Possibly one of the most controversial product releases in the PC world in recent years was AMD's Zen 5 series. It was certainly not what we were expecting, and it turned into a real cluster. Released in late 2024, we were all excited for AMD's latest offering – their next step on AM5 – and everything coming out of the company leading up to the release sounded promising. We were expecting double-digit performance gains for games thanks to a 16% IPC increase over Zen 4. Sadly, this isn't what we got.
Late last year, we were ready for some meaningful gaming performance gains. But when Zen 5 arrived, we were left stumped. The 9700X was only about 1 – 2% faster than the 7700X, while the 9600X was just a few percent faster than the 7600X. Although performance margins varied between review outlets due to different testing methods, the recurring theme was clear: for gaming and most general productivity applications, Zen 5 offered little to nothing over Zen 4.
Even AMD seemed unsure about how much faster Zen 5 was supposed to be compared to Zen 4, leading to widespread confusion.
There were even instances where Zen 5 processors were slower in gaming than Zen 4. While some initially thought this was a mistake, AMD's own review guide confirmed it was possible. In fact, AMD's internal testing showed cases where the 9700X performed worse than the 7700X in certain games.
Zen 5 and Windows Admin Mode
The wild goose chase for the alleged missing Zen 5 performance took many twists and turns, eventually leading to a few important discoveries. Initially, AMD claimed that running Windows 11 in a special Administrator mode fixed the issue. They stated this was a Windows 11 bug and that enabling this mode would restore Zen 5's expected performance.
After investigating, we found that while Zen 5 did indeed perform better in Administrator mode, so did Zen 4. This wasn't a Zen 5-specific fix. However, there were situations where Ryzen processors saw a larger performance boost compared to competing Intel processors in this mode, suggesting something unusual was happening. That said, this mode side-stepped several security features, so it's possible that Intel CPUs simply handled those tasks better.
When 24H2 finally released, we found that while there were some dramatic improvements for the 9700X, those same improvements also applied to Zen 4 processors.
The key takeaway was that there were indeed real performance gains. Across a wide range of games, we observed that both the 9700X and the 7700X were now, on average, about 10% faster. Crucially, Intel CPUs showed little to no improvement with 24H2, gaining only a few percent in some cases.
These kinds of performance gains from a simple Windows update were unprecedented, which caused confusion even among tech media outlets as they scrambled to retest and update their benchmarks.
So, has anything changed? We continue to see comments suggesting that Zen 5 has received further optimizations and is now comfortably ahead of Zen 4 for gaming.
Today, we are putting that claim to the test by comparing the 7600X and 9600X across a dozen games. For additional context, we're including the 9800X3D to help determine whether we are CPU or GPU limited in our testing. We're using the latest version of Windows 11, along with the most up-to-date BIOS for our AM5 motherboard.
With everything ready, let's get into it.
Benchmarks
Marvel Rivals
First up, we have Marvel Rivals, tested using both the medium and ultra presets. With the medium preset, the 9600X is 5% faster on average, dropping to just 3% with ultra. This data was recorded using the built-in benchmark, so anyone can verify these results as long as they have identical hardware.
Overall, a 3 – 5% margin is exactly what we typically expect to see when comparing Zen 4 and Zen 5 processors.
Rainbow Six Siege X
This data was surprising. Previously, Rainbow Six Siege was one of the few titles that favored Zen 5 over the previous Zen 4 generation, showing up to a 16% improvement in 1% lows, though only about a 6% boost in average frame rate.
In our latest testing, the 9600X is now 17% faster for average frame rates and 19% faster for 1% lows when using the medium preset. Switching to the very high preset reduces those margins to 11% and 13%, respectively.
These are substantial gains for the Zen 5 processor, and it will be interesting to see if other games deliver similar results.
Assassin's Creed Shadows
Assassin's Creed Shadows is more GPU-limited, even when using the medium preset. However, it's not entirely GPU-bound – the 9800X3D was still 10% faster, indicating some headroom remains.
In this case, there is no performance difference between the 7600X and 9600X.
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered is clearly not GPU-limited. The 9800X3D was 44% faster than the 9600X at the medium preset and 53% faster at very high settings, which are more CPU demanding.
Despite the 9800X3D's significant lead, the 9600X barely outperforms the 7600X, with at most a 2% performance uplift. This result aligns closely with our initial testing when these CPUs were first compared late last year.
