AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X review roundup : Confusing and all over the place

desiibond

desiibond

Keymaster
Ignore those drama queens saying that Zen 5 is flop or failure. There are two key factors that many reviews are not stressing on.
  1. Efficiency. The 9700x matches or beats 7700X while consuming up to 40% less power. Bloody 9700x aced Cinebench multi core test and did not even hit 60 degrees while my 5800X hits 90 degrees in few seconds. Compare these chips to 14600K and you will see how good and efficient they are going to be.
  2. Massive overclock headroom. Level1techs and der8auer shows the overclocking potential of the 9700x and 9600x. PBO is going to be massive this time around.
At this point of time, reviews are all over the place and I am suspecting that it is due to BIOS. All reviewers are using X670 based boards and it looks like AMD and board makers do not have the most efficient BIOS update. X870 and B850 will come out in a month and by then they will sort out all inconsistencies with BIOS in X670. The reviewers that say that this is a flop must take a look at themselves in the mirror. These same guys used to salivate over efficiency 'tocks' when Intel used tick-tock cycle (tick for architecture change

Der8auer : Very efficient 9700x held back by power limits

Level1techs: Reviews and benchmarks

Phoronix: AMD Ryzen 5 9600X & Ryzen 7 9700X Offer Excellent Linux Performance. On average across the nearly 400 benchmarks the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X were consuming 73 Watts on average and a peak of 101~103 Watts. The Ryzen 5 7600X meanwhile had a 92 Watt average and a 149 Watt peak while the Ryzen 7 7700X had a 99 Watt average and 140 Watt peak. The Core i5 14600K with being a power hungry Raptor Lake had a 127 Watt average and a 236 Watt peak. The power efficiency of these Zen 5 processors are phenomenal!

Anandtech: Zen 5 is alive. Overall, Zen 5's performance in single-threaded workloads, especially in rendering, certainly takes things up a notch. And from an architectural perspective, Zen 5 is clearly an improvement over Zen 4 in virtually every way possible. Now we're just waiting to see what Zen 5 can do in its fastest desktop configurations, with the Ryzen 9 9950X (16C/32T) and the Ryzen 9 9900X (12C/24) set to launch next week. So stay tuned!
Source:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slayer_25, Kaleen Bhaiya, Crazy_Eddy and 5 others
Especially as a SFF enthusiast with a Node 202, love the performance they are able to give at 65W and the temps are amazing.
However, it is also true that x3d chips are like 1080ti for the AMD, they created a monster for themselves.
Hope Intel can come back and provide good competition and thus lower prices to the consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stronk
I suppose the relative price vs performance is one of the primary factors which will concern folks. Here is the PugetSystems review from a content creation perspective -
www.pugetsystems.com

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 www.pugetsystems.com
 
desiibond said:
Ignore those drama queens saying that Zen 5 is flop or failure
Click to expand...
The CPU itself is good no doubt, but the price hike makes it a less VFM product.

Efficiency is meaningless when the price difference is so much, and the performance difference so little.

If it were priced close to the CURRENT market price of 7000 counterparts, then the extra efficiency would be worth a slight premium.

That said, if you want a CPU that has good gaming + single threaded performance + efficiency, then this is the best all rounder yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Emperor and ibose
n1r0 said:
The CPU itself is good no doubt, but the price hike makes it a less VFM product.

Efficiency is meaningless when the price difference is so much, and the performance difference so little.

If it were priced close to the CURRENT market price of 7000 counterparts, then the extra efficiency would be worth a slight premium.

That said, if you want a CPU that has good gaming + single threaded performance + efficiency, then this is the best all rounder yet.
Click to expand...
These are not 'gaming chips'. AMD's stance has been clear in last few years. If you want gaming, go for x3D parts. if you want productivity, look at non-x3d parts. Coming to price, there is no way AMD is going to price them close to previous gen chips. Especially given that people are avoiding Intel's CPUs.

