UdyrL
Posts: 180 +267
Power consumption charts are labeled as "Higher is better".
Was this written by Intel?
Was this written by Intel?
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review: Zen 5 Arrives
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
jpvalverde85
Posts: 60 +40
It is quick, yes. It is quicker than 7700X, yes. It is frugal, yes. It is better than other AMD products? Not yet. The frontend overhaul is there, the FP grunt too, but there are some decisions on the SKU and some bottleneck that doesn't paint the coolest picture at the moment. Time will make it look better with such frontend against Lion Cove, but the 65W TDP or the efficiency of the product make it look soft performing, PBO testing suggests that maybe more power does little for this chips, and the FP grunt seems to be of limited use due to lack of memory bandwidth, maybe the X3D cache can mitigate some of this, but the 9950X will have higher highs and lower lows having the same memory bandwidth. After reading some reviews here and there, I'm feeling comfortable sticking a bit longer with my 5950X, ain't that bad yet. Thanks for the big scope of this tests Steven, being able to watch from Alder and Zen3 up to now is greatly appreciated.
Last edited:
IcyKn1ght
Posts: 18 +7
Should be priced at $275. At $360, it's an absolute disgrace. The only reason whatsoever that one could justify spending $360 on this disappointment, would be if you use Photoshop for ten hours a day.
I was at the very least hoping for it to match the 7800X3D's gaming performance. If that were too much to ask for, at least be more power efficient than the 7800X3D. But unfortunately it's neither of those two.
Let's just hope the 9950X delivers...
I was at the very least hoping for it to match the 7800X3D's gaming performance. If that were too much to ask for, at least be more power efficient than the 7800X3D. But unfortunately it's neither of those two.
Let's just hope the 9950X delivers...
MarcusNumb
Posts: 271 +476
AMD had a great opportunity to hit Intel hard by pricing the 9700x around 300usd, and again they just missed it. Now they even make me wonder if they ever want to increase their CPU market share or not. .. I was thinking about upgrading my 3600x, now I'll wait 2 or 3 more years xD
Achaios
Posts: 665 +1,681
Yeah, we are talking about userbenchmark.com levels of fanboyism here but reversed (for the other team) ofc.
OT, I prefer a nurfed CPU to a dead one or one that cannot even run at advertised stock settings.
P.S.: One should take into consideration that Socket LGA 1700 (Intel 13th/14th Gen) is a dead socket while AM5 lives and will keep on living for another 3-4 years.
Only complete tech n00bs would go for Intel at this stage, and this is not gonna change anytime soon.
Last edited:
it also runs self-destructing processors and the fix will be avilable after frankestein lake will alredy be out
... but mybe some BIOS relased for it can reduce the damagethe biggest problem is no new memory performance only 6000 mhz, and I think still no 4 DIMM support at normal speeds
Last edited:
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,814 +3,545
Very modest process shrink on the logic, nothing on the I/O. That translates to underwhelming performance gains when you have a restricted TDP.
There are already tests where TDP is raised to 105w to match the 7700X.
That gives somewhat more noticeable gains and the new chip pulls away in multi core as you might expect. You will see elevated temperatures though.
There are already tests where TDP is raised to 105w to match the 7700X.
That gives somewhat more noticeable gains and the new chip pulls away in multi core as you might expect. You will see elevated temperatures though.
Greed gets the best of AMD again, just when Intel is in deep waters and it could have turned the tide decisively. Barely any improvement from two years old tech selling at a premium. 2 frames better, 2% faster for 60 bucks more, wtf is that? DOA!
Strange, all other sites review it possitevely and you do test some old software. The idea is not to run old games but new things. Disapointed of this review.
i like foxes
Posts: 312 +218
Ryzen 9600X turns out good ! Faster than Ryzen 5800X3D and almost as fast as i7 14700K in gaming .But draws less power than i7 14700K (66W vs 115W on average , 58W of Ryzen 5800X3D).
A tech outlet thinks that Ryzen 9600X is slower than Ryzen 5800X3D by 10% in gaming but they used slow RAM along with Ryzen 9600X - DDR5 5600MT/s .
A tech outlet thinks that Ryzen 9600X is slower than Ryzen 5800X3D by 10% in gaming but they used slow RAM along with Ryzen 9600X - DDR5 5600MT/s .
Last edited:
Thank you for the honest review. I have been reading and digesting this and multiple other reviews around the web today, as I picked up a 7950x3d on Prime Day for ~$460 and have kept it unopened in the box waiting for the 9000 reviews to hit to decide whether to use it or return it and get a 9900x or 9700x. Based on what I'm seeing, gaming performance is underwhelming without overclocking and tweaking (beyond just setting PBO to "enabled"), and in my experience this ALWAYS compromises stability if you tweak enough to get a noticeable performance increase out of it over stock.
So now I'm glad I picked up the 7950x3d.... I installed it on my lunch.
So now I'm glad I picked up the 7950x3d.... I installed it on my lunch.
Please note there was an error in the power graph showing how the 9700X behaves in CB. The correct graph is now in the review and also here (it doesn't change much).
Please note we've also added the 7700, the 7700X was never an efficient part. If you compare with the 65w 7700 the power efficiency of Zen 5 is A LOT less impressive.
Also note the power consumption figures in our review for the 9700X while gaming are accurate. The gaming data (FPS) is 100% accurate, too, this is what we spent the bulk of our time validating, and sadly this is where Zen 5 sucks compared to Zen 4.
Please note we've also added the 7700, the 7700X was never an efficient part. If you compare with the 65w 7700 the power efficiency of Zen 5 is A LOT less impressive.
Also note the power consumption figures in our review for the 9700X while gaming are accurate. The gaming data (FPS) is 100% accurate, too, this is what we spent the bulk of our time validating, and sadly this is where Zen 5 sucks compared to Zen 4.
