News AMD's Ryzen 9000 single-core performance again impresses in early Geekbench results — 9700X, 9600X dominate previous-gen AMD and Intel CPUs

[Admin]

The 9700X and 9600X chips beat the single-core performance of other comparable chips, but still lag behind in multi-core numbers when compared to Intel's 14700K and 14600K.

AMD's Ryzen 9000 single-core performance again impresses in early Geekbench results — 9700X, 9600X dominate previous-gen AMD and Intel CPUs : Read more

 

[jeremyj_83]

The table has the wrong boost speed for the i5-14600k. The table says 3.5/4.0GHz, however, the 4.0GHz boost is the E-core boost rate. The P-cores have a boost rate of 5.3GHz.

 

[usertests]

9600X will be good if it is cheap and slightly beats the 14900KS in gaming on average.

Then 9800X3D will come in with the real gains. Arrow Lake might only be able to tie it.

Of course, most people don't really need any of this stuff for gaming. Older chips are fine.

 

[ottonis]

"Nevertheless, Intel’s 14th-gen chips still outperform them in the multi-core department"

Well, this is no surprise. After all, the 14700 has 12 more cores than the Ryzen 9700 (8+12 vs 8).
We will see how things will pan out, when AMD CPUs with 12 and 16 cores see the light of the day. Their multi-core performance numbers should be significantly above anything Intel's 14th gen has to offer.

 

[TerryLaze]

9600X will be good if it is cheap and slightly beats the 14900KS in gaming on average.

How is it supposed to beat the 14900ks if it doesn't even beat the 14600k in multithreaded?!
The single core scores are with actually only one core doing any work, you won't find that while gaming anymore.
Also they are from a benchmarking app which doesn't translate to gaming speed.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

The @Benchleaks bot recently shared Ryzen 7 7900X and Ryzen 5 9600X results on X,

Typo. It should be Ryzen 7 9700X.

Nevertheless, the two tests show the processors paired with 32GB RAM DDR5 RAM, with the 9700X mounted to an Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Gene and the 9600X on an X670E Hero motherboard.

Ryzen 7 9700X was also tested on the same platform/mobo as well, ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E HERO motherboard. It scored 3312 points in the single-core and 16,431 points in the multi-core tests

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6838863

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810539882948747467

View: https://x.com/BenchLeaks/status/1810539882948747467


Btw, the article fails to mention any percentage increase in the score points. You just listed a chart/table. POOR quality reporting as always !

Should have included the Core i9-14900K/KS processor as well, since these AMD chips are slightly faster in ST score.

But this won't necessarily translate to real world gaming performance, so nothing to get too excited about, just yet. Wait for proper 3'rd party gaming benchmarks.

Although, if we compare previous gen Ryzen parts, these new AM5 chips are faster. Ryzen 7 9700X appears to be roughly 14% faster than its predecessor in ST, the Ryzen 7 7700X. And 7.6% in MT score.

Same with the 9600X.

• Ryzen 5 9600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X (Single-Core): +15%
• Ryzen 5 9600X vs Ryzen 5 7600X (Multi-Core): +14%

 

[usertests]

How is it supposed to beat the 14900ks if it doesn't even beat the 14600k in multithreaded?!

Most games are not going to run more than 1-2 cores hard. 6 fast cores is fine.

 

[TheJoker2020]

How is it supposed to beat the 14900ks if it doesn't even beat the 14600k in multithreaded?!

Multithreaded benchmark results is a long way from being the same as "in gaming on average" which is what your reply is replying to.

 

[TerryLaze]

Most games are not going to run more than 1-2 cores hard. 6 fast cores is fine.

That is much different from what I'm saying, clock speeds rapidly drop when more than one single core is doing work.
You can see that from the chart by comparing single to multi scores.

Multithreaded benchmark results is a long way from being the same as "in gaming on average" which is what your reply is replying to.

Sure but so are single core scores, even more so since more games use more cores than fewer cores.

 

[jeremyj_83]

That is much different from what I'm saying, clock speeds rapidly drop when more than one single core is doing work.
You can see that from the chart by comparing single to multi scores.

Sure but so are single core scores, even more so since more games use more cores than fewer cores.

The Videocardz link above shows that the 9900X (12c/24t) has a 2.5% MT advantage over the 14700K (20c/28t) and 7950X (16c/32t), the 9600X (6c/12t) has a 9% MT disadvantage over the 14600K (14c/20t), the 9700X (8c/16t) has a 3.5% advantage over the 14600K. Overall the Zen 5 CPUs are preforming quite well despite a core and thread disadvantage.