Coming to performance, these chips can get up to 30% better performance when you use PBO. Right now, this is the only detailed PBO based testing. There is a massive headroom for those who can make good use of PBO and EXPO. And it is only going to get better as drivers/BIOS gets better.

skatterbencher.com

SkatterBencher #78: Ryzen 7 9700X Overclocked to 5860 MHz - SkatterBencher

We overclock the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X to 5860 MHz with the ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Hero motherboard and AIO water cooling.
skatterbencher.com skatterbencher.com

We re-ran the benchmarks and checked the performance increase compared to the default operation. The results are when compared to stock settings. All this on previous gen boards and half baked BIOS.

  • Geomean: +11.15%
  • PYPrime 32B: +40.13%
  • 7-Zip: +17.83%
  • IndigoBench (bedroom): +17.48%
  • Geekbench 6 (single): +7.88%
  • Geekbench 6 (multi): +23.26%
  • Cinebench R23 Single: +8.96%
  • Cinebench R23 Multi: +21.99%
  • CPU-Z V17.01.64 Single: +4.80%
  • CPU-Z V17.01.64 Multi: +12.39%
  • V-Ray 5: +23.55%
  • Corona 10: +21.49%
  • AI Benchmark: +29.04%
  • 3DMark Night Raid: +10.53%
  • 3DMark Solar Bay: +2.65%
  • Returnal: +1.85%
  • Tomb Raider: +6.19%
  • Final Fantasy XV: +8.71%
Here are the 3DMark CPU Profile scores:

  • CPU Profile 1 Thread: +5.19%
  • CPU Profile 2 Threads: +5.17%
  • CPU Profile 4 Threads: +4.84%
  • CPU Profile 8 Threads: +11.39%
  • CPU Profile 16 Threads: +17.03%
  • CPU Profile Max Threads: +17.16%
Here are the AIDA64 memory benchmark scores:

  • Memory Read Bandwidth: +33.98%
  • Memory Write Bandwidth: +48.91%
  • Memory Copy Bandwidth: +35.05%
  • Memory Latency: +31.28%
kartikoli said:
I hate you @desiibond my 5600X bought in Dec 2022 is going just fine and now I have already started checking price (thats not a good sign financially) ;)

I'll wait for reviews after BIOS update and indian prices
Click to expand...
wait for x3D parts if you want it for gaming. Given efficiency improvements, if 9800X3D comes, it is going to obliterate every other chip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stronk
desiibond said:
Coming to price, there is no way AMD is going to price them close to previous gen chips.
Click to expand...
Which is why it is better to wait for the prices to come down. As of now they aren't competitive compared to the previous gen when it comes to price vs performance.
I would be more interested to see how the higher end fare. They cannot get a more better chance to beat Intel into submission.
 
Last edited:
kartikoli said:
I hate you @desiibond my 5600X bought in Dec 2022 is going just fine and now I have already started checking price (thats not a good sign financially) ;)

I'll wait for reviews after BIOS update and indian prices
Click to expand...
This is how i look at it :

3000 -> 5000 = Same TDP + Good Performance improvement
5000 -> 7000 = Highly inefficient, higher TDP/Temp + relatively less performance improvement (CPU on steroids)
7000 -> 9000 = AMD managed to get 5000 series level efficiency on lower end (9600X/9700X) + relatively decent improvement over 5000 series.

Forget 7000 series even existed and now you will see this as decent upgrade for those who owns 6/8C 3000 series CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desiibond and baccilus
desiibond said:
These are not 'gaming chips'... AMD's stance has been clear in last few years. If you want gaming, go for x3D parts. if you want productivity, look at non-x3d parts.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a "gaming" CPU. You can game on any CPU
Just because a CPU has x3D cache, it doesn't magically improve gaming performance in every game.
Only games that are heavy on simulation will actually benefit from the extra cache, for all others, single core performance is what matters (even for multi threaded games).

So according to AMD if I both game and use Photoshop I should buy a 7800x3D system + a 7900X system?

