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

[-Fran-]

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.

Unfortunately, Linux is one of the few people that actually talked about this at some length:

View: https://youtu.be/DWYFfzHFtM8?t=388


Check that out. Not even close. The 14600K is using 169W for 1407 points and the 9700X is using 88W for 1187 points.

Then you have der8auer that moved the needle to the same-ish power level as the 14600K:

View: https://youtu.be/jPJ0Khw3kIc?t=653


That is 23622 points at 166W and 19504 at 88W. Let's keep it somewhat simple and do linear math with 10% error:

(1187 / 19504) * 23622 ~ 1437 points in CB24 at 166W. Last time I checked, even with 10% error, 1437 > 1407.

Ah, but "MUH UNDERVOLTING! LOWAH PUWAA 14TH GEN!". Come on, please.

Regards.

 

[TheHerald]

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.

Is it optimized for power? How so? It's 5%.more efficient than the 7700, which costs around 100 $ less right now.

Ask your colleague to lock his 13900k to 88w and post some cinebench results so we can compare with the "efficiency optimized" 9700x. I have a hunch

 

[stuff and nonesense]

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.

Who knows? Marketing is crazy….

 

[TheHerald]

Unfortunately, Linux is one of the few people that actually talked about this at some length:

View: https://youtu.be/DWYFfzHFtM8?t=388


Check that out. Not even close. The 14600K is using 169W for 1407 points and the 9700X is using 88W for 1187 points.

Then you have der8auer that moved the needle to the same-ish power level as the 14600K:

View: https://youtu.be/jPJ0Khw3kIc?t=653

That is 23622 points at 166W and 19504 at 88W. Let's keep it somewhat simple and do linear math with 10% error:

(1187 / 19504) * 23622 ~ 1437 points in CB24 at 166W. Last time I checked, even with 10% error, 1437 > 1407.

Ah, but "MUH UNDERVOLTING! LOWAH PUWAA 14TH GEN!". Come on, please.

Regards.

Uhm, what? Why are you cross comparing and doing weird math? We have the data from TPU, the 14600k beats it in both performance and efficiency when they are both at the same watt,ive already posted it last page.

Ah, but" MUH UNDERVOLTING LOWAG PUWAAA". Come on please. Amds mid range is too slow and power inefficient in MT workloads. Let's focus on the good stuff they have like ST.

 

[-Fran-]

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.

Not disagreeing there. I also hated the time where the 1800X and 1700X existed side by side because reasons.

This time around, I don't think AMD will release a 9800X, only because they didn't release a 7800X and are leaving the number for the X3D chip. Or so I hope.

If they release a 9800X, it'll be super crappy of them, for sure.

And yes, I do believe this 65W TDP was for OEMs first. They need to move these into OEM machines at all costs, so it makes sense from that angle. Not that I particularly like that, but it is what it is.

Regards.

 

[YSCCC]

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.

These 2 didn't sell more expensive in MSRP (they actually reduced the MSRP), could use in same AM5 socket, use less power, OC quite well (at your own risk), and phasing out the old 7000 series, I don't see the problem of using the same socket with minor improvement and sells at a lower cost and discontinuing the old gen offering just to say...

AMD Ryzen 9600X and 9700X Content Creation Review

AMD has released their new Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. How do these compare to their last-gen counter parts and Intel's 14th Gen i5 and i7 parts?

www.pugetsystems.com

And Puget's review said it was quite competitive which I kept some doubt on, the real issue, is that they apparently wasn't stable at the pre release bios for reviews like GN alike, which will need observation through time and not jump in day one, period.

Overall, not exciting but not broken, have to see if it improve in stability in release bios to comment on this gen

 

[-Fran-]

Uhm, what? Why are you cross comparing and doing weird math? We have the data from TPU, the 14600k beats it in both performance and efficiency when they are both at the same watt,ive already posted it last page.

Ah, but" MUH UNDERVOLTING LOWAG PUWAAA". Come on please. Amds mid range is too slow and power inefficient in MT workloads. Let's focus on the good stuff they have like ST.

