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

[thestryker]

I was looking at the TechPowerUp review of the 9700X.

I never check 720p whoops! Always check the 1080p+ interesting how big the difference is there since it's only 2.8%.

edit: The numbers seem weird and the average percentages don't line up if you just compare the FPS so I wonder where their percentages come from exactly. I'd love to know where the flips for CS2 and Starfield come from as well.

Spoiler

TPU 9700X faster/slower than 7700:
AW2:
720p - 7.44% faster
1080p - 0.7% faster
BG3:
720p - 6.24% faster
1080p - 5.5% faster
CS2:
720p - 1.15% faster
1080p - 1.37% slower
CP2077:
720p - 5.6% faster
1080p - 4.86% faster
ER:
720p - 0%
1080p - 3.4% faster
HL:
720p - 10.93% faster
1080p - 1.26% faster
RII:
720p - 14.41% faster
1080p - 12.14% faster
SMR:
720p - 4.34% faster
1080p - 5.21% faster
SF:
720p - 6.64% faster
1080p - 1.43% slower
TLOU:
720p - 3.81% faster
1080p - 2.6% faster
AW2RT:
720p - 2.34% faster
1080p - 0.7% faster
CP2077RT:
720p - 10.14% faster
1080p - 5.64% faster
ERRT:
720p - 1.5% faster
1080p - 1.07% faster
SMRT:
720p - 1.77% faster
1080p - 0.5% faster

Overall:
720p - 4.94% faster
1080p - 2.06% faster

 

[YSCCC]

I never check 720p whoops! Always check the 1080p+ interesting how big the difference is there since it's only 2.8%.

edit: The numbers seem weird and the average percentages don't line up if you just compare the FPS so I wonder where their percentages come from exactly. I'd love to know where the flips for CS2 and Starfield come from as well.

Spoiler

TPU 9700X faster/slower than 7700:
AW2:
720p - 7.44% faster
1080p - 0.7% faster
BG3:
720p - 6.24% faster
1080p - 5.5% faster
CS2:
720p - 1.15% faster
1080p - 1.37% slower
CP2077:
720p - 5.6% faster
1080p - 4.86% faster
ER:
720p - 0%
1080p - 3.4% faster
HL:
720p - 10.93% faster
1080p - 1.26% faster
RII:
720p - 14.41% faster
1080p - 12.14% faster
SMR:
720p - 4.34% faster
1080p - 5.21% faster
SF:
720p - 6.64% faster
1080p - 1.43% slower
TLOU:
720p - 3.81% faster
1080p - 2.6% faster
AW2RT:
720p - 2.34% faster
1080p - 0.7% faster
CP2077RT:
720p - 10.14% faster
1080p - 5.64% faster
ERRT:
720p - 1.5% faster
1080p - 1.07% faster
SMRT:
720p - 1.77% faster
1080p - 0.5% faster

Overall:
720p - 4.94% faster
1080p - 2.06% faster

IMO this means even the 9700X is having those games more GPU bounded rather than CPU bounded, a good thing to gamers where we don't need TOTL CPU for even 1080P, just pump the money into a better GPU

 

[Phaaze88]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wLXQnZjcjU

 

[bit_user]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wLXQnZjcjU

Ugh. I almost never watch youtube vids, but I made an exception for this one. I started trying to read the transcript, but it had too many errors and obviously no charts. So, I ended up watching the whole thing.

My big takeaway, and I didn't really hear him zero in on this, is that Zen 5 is actually more efficient per MHz, which is why its clocks are spiking higher - because it can. However, that hurts gaming efficiency, because each frame has a certain amount of CPU work that needs to be done. If you spike the clock higher and get more of the work done towards the beginning of the frame interval, the amount of power you save by idling those cores for the remainder of the frame interval doesn't cancel out the power used to spike the clock up that high.

Although he tried power-limiting the CPU, and that was interesting, what I really wish he'd have tried is reducing the max boost frequency. In games that are largely GPU-limited, just dialing it back by a couple hundred MHz should drastically reduce power and improve efficiency.

 

[YSCCC]

Ugh. I almost never watch youtube vids, but I made an exception for this one. I started trying to read the transcript, but it had too many errors and obviously no charts. So, I ended up watching the whole thing.

My big takeaway, and I didn't really hear him zero in on this, is that Zen 5 is actually more efficient per MHz, which is why its clocks are spiking higher - because it can. However, that hurts gaming efficiency, because each frame has a certain amount of CPU work that needs to be done. If you spike the clock higher and get more of the work done towards the beginning of the frame interval, the amount of power you save by idling those cores for the remainder of the frame interval doesn't cancel out the power used to spike the clock up that high.