Having great single core performance will help with both gaming and productivity, so...
n1r0 said:
...this is the best all rounder yet.
Click to expand...


desiibond said:
wait for x3D parts if you want it for gaming. Given efficiency improvements, if 9800X3D comes, it is going to obliterate every other chip.
Click to expand...
What do you think the 9800x3D can do that the 7800x3D can't?
There's no reason to wait for a newer "gaming CPU".
78x3D will be cheaper compared to 98x3D, and more VFM
It is already at the top of the charts both in fps and efficiency.
At this point the bottleneck is the GPU or more likely the monitor itself

Unless 9800x3D has good single core performance as well, it too will be a "flop" if it's priced higher than current price of 7800x3D. Look at fps/$, not just the fps
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stronk
ibose said:
This retails at 290 now. Do note that while jumping from AM4, you will need to consider the added prices of the board and the RAM as well. But if you have the moolah, go for it.
Click to expand...
I built the 3700x system in 2020, right before Covid lockdowns. And this one I will get at least an year after availability. This seems like a good upgrade over the 3700 series. I wouldn't have upgraded if I had a 7800x. Most applications are bottle-necked by things other than the CPU. And those really happy about the reduced power consumption: Please do calculate the cost difference too. If you are saving just Rs 400-500 per month, would you really put in the extra money if you are not addressing any bottleneck? And do remember that better chips will be out before you can recover the cost of upgrade from power savings. Buy a solar panel if that is your only concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreamCatcher, Stronk and ibose
baccilus said:
I built the 3700x system in 2020, right before Covid lockdowns. And this one I will get at least an year after availability. This seems like a good upgrade over the 3700 series. I wouldn't have upgraded if I had a 7800x. Most applications are bottle-necked by things other than the CPU. And those really happy about the reduced power consumption: Please do calculate the cost difference too. If you are saving just Rs 400-500 per month, would you really put in the extra money if you are not addressing any bottleneck? And do remember that better chips will be out before you can recover the cost of upgrade from power savings. Buy a solar panel if that is your only concern.
Click to expand...
There is no way in this world that anyone (who is not running some kind of mining or similar operation) is saving 400-500 Rs per month by changing just the CPU. These efficiency calculations are for max load. Most times, the CPUs are running close to or under 25W. So, the savings would be less than Rs. 100 per month even for always on computers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: variablevector
Now that latest versions of Intel CPUs are kind of evoking negative interests, AMD can ask for higher pricing.
Reason why competition is good in such markets.
Lets hope Intel's upcoming new CPUs with 18A node, RibbonFET gate-all-around transistors, PowerVia backside power delivery, etc. packs a punch with better performance and pricing in 2025.
 
n1r0 said:
There is no such thing as a "gaming" CPU. You can game on any CPU
Just because a CPU has x3D cache, it doesn't magically improve gaming performance in every game.
Only games that are heavy on simulation will actually benefit from the extra cache, for all others, single core performance is what matters (even for multi threaded games).

So according to AMD if I both game and use Photoshop I should buy a 7800x3D system + a 7900X system?

Having great single core performance will help with both gaming and productivity, so...
Click to expand...
To answer your 'sarcastic' question of what to do for productivity+gaming, this should help you:

When AMD added an extra layer of cache on top of CCD, they had to reduce the base and boost clocks to control thermals. When there is single chiplet (eg: 7800x3D), this results in lower speeds (base and boost). But then when there are two chiplets, the one without v-cache boosts to higher clock. In case of dual CCD, scheduler then sends the execution to the cores that can boost higher and sends instructions to v-cache hugging cores when there is a need for more cores to perform rendering or whatever. This is the reason why a dual CCD CPU with V-Cache on one CCD is best of both worlds.

Benchmarks showed partity between 7700X and 7800x3D in gaming and in productivity. In productivity, base and boost clocks were more useful and the 7700X performed better. In gaming though, 7800x3D jumped ahead thanks to games making better use of extra cache. If you both game and use Photoshop, the obvious choice is to with 7900x3D.

7900x3D: 40k for 12 cores.
7800x3D: 34.5k for 8 cores.
7700X : 30k for 8 cores.

