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

[HideOut]

The gaming benchmarks appear to diverge wildly from the testing conducted by others (e.g. Eurogamer, Anandtech, Techpowerup) despite having very similar test rigs.

Correct,
but those others don't get a commision if you buy from their link...

 

[YSCCC]

Actually for me it's not about the absolute performance of these "budget" chip, if I am in the market today the 7000 are better option for the price point, these seems just to be great for low power, SSF PC which don't need raging fans to do some great workstation/background work, but the even better efficiency maybe the X3D part and 9950X will be interesting.

While I am still using a 14900K, no amount of performance uplift this gen will tempt me to redo all my system (main pain in the butt will be fresh install all sw suite) unless it as expected degraded. So planty of time to see if AMD iron out the stability issue in the review batch

 

[Guardians Bane]

>It was the review of a 6 cores CPU and you want to talk MT performances? Really?

Perhaps counting is not your forte, but 6 (and 8) count as multi-cores. So, yes, MT.

>Leo from kitguru have the same stance on the 9600x.

Sure, everybody has a take. If you get a big enough pool, you can always find somebody to agree with you. Oh, the wonders of the Internet! Flat earthers, unite!

That wasn't the point being made. People know a 6c/12t CPU will be weak against CPUs running a higher core and thread count. If you think the comparison should be made vs a higher core/thread and expect a higher bench score then I don't know what to tell ya. 12 threads will be weaker vs something like a 16+32 thread CPU. Most of us all know less threads will have less performance in multi threaded work loads. It's simple math.

 

[Guardians Bane]

From what I've seen usually those are in tests. However, with the issues Intel has had with their CPUs they kept things at the "stock" settings.

I'd like that as well. Hopefully the microcode patch will help to get stability and oxidation under control. That way we can get closer to an apples to apples comparison between the SKUs of each segment.

I know if oxidation has already started there's no fix. But hopefully some people are lucky and don't see anything failing. We need competition.

 

[King_V]

This is an extremely generous review, given the performance of the chips.

It's clear that AMD all but abandoned the gaming segment (with the exception of their X3D series, but the notable inclusion of Radeon products) to focus on "AI".

The Zen 5 architecture overhaul is intended to benefit server workloads, and causes regressions in gaming.

I can't help but question the motives of people praising its gaming performance in particular. My guess is that in the case of Tom's Hardware, the intention is to get as many Amazon referral clicks as possible.

Any evidence for these assertions?

 

[Makaveli]

PBO is an overclock preset, and Intel chips have always had more headroom in this regard. The only thing AMD has going for them is the argument that PBO is a "one-click" overclock.

Though a "press this button to get between 0% and 2% more performance" feature is hardly an asset...

And more importantly, if these chips could run those frequencies consistently, then AMD would ship them stock like that.

PBO is nothing more than a marketing device, and AMD's way of sitting on two chairs at the same time.

PBO is more than a one click overclock.

When used properly you need to tune per core then test it. There are numerous settings in those menus that requires you to have some knowledge.

However, seems like AMD has super impressive idle power consumption as usual. Something AMD will never be able to fix. 20 watts higher than 14K intel CPUs (which are power monsters when loaded).

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/23.html

Not sure if you like the idle power or don't based on how that is written.

But lower Idle power usage most likely happen in Zen 6 when they redesign the IOD.

 

[spongiemaster]

Seriously, what do you want here? That's as about impartial a statement there is, that states the obvious.

Part 1: "The processors also deliver class-leading single-threaded performance - This is a true statement.
Part 2: "but still trail Intel in heavily threaded applications." - This is a true statement.

There's no need to go back to a deep dive on why the results are that way. It's really clear. That you see differently, well, that's for you. No need to criticise the author too much.

There is a serious issue with the way the data is presented. This thread is littered with people proclaiming that vanilla Zen is not designed for gamers. Ok, then why is the focus of this review so slanted towards how great this chip is at gaming? Especially when their own data doesn't even back up that statement.