The 5800X3D only makes sense if you are already on an am4 platform. If you want to upgrade from scratch to am5 last gen beats 7000 series beats it gaming, production for example 9600x matches the 7700x in price but the 7700x beats in non gaming applications, 9700x matches 7900x in pricing but gets destroyed in non gaming applications, 9900x matches the 7950x/x3d in pricing and gets destroyed in gaming and non gaming applications.
To recap am4 users best upgrade path is 5700x3d.
For new customers zen4 is the best performance per dollar you'll get.
lastly the efficiency gains with zen5 while great sill take years to recuperate from your energy bill for the delta premium vs zen4 equivalent.
i like foxes
Posts: 312 +218
Godrilla , agree . I personally use an old 10 gen Intel procesor which is doing good job for me at 1080p . Since , its utilized less than 20% in gaming I m not planning to upgrade it soon
Julio Franco , thanks for the article (Steve wrote it though ) . You said you added Ryzen 7700 but I dont see it anywhere . Ryzen 9700X destroys Ryzen 7700X in terms of power efficiency in app and is on par in terms of gaming power efficiency .
Julio Franco , thanks for the article (Steve wrote it though ) . You said you added Ryzen 7700 but I dont see it anywhere . Ryzen 9700X destroys Ryzen 7700X in terms of power efficiency in app and is on par in terms of gaming power efficiency .
Last edited:
So 40% more efficient is categorized as, "a little"...
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
Photoshop 2024, 2023 game releases like Hogwarts and Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty, and 2024 releases like Homeworld 3 are "old stuff"? And while they do test some older games, the performance differentials there are no better than on the newer ones. You might want to rethink your reasoning here.
After reading through several reviews, Techspot is only one that thinks 9700X is bad product. Techspot even considers Zen5 to be a flop.
You have some explaining to do. Basically you disagree with everyone else.
You have some explaining to do. Basically you disagree with everyone else.
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
The nice thing about facts is that they remain true, regardless of how many people chose to believe them. Your appeal to consensus fallacy is noted, but you haven't shown any evidence the article got any facts wrong.
Their conclusions may or may not be correct, but bleating they "have some 'splainin" to do because they disagree with the majority just makes you look foolish.
Techspot have had strange logics before too. Like:
AMD APU with powerful GPU sucks because discrete GPU gives better price/performance. Well, you can't fit discrete GPU on every system...
Techspot says AMD GPU is anomaly and worst ever but recommends it two weeks later.
This time AMD releases CPU with excellent power consumption and best single thread performance. But it sucks because it sucks. What is better x86 CPU if you want good single thread performance and low power consumption? Notice, Techspot said Zen5 architecture is a flop. Best x86 architecture is a flop? REALLY?
Biggers improvement of Zen5 vs Zen4 is ability to execute AVX512 instructions on single cycle (vs two cycles on Zen4).
Now, Techspot mentions this improvement on article, right? Not a SINGLE mention about ANY AVX on article!
Techspot have guts to call architecture as a flop while dismissing it's biggest improvement on previous one. Also good to note Intel hybrid CPUs do not support AVX512 AT ALL.
Now, Techspot mentions this improvement on article, right? Not a SINGLE mention about ANY AVX on article!
Techspot have guts to call architecture as a flop while dismissing it's biggest improvement on previous one. Also good to note Intel hybrid CPUs do not support AVX512 AT ALL.
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
I'll give you a cookie if you can name the logical fallacy you just attempted with that diversion.
I did take the time to read the Techpowerup review and found, unsurprisingly, that you're wrong. Their benchmarks agree very closely with Techspot's. TPU focused more on applications testing than games where the 9700x does slightly better, but it takes a true blinders-on zealot to deny the chip's gaming performance is inarguably underwhelming. It rarely beats the 7700x by more than a few percent, does worse in a few, and there are several titles in which the power-performance ratio is actually worse.
Stil, despite having the same data they give it a "highly recommended" rating. Why? Because otherwise, the fanboi army attacks with knives and pitchforks.
amghwk
Posts: 1,703 +1,717
Why are the graphs not arranged according to ranking? They look messy.
So, the higher the power consumption, the better, huh?
Techpowerup summed it up nicely: (Despite high price, they still gave it a "Highly Recommended" award.)
Steven Walton said "a little efficient" while at Techpowerup, it's labeled as "Very energy efficient".
So, the higher the power consumption, the better, huh?
Techpowerup summed it up nicely: (Despite high price, they still gave it a "Highly Recommended" award.)
Steven Walton said "a little efficient" while at Techpowerup, it's labeled as "Very energy efficient".
Last edited:
I don't even know where to begin. First, you say Techpowerup is AMD biased, FYI they gave Raptor Lake also Editors choice reward.
For gaming performance, neither 7700K or 9700K are primarily gaming CPUs.You want gaming, go for 3D cache models. Equally you could say 3D cache models suck for applications. But hey, they are primarily Gaming CPUs.
Testing "gaming CPUs" mainly with games and "application CPUs" mainly with applications DO make sense.
What a joke this Zen5 is, 5700x3d is $147 (just got one). It cannot beat even a Zen 3 5800x3d part, even with PBO. 5800x3d on AM4 and 7800x3d on AM5 is the way to go.
You want gaming, buy gaming CPU.
Pretty impressive performance.
They actually made some analysis too. AVX512 support is years ahead Intel and they also mentioned that compatibility issue with Intel hybrid CPUs. Techspot just ran few benchmarks and then said Zen5 architecture sucks
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
AMD unveils 2nm Epyc Venice with 256 cores for next-gen AI and cloud workloads- Squid Surprise replied