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

[stuff and nonesense]

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

Ok, the intel thing has already been opened up

13/14 gen intel are advertised as 125W processors, perhaps by vendors and not by intel, perhaps this is sanctioned - I don’t know and am not guessing. This number is there for the baseline cpu configuration and it will never be used.

125W is a true marketing device.

 

[SunMaster]

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.

Most people here focus on gaming. But look at this test, as a linux server

https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-9600x-9700x

It performs extraordinarily well.

 

[TheHerald]

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.

10% is nothing - but - i don't understand why you put the blender test and not for example cinebench? Just joking, I know why.

Good, then buy it from newegg?

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Most people here focus on gaming. But look at this test, as a linux server

https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-9600x-9700x

It performs extraordinarily well.

It does, single threaded it is pushing for a medal in a lot of cases. Where it is midfield it is sometimes beaten by the 7700x.

Linux isn’t something I have looked at for a long time and never in anger. The bar charts are pretty and on face value they show a device that can perform really well. Whether it performs for a particular individual depends on their use case. (This is not knocking your comment in any way).

 

[bit_user]

10% is nothing

I think there are plenty of people who'd disagree with that, but I've noted your position.

i don't understand why you put the blender test and not for example cinebench? Just joking, I know why.

The reason is quite simple. You made a power claim and a performance claim. The only app for which we have both data points for both of the referenced CPU models is Blender.

BTW, even in Cinebench, the 9700X PBO Max scored 1.3% better than the i7-12700K. However, we don't know how much energy they each consumed in doing so.

Spoiler

 

[TheHerald]

Noted.


The reason is quite simple. You made a power claim and a performance claim. The only app for which we have both data points for both of teh referenced CPU models is Blender.

No seriously, do you consider 10% (especially compared against a 2021 mid range cpu!) noteworthy?

Even for gaming or MT performance it's around the 25% mark that you start actually noticing differences.

I can give you data points if you want. A 13700k @ 88 watts is getting the same (actually, it's a bit higher but like 3-4%) score in CBR24 than the 9700x at 170 watts (TPU's result).

BTW, even in Cinebench, the 9700X PBO Max scored 1.3% better than the i7-12700K. However, we don't know how much energy they each consumed in doing so.

1.3%? That's awesome.

 

[bit_user]

No seriously, do you consider 10% (especially compared against a 2021 mid range cpu!) noteworthy?

An effective way to optimize something is to stack up small gains. On the other hand, if you start ignoring 10% here, 5% there... pretty soon, you'll be wondering why your FPS is so low.

It's not for me to say how much more someone should spend for a certain % improvement. However, to simply ignore potential improvements is to deny the consumer options that might better fit their needs.

 

[TheHerald]

An effective way to optimize something is to stack up small gains. On the other hand, if you start ignoring 10% here, 5% there... pretty soon, you'll be wondering why your FPS is so low.

It's not for me to say how much more someone should spend for a certain % improvement. However, to simply ignore potential improvements is to deny the consumer options that might better fit their needs.

Οh I agree, im not saying it shouldn't exist. I'm just saying, after 2 years - it should be better than an alderlake competitor. The 9950x will be a beast I reckon, but these 2 chips are an insult.

I remember though, everyone was a lot more negative with 14th gen. "marketing, it shouldn't exist, waste of silicon, rebrand" etc. This time around it's okay.

 

[ilukey77]

Im still surprised how people have any interest in the 9700x when the 7700x is still in most cases better evenly matched all at a cheaper price ..

I would stay on the 7700x or purchase that cpu over the 9700x ..

Watch GN and HUB Jays 2 cents any reviewer who has matched it against the 7700x in there review ( which should be a must ) has found it to be a dud 11th gen all over again!!

sadly i dont see the 9800x3d giving me much uplift over my 7800x3d

 

[stuff and nonesense]

An effective way to optimize something is to stack up small gains. On the other hand, if you start ignoring 10% here, 5% there... pretty soon, you'll be wondering why your FPS is so low.

It's not for me to say how much more someone should spend for a certain % improvement. However, to simply ignore potential improvements is to deny the consumer options that might better fit their needs.