Although he tried power-limiting the CPU, and that was interesting, what I really wish he'd have tried is reducing the max boost frequency. In games that are largely GPU-limited, just dialing it back by a couple hundred MHz should drastically reduce power and improve efficiency.

I think the key takeaway is that it is more efficient overall compared to the 7000 series, BUT at the current price and availability, there is few reasons to not opt for a higher end Zen 4 over the 9600x and 9700x, especially for the current chipset usecase.

In half a year or so when Zen 4 are phased out of stock, it will replace what the 7700x and 7600x are in the market and become the AMD mid to low tier options out there. Just like what always happens in the tech industry, when new GPU/CPU arrives, the last gen will be at a really tempting C/P offering, until the stocks are cleared out and the new budget offerings will be discounted and replace the last gen mid-low end offerings

 

[bit_user]

I think the key takeaway is that it is more efficient overall compared to the 7000 series, BUT at the current price and availability, there is few reasons to not opt for a higher end Zen 4 over the 9600x and 9700x, especially for the current chipset usecase.

Did you watch it? The whole thing?

Nearly the entire video focused just on efficiency, and predominantly gaming efficiency, at that. Toward the end, Steve complained about sleeping at the office for like the past 5 nights to run all the tests, because they'd gotten so much feedback complaining they downplayed the efficiency aspect. Well, Steve said he decided they had in fact overplayed it. But then, he ran some numbers to work out the electricity cost and basically concluded that CPU efficiency in gaming wasn't much cause for concern (maybe, if you live somewhere with super expensive power)

He did briefly touch on value, but that wasn't the main point of it.

 

[YSCCC]

Did you watch it? The whole thing?

Nearly the entire video focused just on efficiency, and predominantly gaming efficiency, at that. Toward the end, Steve complained about sleeping at the office for like the past 5 nights to run all the tests, because they'd gotten so much feedback complaining they downplayed the efficiency aspect. Well, Steve said he decided they had in fact overplayed it. But then, he ran some numbers to work out the electricity cost and basically concluded that CPU efficiency in gaming wasn't much cause for concern (maybe, if you live somewhere with super expensive power)

He did briefly touch on value, but that wasn't the main point of it.

I wasn't really intended to respond on the GN video, my bad I didn't state that clearly, I listened to it during commute today and I recall the efficiency difference is basically non-existent in gaming, what I mean was that as any tech gen change, at current market price there's not much reason to get the Zen 5 vs Zen 4, it's more efficient but not a game changer type of eveolution, which makes sense as AMD will want to clear the Zen 4 parts before lowering price of Zen 5, and there comes my comment.

For absolute efficiency at current state I don't see much needed to be hyped TBH, need to wait for the high performance 9950x or 9900x with the new chipset and more stable bios to really test out if the IPC gain and efficiency gain could be maintained.

 

[bit_user]

I recall the efficiency difference is basically non-existent in gaming,

I wouldn't say nonexistent and there are certainly differences in the way each CPU behaves. Steve characterized Zen 5 as "spending more of its power on voltage", which corresponds to those frequency spikes. Voltage must increase with frequency and that appears to be what's happening with Zen 5.

Like I said, I think that leaves room for some interesting possibilities. Like maybe non-X variants that cap peak frequencies a few hundred MHz lower and delivers much better efficiency than virtually any form of Zen 4. They could still have a 65 W TDP for those all-core workloads.

Another interesting possibility is if the thread scheduling and core frequency governor could be smarter about thread placement and frequency boosting. Perhaps something in the same vein as the AI Assist overclocking feature Intel introduced with Raptor Refresh.

 

[YSCCC]

I wouldn't say nonexistent and there are certainly differences in the way each CPU behaves. Steve characterized Zen 5 as "spending more of its power on voltage", which corresponds to those frequency spikes. Voltage must increase with frequency and that appears to be what's happening with Zen 5.

Like I said, I think that leaves room for some interesting possibilities. Like maybe non-X variants that cap peak frequencies a few hundred MHz lower and delivers much better efficiency than virtually any form of Zen 4. They could still have a 65 W TDP for those all-core workloads.

Another interesting possibility is if the thread scheduling and core frequency governor could be smarter about thread placement and frequency boosting. Perhaps something in the same vein as the AI Assist overclocking feature Intel introduced with Raptor Refresh.

