferred suppliers. Even using the special "customer portal" to order stuff, the amount they upcharge on these server CPUs, over and above the list prices, is just eye-watering. That's after our corporate discount is applied.

What I'm sure you meant to say is datacenters and hyperscalers, who buy CPUs from Intel by the palette. They might command a large share of the server market, but they are a somewhat special case among business customers.

You may also think that the 128 lanes is 128 lanes exposed to the user and it's not because of socket to socket communication usage. AMD maxes out at 160 lanes for 2p at best, but also have 128 lane configurations whereas Intel is always 160. This is why the workstation parts for both companies have more usable lanes than the server counterparts (Intel is 112).

Heh, you conveniently neglected to mention the 1P server configurations of each. That's where EPYC traditionally has a real advantage, because it can use its full 128 lanes. That said, I don't know if Intel did anything funky with its current 1P-only Xeon SKUs to re-target some of the UPI pins at more PCIe.

Anyway, one of the first EPYC-based systems I saw from Dell was a 1P-only storage server. They were undoubtedly utilizing the large PCIe lane count available from a single processor.

Intel also scales to 4p and 8p which AMD doesn't play in which means if absolute compute density is your game Intel wins by a lot.

In general, it tends not to be cost-effective to deploy Intel above 2P, which is why it's almost never done. Performance doesn't scale very well and they charge an arm & a leg for those platforms + CPU models. The main use cases for 4P and 8P Xeon systems are niches where something like software licensing terms would greatly shift the cost balance towards running fewer, larger systems. If it were a bigger market, AMD would surely be playing in it.

I think the main place @Avro Arrow went astray was by comparing against an Ice Lake Xeon. Should've compared current vs. current, which means Genoa or Bergamo vs. Emerald Rapids.

 

[TheHerald]

Their use of the "X" suffix on the 9700X suggests that it's their top-end, 8-core, chiplet-based AM5 CPU of this generation. It leaves room for a 9700 to launch below it, possibly with an even lower TDP and probably lower boost limits.

When comparing the 7700 vs the 7700X, I'm most curious how they compare under PBO, where I expect the biggest advantage of the 7700X might exist. Unfortunately, I didn't find data on this. Likewise, if AMD launches a 9700 (non-X), it might be a compelling alternative, save for its performance under PBO.

The 9700X has already shown itself to be a good overclocker. This might not be true of the 9700, if one is launched.

My point is, you and the other guy's argument boils down to the 9700x being a good cpu because of the X in the name. If you remove the X it has to be compared with the 7700 and then it's bad. You can't be suggesting that the name of the CPU plays a role on how good it is, are you?

In any case, if efficiency is what you are after, you wouldn't be looking at the 7700x to begin with but to the 7700. So it's fair to compare it against that, and then youll realize that the 9700x is more expensive (in both MSRP and actual prices), has no cooler and it's about 7% better in efficiency. If you don't care about efficiency then sure it makes sense to compare it against the 7700x and then again - the performance increase just isn't there.

The only good thing about this chip (and any amd chip) is that unlike intel they don't limit the clockspeeds on their low end models which makes even their cheap offerings very good in ST performance. That's the only positive thing they have over Intel chips, although that applies more to their 6core parts and not the more expensive 8cores.

 

[thestryker]

Heh, you conveniently neglected to mention the 1P server configurations of each. That's where EPYC traditionally has a real advantage, because it can use its full 128 lanes.

I assumed that went without saying which is why I specified 2P, but I absolutely should have clarified it.

That said, I don't know if Intel did anything funky with its current 1P-only Xeon SKUs to re-target some of the UPI pins at more PCIe.

They didn't all of the Scaleable are 80 either way.

This is quite a whopper. I work at a big multinational and Dell is one of our preferred suppliers. Even using the special "customer portal" to order stuff, the amount they upcharge on these server CPUs, over and above the list prices, is just eye-watering. That's after our corporate discount is applied.

I'm assuming you're getting fleeced similarly on Epyc CPUs as that's pretty common behavior.

What I'm sure you meant to say is datacenters and hyperscalers, who buy CPUs from Intel by the palette. They might command a large share of the server market, but they are a somewhat special case among business customers.