Dialing gaming up a notch.​

Really?

According to their own data. At stock settings, the 9700x loses to a 2 generation old $31 cheaper 5800X3D while losing when overclocked by over 10% to a $15 more expensive 7800X3D. Meanwhile, the 9600X is losing to a 2 generation old $70 cheaper 5700X3D. And about that 40% power efficiency this reviews touts, in the summary? They clearly didn't test efficiency in gaming to come up with that number. Techpowerup did do some testing.

Look closely and you will see a stock 9600x saw a ZERO watt reduction in power usage vs a 7600x. Combined with the fact their testing showed the 9600x was only 3.5% faster at 1080p gaming than a 7600x, and we're looking at a negligible efficiency improvement, which is a long way from 40%. Also note that both the 5800X3D and 7800X3D use less power than the 9600x.

So in summary, 2+ year old 5000 series X3D is faster, more efficient, and cheaper than 9000 series. 7000 series is faster than overclocked 9000 series while being much more efficient, and only slightly more expensive. Stellar gaming performance, dialing it up a notch? If you actually care about gaming, you're not even considering either one of these 9000 series CPU's.

 

[raminpro]

in youtubers stupid tests multicore was 4.40ghz not 5.5 ghz so cpu run in minimum power
amd, after intel pronlem, fear and reduce 5.50 to4.40 as defult ..,, 9000 cpu are very exclent ,,,we need enable PBO and boom , it beat expencive intel (super hot) cpu like 14600-14700-14900k in many games like cyberpunk

 

[vinay2070]

Not sure if you like the idle power or don't based on how that is written.

But lower Idle power usage most likely happen in Zen 6 when they redesign the IOD.

It will be worse on the higher end CPUs like the 9900X and 9950X, neutralising a part of the power savings they bring to the table when loaded.

 

[Tommy Sawyer]

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.

 

[bit_user]

According to their own data. At stock settings, the 9700x loses to a 2 generation old $31 cheaper 5800X3D while losing when overclocked by over 10% to a $15 more expensive 7800X3D. Meanwhile, the 9600X is losing to a 2 generation old $70 cheaper 5700X3D.

First, I think you're reading too much into the launch pricing. As the price of these CPUs settles, they'll represent a better value. As for comparisons vs. those X3D models, the 9700X is certainly faster at the many things which derive little or no benefit from the 3D VCache.

And about that 40% power efficiency this reviews touts, in the summary? They clearly didn't test efficiency in gaming to come up with that number. Techpowerup did do some testing.
...
Look closely and you will see a stock 9600x saw a ZERO watt reduction in power usage vs a 7600x.

Oh, but look closely and you'll see the 7600X performing 5.2% worse:

Spoiler

So, basically, you just discovered that the 7600X and 9600X are both CPU-bottlenecked, in that test setup. The faster CPU runs faster, but not enough that it can reap some power savings.

Combined with the fact their testing showed the 9600x was only 3.5% faster at 1080p gaming than a 7600x, and we're looking at a negligible efficiency improvement, which is a long way from 40%.

Gaming isn't really all that intensive on CPU power, in the first place. Their test setup used a RTX 4090 for the GPU. If you've got a GPU like that, a swing of such a small amount from your CPU is hardly a blip on the radar. If you've got a lower-end GPU, then it'll be more of a bottleneck and your CPU will burn still less power. In other words, try not to twist in so many knots, reaching for a point to make.

So in summary, 2+ year old 5000 series X3D is faster, more efficient at gaming, and cheaper than low-end 9000 series.

Fixed that, for you.

Basically, I think their point was that it's a well-rounded CPU - certainly better than the 5800X3D - that still has some serious gaming potential. It's definitely not a purebred gaming CPU, nor does the article characterize it as such.

 

[YSCCC]

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.

Exactly, personally I don't think these 2 are good chips, especially not good for a whole generation debut reviews...