 

[TheJoker2020]

Sure but so are single core scores, even more so since more games use more cores than fewer cores.

Well yes of course, but "benchmarks" that are specifically designed to BE a benchmark rather than an actual program / app / game that is then benchmarked do not give results that are accurate compared to modern gaming because of the way that the cores / threads are used in reality vs a "benchmark".

This is analogous to looking at the benchmarks of SSD's, and you see benchmarks of what they "can" do, but the reality when an actual program / app / game loading is benchmarked is very different.

Ultimately we will just have to wait and see and look at multiple reviews and specifically their setups.

 

[usertests]

That is much different from what I'm saying, clock speeds rapidly drop when more than one single core is doing work.
You can see that from the chart by comparing single to multi scores.

Nothing you are saying about the thing matters. It's the ST improvement that is going to be determinant of gaming performance.

 

[TerryLaze]

The Videocardz link above shows that the 9900X (12c/24t) has a 2.5% MT advantage over the 14700K (20c/28t) and 7950X (16c/32t), the 9600X (6c/12t) has a 9% MT disadvantage over the 14600K (14c/20t), the 9700X (8c/16t) has a 3.5% advantage over the 14600K. Overall the Zen 5 CPUs are preforming quite well despite a core and thread disadvantage.

Yes, one AMD tier and gen higher is better than the one tier and gen lower intel CPU...

Well yes of course, but "benchmarks" that are specifically designed to BE a benchmark rather than an actual program / app / game that is then benchmarked do not give results that are accurate compared to modern gaming because of the way that the cores / threads are used in reality vs a "benchmark".

That's what I said from the beginning, ST performance, in only one bench especially ,doesn't represent gaming performance.

Nothing you are saying about the thing matters. It's the ST improvement that is going to be determinant of gaming performance.

No, it's the ST performance THAT YOU CAN GET WHEN THE WHOLE CPU IS RUNNING that will be determinant of gaming performance, or at least when several cores are doing something and not just one.
Don't forget that unlike intel you can't just overclock the hell out of an ryzen CPU to get the same single core clock on all (p) cores.

There is not a single single threaded game left that is being benchmarked, or even played by the main stream.

 

[helper800]

There is not a single single threaded game left that is being benchmarked, or even played by the main stream.

The vast majority of games made are ST... Only modern games of the last 5 or maybe 10 years if I am being generous use 3 or more cores...

 

[TerryLaze]

The vast majority of games made are ST... Only modern games of the last 5 or maybe 10 years if I am being generous use 3 or more cores...

Not a single game is completely ST, many have a big bias to one or two cores but the rest still do plenty of work, and that is the main thing here, as soon as the other cores do even a little work the clocks go down to whatever multiplier is set for that amount of cores.
And on ryzen you can't put the multiplier for all cores to the same as single because the CPU would just ignore the setting or just blow up.

 

[mafi]

Ryzen 5 9600X:
Single-Core Score: 3284
Multi-Core Score: 14594


My Ryzen 7 7700(non-X) :
Single-Core Score: 2944
Multi-Core Score: 15381
https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6848722

 

[helper800]

Not a single game is completely ST, many have a big bias to one or two cores but the rest still do plenty of work, and that is the main thing here, as soon as the other cores do even a little work the clocks go down to whatever multiplier is set for that amount of cores.
And on ryzen you can't put the multiplier for all cores to the same as single because the CPU would just ignore the setting or just blow up.

That is just 100% false... What about the literal 30 years of games from 1970-2000 when there was literally only 1 core in PCs so that was all that was programed for? THere were very few games that used more than 1 thread from 2000-2010ish. As far as the comment on AMD and how their CPUs clock themselves, you also have not a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Specter0420]

9600X will be good if it is cheap and slightly beats the 14900KS in gaming on average.

Then 9800X3D will come in with the real gains. Arrow Lake might only be able to tie it.

Of course, most people don't really need any of this stuff for gaming. Older chips are fine.

Laughs in VR Flight Simming.

 

[irish_adam]

Yes, one AMD tier and gen higher is better than the one tier and gen lower intel CPU...

That's what I said from the beginning, ST performance, in only one bench especially ,doesn't represent gaming performance.

No, it's the ST performance THAT YOU CAN GET WHEN THE WHOLE CPU IS RUNNING that will be determinant of gaming performance, or at least when several cores are doing something and not just one.
Don't forget that unlike intel you can't just overclock the hell out of an ryzen CPU to get the same single core clock on all (p) cores.