I meant anyone who buys directly from Intel period, but yes end user wise those would be the case.

In general, it tends not to be cost-effective to deploy Intel above 2P, which is why it's almost never done. Performance doesn't scale very well and they charge an arm & a leg for those platforms + CPU models. The main use cases for 4P and 8P Xeon systems are niches where something like software licensing terms would greatly shift the cost balance towards running fewer, larger systems. If it were a bigger market, AMD would surely be playing in it.

This doesn't change the fact that what you quoted is 100% accurate.

You are likely correct about AMD's motives, though I'm not sure with the TSMC premiums it would be worth it for them just the same since the market is smaller period. It took them forever to go after the edge market even though they've had some fantastic potential products for it.

I think AMD probably killed off the broader 4P market when they launched Rome since that definitely used to be somewhat common through Skylake (why bother even engineering it if you're already providing more cores in 2P). I don't know that AMD has had any 4P/8P at all since switching to Bulldozer which was well over a decade ago.

Poor @Avro Arrow is being mislead by these misrepresentations and selective truths.

I expected you to be above this sort of pettiness but apparently not.

 

[YSCCC]

Their use of the "X" suffix on the 9700X suggests that it's their top-end, 8-core, chiplet-based AM5 CPU of this generation. It leaves room for a 9700 to launch below it, possibly with an even lower TDP and probably lower boost limits.

When comparing the 7700 vs the 7700X, I'm most curious how they compare under PBO, where I expect the biggest advantage of the 7700X might exist. Unfortunately, I didn't find data on this. Likewise, if AMD launches a 9700 (non-X), it might be a compelling alternative, save for its performance under PBO.

The 9700X has already shown itself to be a good overclocker. This might not be true of the 9700, if one is launched.

I would suggest leaving the troll behind and don't argue... he will always have his own idea of segmenting as opposed to what the vendor releases or wanted them to be..

 

[King_V]

The information is out there if you REALLY want to know and are not just wasting my time.

In other words, you made a claim, but rather than backing your claim, you want @bit_user to prove your assertion for you.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Unless, of course, you have no evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[-Fran-]

Yeah, incredible credible to insist comparing locked to unlocked processsors.

How are the non-X parts locked? 😵

Regards.

 

[bit_user]

My point is, you and the other guy's argument boils down to the 9700x being a good cpu because of the X in the name. If you remove the X it has to be compared with the 7700 and then it's bad.

You're leaving out a critical data point about how the 7700 performs with PBO. The X-models are somewhat akin to Intel's K-models, in that they're what you want for running above stock limits.

You can't be suggesting that the name of the CPU plays a role on how good it is, are you?

Actually, it's AMD who's basically saying the 9700X is the high-end, 8-core, chiplet-based, non-3D AM5 CPU of this generation. That's what the model number implies.

Now, if you want to compare it to the 7700, that's fine. Anandtech did that, as I'm sure did some other reviewers. However, Anandtech also didn't test the 9700X with PBO (or any other kind of overclock), which seems like a pretty big miss.

In any case, if efficiency is what you are after, you wouldn't be looking at the 7700x to begin with but to the 7700. So it's fair to compare it against that, and then youll realize that the 9700x is more expensive (in both MSRP and actual prices), has no cooler and it's about 7% better in efficiency. If you don't care about efficiency then sure it makes sense to compare it against the 7700x and then again - the performance increase just isn't there.

Some people care about more than one thing. In the 7000 generation, the 7700 vs 7700X forced someone to choose between multithreaded performance or multithreaded efficiency. With the 9700X, we have a CPU that provides more MT performance than the 7700X and more MT efficiency than the 7700. That's having your cake and eating, too!

Furthermore, you're continually neglecting the ST performance gains the 9700X made over both of them. In Cinebench R24 ST, it beat the 7700 & 7700X by 16.4% and 12.5%, respectively. This is a win for a lot of those productivity-type applications, web browsing, etc. that tend not to be heavily-threaded, and helps the CPU feel faster.

 

[SunMaster]

How are the non-X parts locked? 😵

Regards.

They are not. I was too quick, and deleted my message a minute after posting it. Unfortunately you're too quick 😀