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

[TheHerald]

I know, it’s a false equivalency.

Why is it a false equivalency?

 

[YSCCC]

That's how bituser likes to compare.

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

7700x MSRP was $399 during release, 9700X is $359, as a last gen product performing worse to the newer gen using the same socket, of course 2 years later now the 7700X street price or reduced MSRP is cheaper, this is beyond stupidity or any reasoning to call 7700X being cheaper than 9700X at this moment of time chief, and X ver. vs X ver., you don't compare 14900K to 13900 MSRP don't you

 

[TheHerald]

7700x MSRP was $399 during release, 9700X is $359, as a last gen product performing worse to the newer gen using the same socket, of course 2 years later now the 7700X street price or reduced MSRP is cheaper, this is beyond stupidity or any reasoning to call 7700X being cheaper than 9700X at this moment of time chief, and X ver. vs X ver., you don't compare 14900K to 13900 MSRP don't you

So if they named the 9700x 9700L we cannot compare it with anything? Come on bruh. It's their 65w 8 core part, I compare it against their previous gen 65w 8 core part. It's 30$ more expensive and around 8% faster. Took them 2 years. Reach your own conclusions.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Why is it a false equivalency?

You are deciding, based on your own opinions where these parts are segmented within the market.
The manufacturer with their markings is placing the chips against their own previous generation X parts and making performance claims in comparison with those parts.

They have been able to show that they are at least performance comparable with a power consumption which is lower than the preceding X parts.

The non X parts are not relevant. There may even be a 9700 (non X) part in the future.
I do not try to deny you your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[TheHerald]

You are deciding, based on your own opinions where these parts are segmented within the market.
The manufacturer with their markings is placing the chips against their own previous generation X parts and making performance claims in comparison with those parts.

They have been able to show that they are at least performance comparable with a power consumption which is lower than the preceding X parts.

The non X parts are not relevant. There may even be a 9700 (non X) part in the future.
I do not try to deny you your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

The manufacturer is trying to position their chips to make them look better than they really are. Why should I or you? You fell in the trap thinking this is a price decrease when in fact it's a price increase.

 

[TheHerald]

The only positive thing is that it looks like, since zen 5 doesn't scale much with power, the 9950x 3d will be the undisputed GOAT. Won't get penalized as much as the 7950x3d compared to the 7950x in MT performance. 9950x will also be quite good. But the rest of the lineup, oh boy...

 

[YSCCC]

So if they named the 9700x 9700L we cannot compare it with anything? Come on bruh. It's their 65w 8 core part, I compare it against their previous gen 65w 8 core part. It's 30$ more expensive and around 8% faster. Took them 2 years. Reach your own conclusions.

In Puget's mark it's 8% faster than the 7700X also, while using less power, it's all prelim data, IPC gain is advancing and not boosted purely by clockspeed as RPL and RPL refresh alike, and more importantly, both are on sale in the current market, you can always opt for any of these, if you are on for it being not much of an advancement and cost more, free to buy the older one, as said by a ton of those "evil intel bashing reviewers" they are disappointing in this lineup at the current price point and platform, not recommended except a few like Toms and Puget, so anything wrong? it took intel forever to advance their nodes also but I won't be complaining if they are not self destructing and hidden the issue under the rug.

The price is there, benchmarks are all over the internet for one to decide, it performs okish and advanced the power consumption, you can always wait for price to drop or just go to the 9950X.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

The manufacturer is trying to position their chips to make them look better than they really are. Why should I or you? You fell in the trap thinking this is a price decrease when in fact it's a price increase.

That is one viewpoint, I choose to believe that in making them more efficient they have been able to make AVX512 work without cooking the chips, I choose to believe that efficiency is score/power, I choose to remember every time an intel fanboy decried AMD for more cores when Intel gave 6..

Don’t get me wrong, I am pretty much agnostic when it comes to hardware. If it is what I want and is the right price then I will choose to buy it (manufacturer independent) I know I have unconscious bias, we all do.

I choose to give credit for a well implemented solution, it remains to be seen over the next few weeks how well the new CPUs are implemented, the last wrinkles will likely be smoothed out via bios updates.

As for making a comparison… please don’t suggest I’m dumb for choosing to look at the reviews, for drawing a conclusion that this is not the CPU I’m looking for. An X3d part, maybe a 12 core part, possibly, maybe even the 16 core part … but I will look at the reviews and decide then.