You mean this page?

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

Where the 9700X is above the 14600K in efficiency even with static OC? With PBO it's not far behind either.

Or this page where in the overall it's a smidget above the 14600K at stock and ~5.5% with PBO?

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/27.html

EDIT: Also, looking at the comparison to the 13700K and 14700K is not bad either, specially from the efficiency perspective.

Regards.

 

[TheHerald]

You mean this page?

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

Where the 9700X is above the 14600K in efficiency even with static OC? With PBO it's not far behind either.

Or this page where in the overall it's a smidget above the 14600K at stock and ~5.5% with PBO?

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/27.html

EDIT: Also, looking at the comparison to the 13700K and 14700K is not bad either, specially from the efficiency perspective.

Regards.

Bruh, you were doing some math to compare CBR24.

Here you go, no math needed. The 9700x uses more power while being slower than the 14600k. Please, stop.

Spoiler

 

[TheHerald]

These 2 didn't sell more expensive in MSRP (they actually reduced the MSRP)

Of course they did sell more expensive. 7700 has an MSRP of 330$. 9700x is 360.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Is it optimized for power? How so? It's 5%.more efficient than the 7700, which costs around 100 $ less right now.

Ask your colleague to lock his 13900k to 88w and post some cinebench results so we can compare with the "efficiency optimized" 9700x. I have a hunch

You keep quoting recommended price against current street price, should I buy a Sandy Bridge processor in preference to a 13900k?
The launch price is a good reduction from last time, $50 fewer beer vouchers not accounting for inflation. The street price will soon fall into line, you know this already.

Amds mid range is too slow and power inefficient in MT workloads. Let's focus on the good stuff they have like ST.

Most of the world is still to a greater extent ST (I miss my old Atari) or lightly threaded at least.
Those who require good multithreaded performance would be well advised to avoid the basement CPUs from either AMD x64 manufacturer. For everyday use there isn’t a bad intMD chip in being produced today. They fit in their niches.
Do I need a 12 core, 16 core, 20 core chip today? No but I want a 1024 core monster running at 10GHZ with 64 TB ram using 10 W so that I can run cinebench 15, get a world record and say it’s hugely efficient…

 

[-Fran-]

Bruh, you were doing some math to compare CBR24.

Here you go, no math needed. The 9700x uses more power while being slower than the 14600k. Please, stop.

Spoiler

It doesn't show the power the 9700X is using, which is the point of contention here. They only show the average efficiency chart and not one by one. That's why I had to "do weird math".

Regards.

 

[TheHerald]

You keep quoting recommended price against current street price, should I buy a Sandy Bridge processor in preference to a 13900k?
The launch price is a good reduction from last time, $50 fewer beer vouchers not accounting for inflation. The street price will soon fall into line, you know this already.

That's how bituser likes to compare.

Still, msrp vs msrp, the 7700 was cheaper. 330$ msrp bro.

 

[TheHerald]

It doesn't show the power the 9700X is using, which is the point of contention here. They only show the average efficiency chart and not one by one. That's why I had to "do weird math".

Regards.

You can cross reference it with this

Spoiler

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/images/efficiency-multithread.png

The 9700x (PBO) uses 143 watts and scores 1329, the 14600k uses 135 watts and scores 1410.

 

[bit_user]

Also usually you don't care about launch prices

How is it not fair to compare MSRP from one generation to the next?

Also, the reason I don't generally care about MSRP is because prices often quickly settle as market conditions evolve. That's why I'm not too worried if the launch prices don't represent a very compelling value. I trust that'll change soon enough for most of us, and the early adopters are probably used to the idea of paying a premium.

Huge efficiency increase vs the cheaper 7700

Spoiler

A CPU is rarely about only one thing. As I've pointed out before, try looking at them in terms of single-threaded performance. The 9700X is 16.4% faster at Cinebench ST:

Spoiler

To get that kind of upside, without a huge hit on efficiency, is not something you see every day.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

7700x was $400 (US) at launch. $400 in 2022 allowing for inflation is $424, the 9700x launch price at $360 is an effective $60 reduction.