The biggest contributor to the uptick in overall performance is the silicon process. Each change is typically quoted as a change to frequency against the power needed to achieve, so you can have an improvement power use and retain the same clocks or a boost to frequency and maintain the power.

The design of the circuits etched onto the silicon is incredible, synchronising the i/o of millions of logic blocks is incredibly hard (try it for discrete logic, implement a full adder on paper with carry, account for slew rates, settling time, propagation delay etc., keeping it logically consistent and quick is tough).

Once designed you optimise .. then implement. Finding new methods to shave off a few percent here and a few percent there is progressively harder as the low hanging fruit is picked off.

Those few percents add up, seldom is there a eureka moment where miraculously a 10% can be achieved from a single activity on the chip. Today given that intAMD have both been making these things for nearly 50 years in their various forms those eureka moments will be vanishingly rare.

Previous device will be reviewed internally at the design stage for a new widget, places for potential improvements will be identified, the benefits analysed and someone will make the call. (Happened in my old place of work … )

 

[-Fran-]

Οh I agree, im not saying it shouldn't exist. I'm just saying, after 2 years - it should be better than an alderlake competitor. The 9950x will be a beast I reckon, but these 2 chips are an insult.

I remember though, everyone was a lot more negative with 14th gen. "marketing, it shouldn't exist, waste of silicon, rebrand" etc. This time around it's okay.

Have you looked at the power consumption for them? Have you compared the power consumption between 13th and 14th gen? Hell even 12th gen.

Out of the box, as Tom's shows, which is the most "default" test you can find anywhere, shows why these two initial models are not 11th or 14th Intel gen alikes, no matter how hard you (or anyone else, really) want to push that narrative to discredit the strengths of this new generation.

They're hardly perfect and AMD did fumble the ball with their guidance and, as always, how they decided to do things to show how these CPUs perform, but if you look into the details, these two CPUs actually show how terrifyingly good the 9900X and 9950X will be, specially with PBO enabled.

I'm not 100% sure the purported 9800X3D would be miles better than the 7800X3D, but I'm not expecting miracles either, so I wouldn't hold my breath there, based on what we've seen here. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Regards.

 

[TheHerald]

Im still surprised how people have any interest in the 9700x when the 7700x is still in most cases better evenly matched all at a cheaper price ..

I would stay on the 7700x or purchase that cpu over the 9700x ..

Watch GN and HUB Jays 2 cents any reviewer who has matched it against the 7700x in there review ( which should be a must ) has found it to be a dud 11th gen all over again!!

sadly i dont see the 9800x3d giving me much uplift over my 7800x3d

Nah, it's not as bad as 11th gen. 11th gen is excavator type of fail.


It's more like 13th ---> 14th gen, but instead of doing that in a year it took them 2.

 

[bit_user]

Im still surprised how people have any interest in the 9700x when the 7700x is still in most cases better evenly matched all at a cheaper price ..

Not on lightly-threaded tasks, where the 9700X is easily faster. It's also easier to cool.

11th gen all over again!!

Not sure why you keep trying to make this stick, but it's an awfully weird comparison. Rocket Lake was a hot mess and included some actual regressions.

 

[ilukey77]

Nah, it's not as bad as 11th gen. 11th gen is excavator type of fail.


It's more like 13th ---> 14th gen, but instead of doing that in a year it took them 2.

still not sure how we get this thread as it brings stellar gaming performance ??

 

[TheHerald]

Have you looked at the power consumption for them? Have you compared the power consumption between 13th and 14th gen? Hell even 12th gen.

Yes, an 88w i7 from 13th gen gives this chip a good spanking. Please, stop. Let's not compare this to Intel. AMD is miles behind in both performance and performance / watt (iso power) in this segment. Efficiency in MT isn't really what this chip is good at.

 

[bit_user]

The biggest contributor to the uptick in overall performance is the silicon process.

And yet Zen 3 got a gen-on-gen improvement over Zen 2 of like 20%, on virtually the same node. TSMC N4P is a small improvement over N5, but still the same family.

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, an 88w i7 from 13th gen gives this chip a good spanking. Please, stop. Let's not compare this to Intel. AMD is miles behind in both performance and performance / watt (iso power) in this segment. Efficiency in MT isn't really what this chip is good at.