Funny that some hardcore intel fans are claiming all those channels are just paid to promote AMD and bash intel for the RPL mess, which it seems they just bash anything not working, and that is preciously what consumers wanted to see

 

[SunMaster]

Well, I personally think this a very welcome and needed change of direction. The last few years insane power-race has been very unfortunate. I believe AMD has looked to Intels story with 13th/14th gen and made a politicial decision not to go further down that road.

Another reason is the fact that they use the same cores for server, desktop and laptop. While power use is not that important for desktop users as it is for the other two scenarios, servers running cost and laptops battery time are.

I am led to believe most of the forum users will enable PBO. With PBO enabled the 9600x and 9700x offer a fair performance increase over last gen. It's funny how the Intel crowd has always been so loud about how much better overclockers Intel CPUs are, but noone talks about zen 5 overclockability. Zen 5 seems to be very good at it. You can e.g. check out derBauers quick overclock on YT.

 

[Maebius]

Nice and detailed review.
I wasn't expecting stellar results but it gets an entire "meh" from me, solely due to their pricing.
Granted it's not a silly Intel chip refresh that just adds more wattage for more performance so a few extra frames for greater efficiency is -mildly- interesting.
However, regarding your review, if you're going to have PBO values you should (at least) include PBO values for the CPU it's replacing.
I'm eager to see how the other outlets revisit their reviews with future BIOS updates as there's quite a big discrepancy.
I'm unsure if AMD could do it, but if they had managed to get us a 10core chip in this series, they would have a serious leg up.

 

[thestryker]

I am led to believe most of the forum users will enable PBO. With PBO enabled the 9600x and 9700x offer a fair performance increase over last gen. It's funny how the Intel crowd has always been so loud about how much better overclockers Intel CPUs are, but noone talks about zen 5 overclockability. Zen 5 seems to be very good at it. You can e.g. check out derBauers quick overclock on YT.

Not that they'll refuse a RMA based on it, but using PBO technically voids your warranty. There's really no excuse for them holding the 9700X back with a 65W PPT like they chose to and force their customers to use PBO to get the performance it really should be delivering. For the 9600X it is far more reasonable and it seems to me there should be an option for them between 65W and 105W they could have chosen for the 9700X.

 

[TheHerald]

Well, I personally think this a very welcome and needed change of direction. The last few years insane power-race has been very unfortunate. I believe AMD has looked to Intels story with 13th/14th gen and made a politicial decision not to go further down that road.

Another reason is the fact that they use the same cores for server, desktop and laptop. While power use is not that important for desktop users as it is for the other two scenarios, servers running cost and laptops battery time are.

I am led to believe most of the forum users will enable PBO. With PBO enabled the 9600x and 9700x offer a fair performance increase over last gen. It's funny how the Intel crowd has always been so loud about how much better overclockers Intel CPUs are, but noone talks about zen 5 overclockability. Zen 5 seems to be very good at it. You can e.g. check out derBauers quick overclock on YT.

Is it a good overclocker? With PBO enabled it draws as much power as a stock 12700k and gets similar performance. That's a 2021 i7 mind you that can be bought right now for 200$.

 

[bit_user]

regarding your review, if you're going to have PBO values you should (at least) include PBO values for the CPU it's replacing.

This.

 

[ilukey77]

We tested AMD's Ryzen 5 9600X in a battery of gaming and productivity benchmarks to see how it compares to competing Intel processors.

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

mabye you need to look at actual reviews !!!

both GN and HUB gave it the thumbs down !!

It falls behind or matches the 7700x at more cost and only beats it slightly in efficiency and slightly in some production work !!

Did someone say " the new 11th gen intel has arrived " !!