The value of any part, any item is in the eyes of the buyer, not the vendor. That you choose to devalue is your choice. Were I looking for an 8 core cpu that will be reliable and not destroy itself at 253W out of the box (mixing metaphors) then the 9700x would be a good solution.

 

[YSCCC]

That is one viewpoint, I choose to believe that in making them more efficient they have been able to make AVX512 work without cooking the chips, I choose to believe that efficiency is score/power, I choose to remember every time an intel fanboy decried AMD for more cores when Intel gave 6..

Don’t get me wrong, I am pretty much agnostic when it comes to hardware. If it is what I want and is the right price then I will choose to buy it (manufacturer independent) I know I have unconscious bias, we all do.

I choose to give credit for a well implemented solution, it remains to be seen over the next few weeks how well the new CPUs are implemented, the last wrinkles will likely be smoothed out via bios updates.

As for making a comparison… please don’t suggest I’m dumb for choosing to look at the reviews, for drawing a conclusion that this is not the CPU I’m looking for. An X3d part, maybe a 12 core part, possibly, maybe even the 16 core part … but I will look at the reviews and decide then.

The value of any part, any item is in the eyes of the buyer, not the vendor. That you choose to devalue is your choice. Were I looking for an 8 core cpu that will be reliable and not destroy itself at 253W out of the box (mixing metaphors) then the 9700x would be a good solution.

Same stance for me, I am not in the market of this range of CPUs, if I go I will go for the top models or the X3D ones, but if one is good for the price and performance, and wanted a lower TDP for easier cooling and quieter PC, no harm to buy it, just that the initial reviews don't look promising enought go let it go sell like hotcakes.

If one is buying a new PC today, it will be dumb to look at RPL at this point due to it's soon EOL and the issue is still to be verified, if one goes for performance should get the higher end Zen 4 at the meantime or wait few more weeks to see how Zen 5 rocks or disappointed so one goes back to Zen 4. Or if the Lunar lake will offer some serious C/P with some buffed up warranty for those who dare to try now.

 

[TheHerald]

That is one viewpoint, I choose to believe that in making them more efficient they have been able to make AVX512 work without cooking the chips, I choose to believe that efficiency is score/power, I choose to remember every time an intel fanboy decried AMD for more cores when Intel gave 6.

But they are not more efficient, unless ~5% counts. It's pretty much identical to the 7700 in efficiency.

 

[SunMaster]

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

Everything is not about your ideas about performance.

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

 

[stuff and nonesense]

It gets more work done per watt than the 7700, or at least the same work done at a reduced wattage than the 7700x.

Both those conditions demonstrate increased efficiency against its predecessors.

It is a new processor, there will be wrinkles, there always are whether it’s Intel or AMD, they will be sorted out and performance will stabilise.

Even if this isn’t the performance level you personally want that it has been achieved in a power envelope that is as low as 65W with 8 cores is remarkable. (My last reply to 7700 references, see my signature)

 

[ShaakS]

But they are not more efficient, unless ~5% counts. It's pretty much identical to the 7700 in efficiency.

9700x significantly more power efficient, in total power consumption 87.6W of 9700x vs 147.6W of 7700x.
And in a normalized comparison - how much energy per point of work (i.e. the less the better), the 9700x is generally ahead of everyone! 19.2 vs. 32.7. As you can see - it has a correlation with the overall power consumption of the processors, since the processors are quite close in performance.

 

[Reality_checker]

Source?

Cross-referencing Phoronix non-gaming results with Hardware Unboxed gaming results...

-------------------------------------

Anyway, guys, 9700X gives 13600K performance for the price of a 14700K...

If this doesn't tell you that AMD doesn't intend to sell this series, then I don't know... you are probably rich and don't care.

Hardware Unboxed also showed that the real efficiency gain is about 7% more perf at same power usage which is half of what AMD was claiming...

But yeah, good guy AMD... I guess I should buy a 5900XT to upgrade from my 13700K because AMD said it's faster.

 

[TheHerald]

9700x significantly more power efficient

No , it's not. It just has a lower power limit. Compared to the 7700 - they share the same power limit - it's around 7% more efficient in MT workloads and less efficient in ST workloads.

 

[ShaakS]

No , it's not. It just has a lower power limit. Compared to the 7700 - they share the same power limit - it's around 7% more efficient in MT workloads and less efficient in ST workloads.

 

[ShaakS]

No , it's not. It just has a lower power limit. Compared to the 7700 - they share the same power limit - it's around 7% more efficient in MT workloads and less efficient in ST workloads.