It could be, but personally I quite like the reviewers to give data "as is" the sample is sent to them, it represents the current state of the product and compare to competition without much tinkering, especially when bios are also pre release verisons with things needed to be ironed out.

Just like how I won't follow some genius claiming the 14900k is more efficient if limited to 65W, Zen 5 is not very tempting for upgrade in it's current state, but it's still early days, it could be re-visited anyday when performance gain by stock bios/driver upgrade is done, much like the good old ATi GPU days, where it age like fine wine and you get performance uplift and reviews even for a driver update. We won't know what the vendor may/may not update for the existing product to improve it's performance / stability, so honest as is reviews are welcomed

 

[bit_user]

It could be, but personally I quite like the reviewers to give data "as is" the sample is sent to them, it represents the current state of the product

Well, he certainly didn't just test everything stock. He tested in 3 different scenarios, including one where he limited PPT to 50 W. If he's going to do that, I think it wouldn't have been going much further to play with frequency limits or even try iso-frequency testing like Ian Cutress (via Anandtech) has done in the past.

Just like how I won't follow some genius claiming the 14900k is more efficient if limited to 65W,

Are you sure you watched the same Gamers Nexus video? I don't see how you're saying this now after you just watched him test the 9700X against the 7700, both limited to 50W PPT.

I support reviewers testing lots of things that normal people wouldn't do in actual practice, if it helps us gain more insight into a product and where the manufacturer might go with it. This is exactly the sort of thing Chips & Cheese does, and it's why I'm a Patreon supporter of them. It's a different proposition to then take that data and try to make some weird argument like I think you're referring to.

 

[Phaaze88]

Ugh. I almost never watch youtube vids, but I made an exception for this one. I started trying to read the transcript, but it had too many errors and obviously no charts. So, I ended up watching the whole thing.

My big takeaway, and I didn't really hear him zero in on this, is that Zen 5 is actually more efficient per MHz, which is why its clocks are spiking higher - because it can. However, that hurts gaming efficiency, because each frame has a certain amount of CPU work that needs to be done. If you spike the clock higher and get more of the work done towards the beginning of the frame interval, the amount of power you save by idling those cores for the remainder of the frame interval doesn't cancel out the power used to spike the clock up that high.

Although he tried power-limiting the CPU, and that was interesting, what I really wish he'd have tried is reducing the max boost frequency. In games that are largely GPU-limited, just dialing it back by a couple hundred MHz should drastically reduce power and improve efficiency.

Being on 7 year old, partially damaged(1 of 4 memory channels doesn't work) hardware, I chose that Ryzen 9700X or 9800X3D will be my next upgrade - no ifs, and or buts. I sure as heck don't need R9 for this hobby.
The 9700X reviews and comments still got me a bit bummed out, regardless of it and the one coming later being a significant upgrade over what I have.
EDIT: How many people(%) honestly expect to have a favorable upgrade every generation? That's just not sustainable.
For new builders, or those not on AM5/Raptor Lake(RE), they're ok.


About limiting power on specific cpus that I've seen throughout this thread is that it's niche; most users don't do that. They just want their device to work.
If it doesn't work, then what's the MOST CONVENIENT WAY for them to resolve the issue - the chosen solution may not be the most logical one. Overheating? Throw a bigger cooler at it, even though there are tools already within the PC that don't cost extra that could be tried first, and could yield negligible reductions in performance - or even gain some...

 

[YSCCC]

Well, he certainly didn't just test everything stock. He tested in 3 different scenarios, including one where he limited PPT to 50 W. If he's going to do that, I think it wouldn't have been going much further to play with frequency limits or even try iso-frequency testing like Ian Cutress (via Anandtech) has done in the past.


Are you sure you watched the same Gamers Nexus video? I don't see how you're saying this now after you just watched him test the 9700X against the 7700, both limited to 50W PPT.

I support reviewers testing lots of things that normal people wouldn't do in actual practice, if it helps us gain more insight into a product and where the manufacturer might go with it. This is exactly the sort of thing Chips & Cheese does, and it's why I'm a Patreon supporter of them. It's a different proposition to then take that data and try to make some weird argument like I think you're referring to.

I said before, I didn't watched it through but listened and skimmed it during commute, coz at this point of time I am not really cared about these two chips, with the 9950x and 9900x released today I am more leaning on reading those, seems great for the 9950X but that's another story and still some behavioural wonkiness happens, will wait and see

 

[bit_user]

Being on 7 year old, partially damaged(1 of 4 memory channels doesn't work) hardware, I chose that Ryzen 9700X or 9800X3D will be my next upgrade - no ifs, and or buts. I sure as heck don't need R9 for this hobby.