As a usual AMD buyer of both CPUs and GPU's im not feeling optimistic about zen 5 x3d either thinking i might stick with my 7800x3d and upgrade to a 5090 and be done with PC upgrades for 4 - 5 years

 

[-Fran-]

Not that they'll refuse a RMA based on it, but using PBO technically voids your warranty. There's really no excuse for them holding the 9700X back with a 65W PPT like they chose to and force their customers to use PBO to get the performance it really should be delivering. For the 9600X it is far more reasonable and it seems to me there should be an option for them between 65W and 105W they could have chosen for the 9700X.

For context:

1700X 95W
2700X 105W
3700X 65W
5700X 65W
7700X 105W
9700X 65W

I strongly believe AMD is just leaving room on purpose.

Regards.

 

[LokkenJP]

Cannot wait for the X3D versions of this processors.

9600X3D/9700X3D could be gaming beasts on a reasonable budget if done right.

(Of course higher tier chips will probably get the X3D treatment too, but pricing and the fact that they already include large L3 caches plus chiplet tech maybe will yield smaller relative gaming performance increase at a prohibitibe price point)

 

[-Fran-]

Is it a good overclocker? With PBO enabled it draws as much power as a stock 12700k and gets similar performance. That's a 2021 i7 mind you that can be bought right now for 200$.

Well, so far, it seems like it is a very good OC'er:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GV7q6CV7GY


Regards.

 

[bit_user]

Is it a good overclocker? With PBO enabled it draws as much power as a stock 12700k and gets similar performance.

It's funny how flexible you are about the definition of "similar", when you want to be. The 9700X @ max PBO is 10.4% faster than the i7-12700K at Blender, using 3.6% more power.

Spoiler

However, the key difference between these two CPUs isn't MT, but rather ST performance. There, the 9700X is 16.4% faster than the i7-12700K.

Spoiler

Also, the 9700X is 10.7% faster in gaming.

Spoiler

That's a 2021 i7 mind you that can be bought right now for 200$.

Only because Newegg currently has a time-limited promotion on it. From other authorized resellers, it'll cost you $250.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

PBO is an overclock preset, and Intel chips have always had more headroom in this regard. The only thing AMD has going for them is the argument that PBO is a "one-click" overclock.

Though a "press this button to get between 0% and 2% more performance" feature is hardly an asset...

And more importantly, if these chips could run those frequencies consistently, then AMD would ship them stock like that.

PBO is nothing more than a marketing device, and AMD's way of sitting on two chairs at the same time.

I’d tend towards…. 65W TDP is the advertising setting. You get decent performance out of the box at 65W. The reviews are somewhat inconsistent across sites. In that regard there may be a few bios tweaks from the press release bios.

PBO in the case of the new chips appears to restore the available power to a level similar to the 7700x mitigating against the drop off in multithreaded benchmarks. In the case of the 9700x it’s an increase up to approximately 150W from 88W operating power.

And yes, it allows an overclock from the release power settings. It’s a choice to use it or not.

Further, this is an AMD launch. Intel is irrelevant in this regard. I didn’t mention them and therefore drew no comparisons. There are enough intel vs AMD arguments.

 

[YSCCC]

It's funny how flexible you are about the definition of "similar", when you want to be. The 9700X @ max PBO is 10.4% faster than the i7-12700K at Blender, using 3.6% more power.

Spoiler

However, the key difference between these two CPUs isn't MT, but rather ST performance. There, the 9700X is 16.4% faster than the i7-12700K.

Spoiler

Also, the 9700X is 10.7% faster in gaming.

Spoiler

Only because Newegg currently has a time-limited promotion on it. From other authorized resellers, it'll cost you $250.

The Chief's stance is always hum.... another type of neutral to others anyway, I didn't noticed that this 9700x is as fast in games as my 14900k though, will be interested for their 9900x or 9950X3D

 

[passivecool]

• It is a solid generational improvement. We can't really expect disruption and fireworks every year.
• Every version of ryzen has improved both performance and efficiency in some blended way. No new strategy here.
• Raise your hand everyone who only bothered to look at this Nth review because of tripping over the word "stellar" in the title. Any traffic is good traffic.