That 10k extra gives you 4 extra cores that boost productivity workload and has 3D cache that boosts gaming. In short, this is the best of both worlds and VFM kind of CPU. If you only need productivity, best bet would be 7900x3D for 40k. If your only need is gaming, 7800x3d for just 4.5k more over 7700x is the best choice.

1723097923152.png


1723097967598.png


n1r0 said:
What do you think the 9800x3D can do that the 7800x3D can't?
There's no reason to wait for a newer "gaming CPU".
78x3D will be cheaper compared to 98x3D, and more VFM
It is already at the top of the charts both in fps and efficiency.
At this point the bottleneck is the GPU or more likely the monitor itself

Unless 9800x3D has good single core performance as well, it too will be a "flop" if it's priced higher than current price of 7800x3D. Look at fps/$, not just the fps
Click to expand...
This: https://hothardware.com/news/amd-says-next-gen-x3d-is-better
AMD is working on upgrades to how V-cache is referred in Zen 5. Details are not given out yet. There could be change in L1 cache as well as per another leak. More over, if 9800x3D can match or beat 7800x3D while drawing less power, that will help with overall cooling and performance.

The 9800x3D will run cooler overall and draw less power. I end up recovering that amount in the long run. As it also runs at lower temps, if I need more performance, I can push it further to get more performance out of it using PBO and EXPO. All the while keeping power consumption and heat dissipation lower or similar to 7800x3D's. Please refer to https://skatterbencher.com/2024/08/07/skatterbencher-78-ryzen-7-9700x-overclocked-to-5860-mhz/ . In LTT's Cinebench test, the 9700x registered average temps of 53 degrees. This chip has cut off at 95 degrees. Imagine the amount of headroom we will have for overclocking.

It all comes down to the price difference. I would take a 5k rupee to 7k rupee price difference and go with the 9800x3D over the 7800x3D.
 
Last edited:
I think that AMD marketing / PR missed the boat.
They should have specifically asked reviewers (AMD, and for that matter all HW vendors do provide a "Review Guide" along with review samples) to emphasize the energy efficiency.
When the product team has decided to make it a 65W part, then marketing should be in-line.
To generally achieve 7700X and + Results WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY going to 65W from 105W AMD TDP (88~90W from 142W PPT), AMD should've been screaming at the top of their lungs about it. AND without a full node shrink. 4nm is basically 5nm refined.

To give credit where it's due, GN did lead with this fact in their video.

Further, some variance and seemingly mixed PBO response results in different reviews do point to some immaturity in BIOS readiness for this launch.
 
Last edited:
HUB says minimal difference in total system power between 9700X and 7700 in CBR23 MT.
Anandtech's graphs indicate a ~2W difference in peak power between 9700X and 7700 in the same.
While Derbauer says a 40% reduction in average power draw between 9700X and 7700X.

The numbers seemed confusing at first because the 7700X is extremely inefficient compared to the 7700. And some reviewers are comparing the X parts to each other, which is why the 9700X can look so great compared to it. But crucially it only offers 11% more MT performance at the same power compared to a 7700. That's why I greatly prefer HUB's methodology here. Because if the 7700X did not exist as a slightly overclocked but much less efficient benchmark for the 9700X then these comparisons would be much more brutal. Comparing against the worst example of a last-gen part is what saves AMD here.

x.com

x.com x.com

Taken together, performance gains are just underwhelming at stock. But if you were going to buy a 7700 or 7700X anyway, this could be a good deal once the prices drop to match. Hardly anything to get excited about though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ibose
codwapeace said:
There is no way in this world that anyone (who is not running some kind of mining or similar operation) is saving 400-500 Rs per month by changing just the CPU. These efficiency calculations are for max load. Most times, the CPUs are running close to or under 25W. So, the savings would be less than Rs. 100 per month even for always on computers.
Click to expand...
Add the power draw of other components, and savings will be relatively too low to base your decision on this alone.
 
Top Bottom