There is not a single single threaded game left that is being benchmarked, or even played by the main stream.

dude you are really reaching here.

What everyone is saying and what you are trying very hard not to hear is that CPU's that scored highly in single threaded benchmarks have historically been better at gaming than CPU's with lower single threaded scores but higher multithreaded scores. This trend literally only stopped when AMD added a shed load of cache in their X3D chips.

While games may use multiple cores, most of the work is done on just a couple, check out your core loads next time you are gaming and you'll see what I mean. There's a couple of good reasons for this btw like the fact that games are notoriously hard to split across multiple threads and the fact that pretty much every game engine used today started its life a long time ago, long before CPU's had more than a couple of cores. They were never designed to run on 8 threads let alone 16 or 24, while they may have upgraded these engines over time they still have limitations inherent in their initial design.

 

[Makaveli]

dude you are really reaching here.

What everyone is saying and what you are trying very hard not to hear is that CPU's that scored highly in single threaded benchmarks have historically been better at gaming than CPU's with lower single threaded scores but higher multithreaded scores. This trend literally only stopped when AMD added a shed load of cache in their X3D chips.

While games may use multiple cores, most of the work is done on just a couple, check out your core loads next time you are gaming and you'll see what I mean. There's a couple of good reasons for this btw like the fact that games are notoriously hard to split across multiple threads and the fact that pretty much every game engine used today started its life a long time ago, long before CPU's had more than a couple of cores. They were never designed to run on 8 threads let alone 16 or 24, while they may have upgraded these engines over time they still have limitations inherent in their initial design.

Facts.

Even intel previous cpu's have shown this they were faster single threaded and better in gaming. But now that Zen 5 is showing faster ST then 14th Gen intel now it doesn't matter.

Terry sounding very bias.

 

[Pierce2623]

That is much different from what I'm saying, clock speeds rapidly drop when more than one single core is doing work.
You can see that from the chart by comparing single to multi scores.

Sure but so are single core scores, even more so since more games use more cores than fewer cores.

95% of every game made spawns 4 threads or less and the most extremely multithreaded new titles max out at 8 threads other than MSFS 2020. AMD single core boost is generally closer to the all core boost than Intel anyways. AMD doesn’t rate their single core stuff 500MHz higher than all core like Intel does.

 

[Pierce2623]

dude you are really reaching here.

What everyone is saying and what you are trying very hard not to hear is that CPU's that scored highly in single threaded benchmarks have historically been better at gaming than CPU's with lower single threaded scores but higher multithreaded scores. This trend literally only stopped when AMD added a shed load of cache in their X3D chips.

While games may use multiple cores, most of the work is done on just a couple, check out your core loads next time you are gaming and you'll see what I mean. There's a couple of good reasons for this btw like the fact that games are notoriously hard to split across multiple threads and the fact that pretty much every game engine used today started its life a long time ago, long before CPU's had more than a couple of cores. They were never designed to run on 8 threads let alone 16 or 24, while they may have upgraded these engines over time they still have limitations inherent in their initial design.

The only games I know of that will make an 8 core CPU boost every core is Cyberpunk 2077 or MSFS2020. So…yeah everything you said is basically 100% true. It’s no coincidence that the only titles that do that aren’t on Unreal or Unity, the two most popular engines by miles.

 

[TheHerald]

The only games I know of that will make an 8 core CPU boost every core is Cyberpunk 2077 or MSFS2020. So…yeah everything you said is basically 100% true. It’s no coincidence that the only titles that do that aren’t on Unreal or Unity, the two most popular engines by miles.

There are hundreds more. Tlou, ac origins, ac odyssey, starfield, SOTR, various NFS games, helldivers 2, I can keep on going for ever.

 

[helper800]

There are hundreds more. Tlou, ac origins, ac odyssey, starfield, SOTR, various NFS games, helldivers 2, I can keep on going for ever.

You literally cannot keep going forever. There are only a very small handful of games that use more than 4 threads as mentioned by you and Pierce, however, to suggest there are an unlimited amount is clearly factually bankrupt.

 

[TheHerald]

You literally cannot keep going forever. There are only a very small handful of games that use more than 4 threads as mentioned by you and Pierce, however, to suggest there are an unlimited amount is clearly factually bankrupt.

4 threads? You serious? Most if not all AAA games use more than 4 threads for sure. The hell are you guys talking about I have no idea honestly.

If you mean games will work with 4 cores, sure, most of them will work. That doesn't mean that they can only use 4 cores.