Yeah, my biggest CPU still has only 8 cores.

The 9700X reviews and comments still got me a bit bummed out, regardless of it and the one coming later being a significant upgrade over what I have.

Depends on what you want it for. For multithreaded workloads, I just saw some news that its TDP is going to be raised to 105 W. The PBO benchmarks suggest that won't benefit single-threaded or even most games, but Cinebench R24 got a 10% boost from PBO, so that's definitely going to like the additional power.

EDIT: How many people(%) honestly expect to have a favorable upgrade every generation? That's just not sustainable.
For new builders, or those not on AM5/Raptor Lake(RE), they're ok.

I don't even worry about people doing gen-on-gen upgrades, because it so rarely makes any sense, unless you're also going up a couple tiers. I think Alder Lake & Raptor Lake (Gen 13) were big exceptions, there.

A more typical upgrade would be like Sandybridge -> Kaby Lake, where the compounded single-digit gains of several generations accumulated to a ~50% speedup, when comparing stock to stock.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1404...core-i7-2600k-testing-sandy-bridge-in-2019/21
​

If you look at the compounded speedups from Zen 1 to 5, it's even more impressive!

About limiting power on specific cpus that I've seen throughout this thread is that it's niche; most users don't do that.

Agreed. You do it primarily to see what you can learn about the CPU, which is why Gamers Nexus tried it.

 

[YSCCC]

I don't even worry about people doing gen-on-gen upgrades, because it so rarely makes any sense, unless you're also going up a couple tiers. I think Alder Lake & Raptor Lake (Gen 13) were big exceptions, there.

A more typical upgrade would be like Sandybridge -> Kaby Lake, where the compounded single-digit gains of several generations accumulated to a ~50% speedup, when comparing stock to stock.

lol, I literalaly upgraded from Sandy bridge to alder lake, then the bending IHS plus the MSFS needs quite a bit of CPU power I in place upgrade to 14900k, so it got cinebench almost doubled from 22k to 39k, Zen 5 looks ok for a new upgrade, especially for the top end part, but for AM5 if I got a 7000 series I would probably wait another gen or two to squeeze out the final bit in the socket

 

[jeremyj_83]

Anyone know if Zen 5 will allow for a mclk/uclk 1:1 with DDR5-6400 RAM or will that max out at 6000 again?

 

[-Fran-]

Anyone know if Zen 5 will allow for a mclk/uclk 1:1 with DDR5-6400 RAM or will that max out at 6000 again?

It allows it, but much like with all OC, it's silicon lottery.

Plenty people can get IF 2133 and 3200 MCLK/UCLK, so chances are good.

Regards.

 

[jeremyj_83]

It allows it, but much like with all OC, it's silicon lottery.

Plenty people can get IF 2133 and 3200 MCLK/UCLK, so chances are good.

Regards.

I'm going to the 9700X in the coming months to replace my venerable 11 year old 4770k. With RAM increasing in price I am wanting to get that now. The price difference between 64GB of 6000MHz and 6400MHz is all of $10, however, if there is no chance of getting 1:1 with 6400MHz RAM there isn't any reason to spend the extra $10. Sounds like I have a good chance of getting that higher speed so might as well go with the higher spec'd RAM.

 

[King_V]

I feel weirdly out of place in this, as, between myself, my GF, and my son, 6 cores is the top of the charts for us, with the 5600X. I upgraded to that from an i5 Haswell in 2022. And then my usage of the "big" system precipitously declined.

And my daily driver for basic tasks was upgraded from the 200GE, itself a 2019 upgrade from a Haswell Premium, to a 3400GE just a couple of months ago.

Admittedly, my son went from i5 Skylake to the 1600AF in 2019.

I think I might well be on AM4 for years to come.

EDIT: ok, that was a weird digression,I probably shouldn't post super late.

 

[spongiemaster]

Really? It looks to me like both Haswell and Skylake were examples of such:

​

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6​

​

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16​

​

Couldn't find this article before, but here it is. Anandtech compared Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake and everything in between.

Comparing stock to stock, at 1080p, 7700k is 36% faster than a 2600K. 7700k was released almost exactly 6 years after the 2600K, which means an average 2 year gain of 12%. That's more than twice the 5% AMD is claiming with Zen5. Once you consider these benchmarks were done with a GTX1080 which was pretty clearly still bottlenecking at 1080p, the 720p results are going to be more representative of what CPU testing at 1080p with a 4090 looks like today. At those settings, Intel was delivering 18% better gaming performance every two years. More than 3 times what we got with Zen5. I stand by my statement, that Zen5 is a frontrunner for the worst 2 year gaming performance increase in PC gaming history.