Holy cow. I didn't know you were this delusional...

Regards.

 

[ilukey77]

Not on lightly-threaded tasks, where the 9700X is easily faster. It's also easier to cool.


Not sure why you keep trying to make this stick, but it's an awfully weird comparison. Rocket Lake was a hot mess and included some actual regressions.

maybe 11th gen was the wrong thing but 13th to 14th for sure ..

Is this the norm now for AMD to take the intel path of little to no gain?

And should we be happy with this because Intel are in sh..t with 13th and 14th !!

 

[TheHerald]

Holy cow. I didn't know you were this delusional...

Regards.

How am I delusional? The 9700x needs 90w for a score of 1200 in CBR24. Do you realize that even a 13600k at 90w beats it, right?

It's roughly on par with a 12700k in MT efficiency, a 2021 chip.

 

[bit_user]

maybe 11th gen was the wrong thing but 13th to 14th for sure ..

Is this the norm now for AMD to take the intel path of little to no gain?

And should we be happy with this because Intel are in sh..t with 13th and 14th !!

I'm not sure why you're so mad.

9700X is launching at a lower price than 7700X did, in spite of 2 years' inflation. It has better single-threaded performance. It boosts better. It's more efficient, and easier to cool.

Basically, it's like AMD noted all the negative points people complained about from the Ryzen 7000 generation and addressed them. I guess some people are impossible to please.

 

[TheHerald]

I'm not sure why you're so mad.

9700X is launching at a lower price than 7700X did, in spite of 2 years' inflation. It has better single-threaded performance. It boosts better. It's more efficient, and easier to cool.

Basically, it's like AMD noted all the negative points people complained about from the Ryzen 7000 generation and addressed them. I guess some people are impossible to please.

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?


Huge efficiency increase vs the cheaper 7700

Spoiler

 

[ilukey77]

I'm not sure why you're so mad.

9700X is launching at a lower price than 7700X did, in spite of 2 years' inflation. It has better single-threaded performance. It boosts better. It's more efficient, and easier to cool.

Basically, it's like AMD noted all the negative points people complained about from the Ryzen 7000 generation and addressed them. I guess some people are impossible to please.

Well its not really an issue for me as im at the higher end of cpu buying !!

But i also dont see a point to buy it if the 7700x is cheaper and performs just as well why waste peoples money with rubbish products at a higher cost !!

Its wrong

sorry @bit_user on this your wrong its not acceptable to shove out crap with little to no uplift at a higher cost !!

How bad did most people poo on Intel with the 13-14 gen junk yet here we are clapping for AMD to do the same thing

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Nah, it's not as bad as 11th gen. 11th gen is excavator type of fail.


It's more like 13th ---> 14th gen, but instead of doing that in a year it took them 2.

So it’s giving 13/14th gen levels of single core performance (in some tests) while running at 88W max. AMD have chosen to optimise for power use this time around. I have no idea how the chips will perform in the real world outside of benchmarks, with which depending on your choice you can prove anything.

My FEELING is that if aimed well at the corporates these will be in a position to get deep into the workplace, corporate inertia may prevent this. Corporations are slow to change.

Gaming, you and I are not even rounding errors on intMD’s balance sheets, we just use and abuse the silicon with which they present us.

Since Bulldozer died AMD have executed incredibly well. They have consistently shown improvements, not necessarily the improvements a gamer wants to see but the improvements that matter. Where power has increased so has performance. Where power has decreased, performance has on the whole been maintained/improved. AMD haven’t just thrown Watts at a problem… that said … efficiency.. a colleague joked about his 13900k that it is incredibly efficient in winter - while gaming he turns the heating off.

 

[thestryker]

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.

That might be the case, but outside of a couple of OEM only parts in the Zen+ era they've not released anything below a 65W desktop part. So the question then becomes are they going to release non-X parts at 45W and also does that mean they'll release say a 9800X that has a higher power target which would make releasing the 9700X at this price rather scummy.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

And yet Zen 3 got a gen-on-gen improvement over Zen 2 of like 20%, on virtually the same node. TSMC N4P is a small improvement over N5, but still the same family.

Agreed