What other theories will there be that are not connected with reality? How can a reduced power limit lead to comparable productivity for less power consumption (almost twice as much, Karl) and not be considered a more energy-efficient solution? You are just clowning around.

Update: I misunderstood, he was talking about Ryzen 7700 (not X) and He has a point.

 

[TheHerald]

What other theories will there be that are not connected with reality? How can a reduced power limit lead to comparable productivity for less power consumption (almost twice as much, Karl) and not be considered a more energy-efficient solution? You are just clowning around.

That is not the 7700 chief.

This is

I don't get why we have to pretend that it is something that it isn't.

 

[YSCCC]

What other theories will there be that are not connected with reality? How can a reduced power limit lead to comparable productivity for less power consumption (almost twice as much, Karl) and not be considered a more energy-efficient solution? You are just clowning around.

Maybe coz it's not labelled Intel....

Aside of that, these two are just the bloody entry of the Zen 5 series, and not praised overall by reviewers as ppl have high hopes, it will be interesting to see how the higher end modelss fare, which I bet will be the ones most lurkers here eyes on, I do hope they arn't dominating in all fronts if not we will just see another Nvidia price structure, but this gen alone Intel will have a hard time retaining their market share

 

[ShaakS]

That is not the 7700 chief.

This is

I don't get why we have to pretend that it is something that it isn't.

Yeah, I see, you about Ryzen 7 7700 (not X), and it is really very power efficient in comparison with Ryzen 7700x and I have no answers why this happens if they have similar architecture... We all focused on comparisons with 7700x.

Maybe you have answers, why 7700 has significant power efficient compared with 7700x and the similar with 9700x?

 

[ShaakS]

Maybe coz it's not labelled Intel....

Aside of that, these two are just the bloody entry of the Zen 5 series, and not praised overall by reviewers as ppl have high hopes, it will be interesting to see how the higher end modelss fare, which I bet will be the ones most lurkers here eyes on, I do hope they arn't dominating in all fronts if not we will just see another Nvidia price structure, but this gen alone Intel will have a hard time retaining their market share

I misunderstood, he was talking about Ryzen 7700 (not X) and He has a point, Ryzen 7700 (not X) has close power efficiency to 9700X and comparable difference with 9700x in power consumption vs 7700x, but - why and how... very interesting.

 

[TheHerald]

Yeah, I see, you about Ryzen 7 7700 (not X), and it is really very power efficient in comparison with Ryzen 7700x and I have no answers why this happens if they have similar architecture... We all focused on comparisons with 7700x.

Maybe you have answers, why 7700 has significant power efficient compared with 7700x and the similar with 9700x?

Because it has a lower power limit. All chips get more efficient when you restrict their power. That's why if you want to compare efficiency between 2 CPUs you need to put them at the same power, else you are just testing their settings, not their efficiency.

 

[ShaakS]

Because it has a lower power limit. All chips get more efficient when you restrict their power. That's why if you want to compare efficiency between 2 CPUs you need to put them at the same power, else you are just testing their settings, not their efficiency.

But it restricted not in comparable amout of difference in power consumption, but ok, we will see more in future tests and other CPUs, seems like restricting power limit is right way, I guess.

 

[TheHerald]

But it restricted not in comparable amout of difference in power consumption, but ok, we will see more in future tests and other CPUs, seems like restricting power limit is right way, I guess.

Yeap, if you get any high end CPU (7950x , 7900x, 13900,13700k etc.) and restrict them to 88w they will be way faster and more efficient than the 9700x.

@YSCCC can test CBR24 with his CPU at 88w so we have a point of comparison.

 

[YSCCC]

Yeap, if you get any high end CPU (7950x , 7900x, 13900,13700k etc.) and restrict them to 88w they will be way faster and more efficient than the 9700x.

@YSCCC can test CBR24 with his CPU at 88w so we have a point of comparison.

I won't do this stupid test just for convincing you chief,

1) ppl paid $589 to restrict it to 88W, and setting 88W in bios have peak power exceeding 88W just to say..
2) since I have seriously undervolted my own 14900k, it is a seriously tuned and more efficient than what intel guaranteed, my SP point is around 114 according to igor's lab early testing peak VID chart, which is among the better binned, no guarantee any other can run stable at this voltage. A fair comparison is under stock VID, which fries the CPU, so I will let you do that for a salvation project to intel.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...ke-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/8.html

and FYI for energy efficiency chart, the 14900k @65W and 95W score lower than 7700X and even the 253W settings