 

[bit_user]

Couldn't find this article before, but here it is. Anandtech compared Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake and everything in between.

Comparing stock to stock, at 1080p, 7700k is 36% faster than a 2600K. 7700k was released almost exactly 6 years after the 2600K, which means an average 2 year gain of 12%. That's more than twice the 5% AMD is claiming with Zen5.

Uh, no. Gaining 12% every 2 years would yield a 40.5% speedup, after 6 years.

A 6-year gain of 36.5% works out to an annual gain of 5.33%. I think it's instructive to look at annual gains, because that's how often Intel released CPUs (except for Broadwell pretty much missing the desktop market) and we have figures for each of those generations. If you skip a year, then the following year must be 11.0% faster, in order to keep pace.

Once you consider these benchmarks were done with a GTX1080 which was pretty clearly still bottlenecking at 1080p, the 720p results are going to be more representative of what CPU testing at 1080p with a 4090 looks like today.

Instead of these contortions, why not just compare 720p to 720p?

At those settings, Intel was delivering 18% better gaming performance every two years.

No, try taking the cube root of 1.538 (because the i7-7700K was 53.8% faster than i7-2600K). Starting with the 6th root, it's 7.44% for the annual gain. Every 2 years is the square of that, which is actually 15.4% every two years.

That's more than twice the 5% AMD is claiming with Zen5.

Source? According to Toms' testing, the 9700X (stock) delivered a 12.6% gain over the 7700X. At PBO, the gain increased to 21.2%!

​

I stand by my statement, that Zen5 is a frontrunner for the worst 2 year gaming performance increase in PC gaming history.

Maybe start with some good data. Also, um... check your math.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

That's more than twice the 5% AMD is claiming with Zen5... I stand by my statement, that Zen5 is a frontrunner for the worst 2 year gaming performance increase in PC gaming history.

I think we need to revisit some of the results for Zen 5 performance. Based on what Paul said in the Ryzen 9 9950X / 9900X review, AMD enabled it's dreadful core parking and thread targeting driver for the 9950X and 9900X, but more importantly it's also needed for any of the 7000-series X3D chips. The driver actually works fine, but the problem is that you can't remove it without a reinstall or reimaging of the OS.

So any place that tested the 7900X3D, 7950X3D, 9900X, or 9950X before testing the 9600X/9700X could have totally borked their gaming results. And AMD apparently didn't let anyone know about the thread targeting with Zen 5 dual-CCD until late in the review process.

Paul's testing shows an 11.6% increase in gaming performance from 9600X vs 7600X, and a 12.6% increase in gaming performance for 9700X vs 7700X. Sure, that's more than what AMD claimed, but the gaming suite can make quite a big difference depending on what you test and what GPU is used — and AMD could have messed up its own internal testing if it swapped from a dual-CCD chip to a single-CCD chip. (Stranger things have happened!)

 

[jeremyj_83]

Couldn't find this article before, but here it is. Anandtech compared Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake and everything in between.

Comparing stock to stock, at 1080p, 7700k is 36% faster than a 2600K. 7700k was released almost exactly 6 years after the 2600K, which means an average 2 year gain of 12%. That's more than twice the 5% AMD is claiming with Zen5. Once you consider these benchmarks were done with a GTX1080 which was pretty clearly still bottlenecking at 1080p, the 720p results are going to be more representative of what CPU testing at 1080p with a 4090 looks like today. At those settings, Intel was delivering 18% better gaming performance every two years. More than 3 times what we got with Zen5. I stand by my statement, that Zen5 is a frontrunner for the worst 2 year gaming performance increase in PC gaming history.

Do you have the link for that article.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

i7 2700, 3770, 4770, 6700, 7700, 8700, 9700.

The what was the measured uplift generation on generation at stock settings?

Assuming the 36% increase, 2700k to 7700k is correct and the increase is linear then the generational improvement was 1.078 or 7.8% generation on generation (fourth root of 1.3).

 

[spongiemaster]

Uh, no. Gaining 12% every 2 years would yield a 40.5% speedup, after 6 years.

A 6-year gain of 36.5% works out to an annual gain of 5.33%. I think it's instructive to look at annual gains, because that's how often Intel released CPUs (except for Broadwell pretty much missing the desktop market) and we have figures for each of those generations. If you skip a year, then the following year must be 11.0% faster, in order to keep pace.


