AMD Ryzen 5 9600X Review: Poor Value for Gamers

[SAYEDMOHD]

I don't understand this article. Why are your numbers so different than the other reviewer's results for both the 9600X and the 9700X?

9600X:
TH's results at 1080p = 21%
Your results at 1080p = 1% (???)

Overall, TH has for the 9600X:
1080p = 21 %
1440p = 20%
single = 8%
multi = 24%

How can you explain why your results are so drastically different? Is there something wrong with your setup? Is it the other sites?

Summary review differences:
TS: "often slower than its predecessor and yet somehow costs 40% more"
TH: "Ryzen 5 9600X is 12% faster than the previous-gen Ryzen 5 7600X, a solid generational gain" and they have it only as 33% more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, even it is a 20% gain for 30% more cost, that is not a great deal.

It seems rather than try to reconcile that your results are significantly different than practically every other review; you instead write: "utterly disappointed", "hard to imagine", "so bad", "delusional", "dumpster fire", and "bad product". I have been a long time fan of this website, but this review and the 9700X review are not good tech reviews.

Ryzen 9-series seems to be sensitive to motherboard features and RAM setup as we said from MSI lunched a bios that boost Ryzen 7 9700x by 10%

 

[SAYEDMOHD]

I don't understand this article. Why are your numbers so different than the other reviewer's results for both the 9600X and the 9700X?

9600X:
TH's results at 1080p = 21%
Your results at 1080p = 1% (???)

Overall, TH has for the 9600X:
1080p = 21 %
1440p = 20%
single = 8%
multi = 24%

How can you explain why your results are so drastically different? Is there something wrong with your setup? Is it the other sites?

Summary review differences:
TS: "often slower than its predecessor and yet somehow costs 40% more"
TH: "Ryzen 5 9600X is 12% faster than the previous-gen Ryzen 5 7600X, a solid generational gain" and they have it only as 33% more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, even it is a 20% gain for 30% more cost, that is not a great deal.

It seems rather than try to reconcile that your results are significantly different than practically every other review; you instead write: "utterly disappointed", "hard to imagine", "so bad", "delusional", "dumpster fire", and "bad product". I have been a long time fan of this website, but this review and the 9700X review are not good tech reviews.

see this article

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9981...perf-on-amd-ryzen-9000-series-cpus/index.html

 

[amghwk]

Don't know why Steven Walton's reviews are looking very odd nowadays. Seeing too much AMD bashing for this round, (when almost universally reviewed otherwise elsewhere) which surprisingly looking biased. With the messy graphs in the 9700X review, thing looked being rushed out. What happened, didn't get your free review units eh? /s

 

[Nintenboy01]

I dont think Steves review is off or anything wrong, remember, all these reviews are going to be a little off, memory timings, etc vary on all these reviews, and unlike Intel, they make a difference on AMD cpus.

Toms 21% increase was with a OC on the memory to 6000 when here he was using 5600.

yeah sounds like Zen 5 craves memory bandwidth. Hopefully the X3D versions see a much better uplift

 

[user556]

Sounds like there is a problem with how Windoze is configured. TechPowerUp found that disabling SMT gave improvements almost across the board. Which is the opposite to what should be happening and suggests that somehow the Windoze task scheduler is self nerf'd by default. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-9700x-performance-smt-disabled/

 

[GoldenGoat]

Thanks for the article and supporting data. Good stuff.

 

[Endymio]

No, the nature pointed out in these texts is not that of a similar recompiler, a GPU could never RECOMPILE with the latency required for real-time emulation of a complex system. GPUs are good at many tasks, but this is not one of them.

Oops! You're conflating different things here. A PS3 emulator that uses AVX instructions is not a PS3 emulator written solely in the AVX instruction set.

The point stands: AVX is "SIMD-lite"; any operation capable of being performed with AVX can also be performed with a GPU. Offloading to the latter may have higher latency, but it also has far, far higher bandwidth. When you're performing more than a small number of operations, the bandwidth wins.

 

[NilayK]

It s not a bad product Steve , it's not "a disaster" as you call it in your video . It just diverges from your expectations.

In terms of game performance - it is a bit faster than Ryzen 7600X and the same power efficiency . In terms of application performance , Ryzen 9600X is tangibly faster and is 30% more power efficient . Yes , as of now , the price is high for its performance .

Steve , thanks for the review. But avoid too harsh words . This product is not bad , just we expected more.

It IS a bad product, because of its value.
WHY?
There will be two scenarios :
1. Nobody buys 9000 series processors, 7000 series is preferred because of much better value -> waste of resources to make 9000 series -> bad for AMD -> bad product
2. AMD has to lower the price for incentivising customers to buy 9000 series -> AMD loss -> bad for AMD -> bad product

 

[Steedward]

I have an i5 8400 which is starting to get a bit jittery, so I want to upgrage. I was holding out for the next Intel range but would be open to jumping ship to AMD.

The Ryzen 5 9600X is the same price as the older Ryzen 7 7700X, but the 7700X appears to be better. Both AM5, whole new build. I understand the 9600X is a pointless upgrade if you have a more recent system, but I'm on a ~6 year old CPU.

In my situation, should I go for the 9600X or the older 7700X? The 9600X may improve as new mobos come out, or BIOS is updated for older boards? I can hold out another couple of months while the ecosystem beds down.

I have a 6700XT GPU, if that makes any difference.

 

[HardReset]

I have an i5 8400 which is starting to get a bit jittery, so I want to upgrage. I was holding out for the next Intel range but would be open to jumping ship to AMD.

The Ryzen 5 9600X is the same price as the older Ryzen 7 7700X, but the 7700X appears to be better. Both AM5, whole new build. I understand the 9600X is a pointless upgrade if you have a more recent system, but I'm on a ~6 year old CPU.

In my situation, should I go for the 9600X or the older 7700X? The 9600X may improve as new mobos come out, or BIOS is updated for older boards? I can hold out another couple of months while the ecosystem beds down.

I have a 6700XT GPU, if that makes any difference.

I expect prices to come down when 9000 series replaces 7000 series so waiting for few months is a good idea. 9600X is faster than 7700X when modern software is used.

 

[GreenReaper]

I have an i5 8400 which is starting to get a bit jittery, so I want to upgrage. I was holding out for the next Intel range but would be open to jumping ship to AMD.

The Ryzen 5 9600X is the same price as the older Ryzen 7 7700X, but the 7700X appears to be better. Both AM5, whole new build. I understand the 9600X is a pointless upgrade if you have a more recent system, but I'm on a ~6 year old CPU.

In my situation, should I go for the 9600X or the older 7700X? The 9600X may improve as new mobos come out, or BIOS is updated for older boards? I can hold out another couple of months while the ecosystem beds down.

I have a 6700XT GPU, if that makes any difference.

If you're using it primarily for games you might want an 7800X3D for a little more. The 6700XT will definitely be the bottleneck in that situation but that could be upgraded later.