Still, msrp vs msrp, the 7700 was cheaper. 330$ msrp bro.

 

[ShaakS]

But where 7800X3d or 5800X3D PBO test results, or even 7700X PBO?

 

[bit_user]

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

It's fine to disagree, but I don't say you're wrong. This is a matter of opinion and value judgement, where there's no absolute right or wrong position.

Also, I always respected Raptor Lake. I'm not saying every aspect of it was good, but the two issues are certainly unrelated as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bit_user]

Is it optimized for power? How so? It's 5%.more efficient than the 7700, which costs around 100 $ less right now.

It outperforms the 7700, though. Better performance at same efficiency is a win!

Ask your colleague to lock his 13900k to 88w and post some cinebench results so we can compare with the "efficiency optimized" 9700x. I have a hunch

Except for the price mismatch.

...and we're back to mismatched comparisons. I was wondering how long it would take for you to get there. At least the Ryzen 7 7700 made some sense, but the i9-13900K is in a different league.

 

[-Fran-]

You can cross reference it with this

Spoiler

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/images/efficiency-multithread.png

The 9700x (PBO) uses 143 watts and scores 1329, the 14600k uses 135 watts and scores 1410.

I don't see the watts used for the test anywhere, sorry if I'm blind...

I found this though, from Leo:

View: https://youtu.be/1oFtbQqIhgQ?t=657


The 9700X is more efficient than the 14600K in CB23, but looks like CB24 it's either slightly below or tied (best case) going by what you're saying. At least, in Leo's test, there's no room for doubt. Plus, the 14700K is not that far ahead either, but uses a LOT more power.

Regards.

 

[bit_user]

You can cross reference it with this

That's funny, because your original claim was that its multithreaded efficiency was poor. However, the top of that chart is all AMD Ryzens.

 

[TheHerald]

How is it not fair to compare MSRP from one generation to the next?

When im comparing MSRP you tell me MSRP is useless. Anyways, even at MSRP, the 7700 is cheaper, since it launched at 330$.

To get that kind of upside, without a huge hit on efficiency, is not something you see every day.

Really? A 22% increase in power draw for a 16% increase in performance is indeed something you don't see every day, and it's something you want to see every day cause it's horrible. The 9700x consume 22% more power than the 7700 in ST workloads.

Spoiler

7700x was $400 (US) at launch. $400 in 2022 allowing for inflation is $424, the 9700x launch price at $360 is an effective $60 reduction.

Bud, im talking about the 7700. You know, the equivalent 65w cpu. It was 330$

 

[stuff and nonesense]

I don't see the watts used for the test anywhere, sorry if I'm blind...

On the graphs, 88W auto, 157W OC

 

[TheHerald]

I don't see the watts used for the test anywhere, sorry if I'm blind...

I found this though, from Leo:

View: https://youtu.be/1oFtbQqIhgQ?t=657


The 9700X is more efficient than the 14600K in CB23, but looks like CB24 it's either slightly below or tied (best case) going by what you're saying. At least, in Leo's test, there's no room for doubt. Plus, the 14700K is not that far ahead either, but uses a LOT more power.

Regards.

TPU doesn't have power draw, but you can divide the scores each cpu gets with the points / watt. That's what I did, the 14600k was pulling 135w and the 9700x 142, while the 14600k was faster. Sure they might be close in CBR23, but again, that's an i5 part. The R7 should be curbstomping it.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Bud, im talking about the 7700. You know, the equivalent 65w cpu. It was 330$

I know, it’s a false equivalency.

 

[TheHerald]

That's funny, because your original claim was that its multithreaded efficiency was poor. However, the top of that chart is all AMD Ryzens.

I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with them having lower power limits. The graph isn't really comparing efficiency, it compares settings.