Instead of these contortions, why not just compare 720p to 720p?


No, try taking the cube root of 1.538 (because the i7-7700K was 53.8% faster than i7-2600K). Starting with the 6th root, it's 7.44% for the annual gain. Every 2 years is the square of that, which is actually 15.4% every two years.


Source? According to Toms' testing, the 9700X (stock) delivered a 12.6% gain over the 7700X. At PBO, the gain increased to 21.2%!

​

​

Maybe start with some good data. Also, um... check your math.

You're missing the forest for the trees. What effect does the 1-2% shift in the math have on the actual point being made and conclusion? None. You're so preoccupied with trying to play gotcha that you're not even addressing the actual point, which doesn't change at all with the slight correction in calculations. As I said in a previous, you don't even read what posters are saying because you're so busy skimming through the post to find an irrelevant typo.

 

[spongiemaster]

I think we need to revisit some of the results for Zen 5 performance. Based on what Paul said in the Ryzen 9 9950X / 9900X review, AMD enabled it's dreadful core parking and thread targeting driver for the 9950X and 9900X, but more importantly it's also needed for any of the 7000-series X3D chips. The driver actually works fine, but the problem is that you can't remove it without a reinstall or reimaging of the OS.

So any place that tested the 7900X3D, 7950X3D, 9900X, or 9950X before testing the 9600X/9700X could have totally borked their gaming results. And AMD apparently didn't let anyone know about the thread targeting with Zen 5 dual-CCD until late in the review process.

Paul's testing shows an 11.6% increase in gaming performance from 9600X vs 7600X, and a 12.6% increase in gaming performance for 9700X vs 7700X. Sure, that's more than what AMD claimed, but the gaming suite can make quite a big difference depending on what you test and what GPU is used — and AMD could have messed up its own internal testing if it swapped from a dual-CCD chip to a single-CCD chip. (Stranger things have happened!)

That's quite the claim that every other review site and AMD themselves messed up the testing, and this site is the only entity that got the results right. AMD must have seen the launch day reviews just killing the CPU's. They did their own internal testing with 34 games that showed the same results the reviews dumping on these chips found, added those results to the reviewer's guide 2 days after the initial launch day reviews and at no point someone at AMD stepped in and said, "You know, the results everyone is getting and our own results don't look right based on what our simulations and prerelease testing indicated the performance should be. Maybe we should check the numbers again."

We're almost 2 weeks past the initial launch reviews. That's not enough time for AMD to have made some sort of statement that core parking is the reason everyone is seeing such awful performance and that the numbers aren't correct? This isn't malice in any sense on AMD's part, you're accusing AMD of utter incompetence.


Edit:

The sales numbers from Mindfactory have been revealed for 9000 series, and they're not great.

https://hardwareand.co/actualites/b...-mais-le-ryzen-9-9950x-seduit-malgre-son-prix

First week sales:

Sales of the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X from August 8, 2024 at 3 p.m. to August 15, 2024 at 3 p.m. (168 h) at Mindfactory.de:
• Ryzen 5 9600X BOX: around 25.
• Ryzen 7 9700X BOX: around 50.

Compared to 7000 series launch sales over a shorter period of time

Sales of the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 7700X from September 27, 2022 at 3 p.m. to October 2, 2022 at 11:59 p.m. (129 hours) at Mindfactory.de:
• Ryzen 5 7600X BOX: around 70.
• Ryzen 7 7700X BOX: around 270.

7000 series sales around the 9000 series launch

Sales of the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 7700X from August 5 to 11, 2024 (4 p.m.) at Mindfactory.de:
• Ryzen 5 7600X BOX: around 180.
• Ryzen 7 7700X BOX: around 60.

First 24 hour sales 9900x/9950x

Sales of the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X from August 15, 2024 at 3 p.m. to August 16, 2024 at 3 p.m. (24 hours) at Mindfactory.de:
• Ryzen 9 9900X BOX: approx. 10.
• Ryzen 9 9950X BOX: approx. 45.

The price of the 9900x dropped within 24 hours of the launch after five units were sold on the first day.

The Ryzen 9 9900X, officially announced as a reminder at €549, suffered a flop for its launch, in line with that of the Ryzen 5 9600X, with only about 5 copies sold on the day of its launch! As of this morning of August 16, after less than a day on sale, the price of the 9900X dropped drastically at Mindfactory to only €499!

Take your time AMD getting the proper results out to the public.