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Testing with the latest version of Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty revealed an unexpected result: the 7600X was a few percent faster than the 9600X.
While unusual, this isn't entirely unexpected, as AMD's own data shows scenarios where Zen 4 can outperform Zen 5 in certain games. Previously, both CPUs delivered similar performance in this title, but our updated testing now shows a slight advantage for Zen 4.
Space Marine 2
Space Marine 2 is a highly CPU-demanding game, yet the 9600X was barely faster than the 7600X.
At the ultra preset, performance was essentially identical. With the medium preset, we observed a modest 6% improvement for Zen 5 – a small but noticeable gain.
The Last of Us Part II Remastered
The Last of Us Part II Remastered is another CPU-heavy single-player game, but again, there's very little difference between these CPUs.
At the medium preset, performance was identical, while at very high settings, the 9600X was only 2% faster.
Spider-Man 2
Another CPU-intensive single-player title, Spider-Man 2, shows up to a 6% advantage for the 9600X with medium settings.
With the game maxed out and ray tracing enabled, that margin drops to 4%. Importantly, this is not GPU-bound, as the 9800X3D remains 22% faster than the 9600X under the same conditions.
Mafia: The Old Country
In Mafia: The Old Country, a new addition to our benchmark suite, the 9600X and 7600X are essentially neck and neck.
The Zen 5 processor is at best 2% faster, and once again, the test is not GPU-limited.
Assetto Corsa Competizione
Assetto Corsa Competizione was previously one of the few games where Zen 5 held a clear advantage, and that remains true today.
The 9600X is 8% faster than the 7600X with the medium preset and 12% faster using the Epic preset, suggesting that higher settings increase CPU demand.
Baldur's Gate 3
The 9600X was 11% faster than the 7600X in Baldur's Gate 3 when using the medium settings, which is a solid performance uplift. That margin, however, drops to just 5% when using the ultra settings. We are by no means GPU-limited here, as the 9800X3D was still 82% faster, which is insane.
Counter-Strike 2 (FPS Heaven Workshop)
Some reviewers use the FPS Heaven Workshop Benchmark to test Counter-Strike 2 performance, but it's not very reliable, so we typically don't use it. That said, we've included this data as an example, though it won't be factored into our 12-game average. We also ran proper in-game testing, and we'll take a look at that in a moment.
The frame rates here are much higher than what you'd actually see during real gameplay, making this more of a synthetic test. Using the medium preset, the 9600X was 7% faster than the 7600X, which looks impressive on paper. However, since these results don't reflect actual gameplay performance, we'll move on to the more accurate data.
Counter-Strike 2 (Pro Replay)
Using a pro replay, we get a much clearer picture of actual in-game performance with these CPUs. With the medium preset, the 9600X was noticeably faster than the 7600X, showing a 16% uplift in average frame rate, though the improvement to the 1% lows was just 5%. Switching to the very high preset narrowed the margin, with the 9600X coming in 8% faster on average, while the 1% lows were virtually identical between the two CPUs.
12 Game Average
Please note that the Counter-Strike 2 FPS Heaven Workshop Benchmark results are not included in this data. Across the 12 games we tested, the 9600X was on average 6% faster when using the medium settings, and just 3.5% faster when using the high or ultra settings.
These results line up closely with what we found when we first reviewed the Zen 5 processors, showing modest but consistent gains over Zen 4.
Shader Compilation
Marvel Rivals
A new set of benchmarks we're adding to our CPU gaming tests is shader compilation time. For this, we have three games, starting with Marvel Rivals. In this test, the 9600X is less than 1% faster than the 7600X, with both taking just over 5 minutes to complete.
The 9800X3D, on the other hand, finished in 3.5 minutes, making it 34% faster. This makes sense given it has 33% more cores, and this workload fully utilizes all available cores.
The Last of Us Part I
We see a similar situation in The Last of Us Part I, where the 9600X was just 3% faster than the 7600X. Both CPUs took an incredibly long 16 minutes to complete the task. The 9800X3D was 35% faster, though even with that advantage, it still required more than 10 minutes to compile the shaders.
Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl
Finally, we have Stalker 2, where the 9600X was only 1% faster than the 7600X, while the 9800X3D came in nearly 30% faster. Overall, when it comes to shader compilation performance, the 9600X offers virtually no improvement over the 7600X.
What We Learned
So there you have it. In terms of gaming performance, Zen 5 still offers very little over Zen 4, especially for the non-X3D V-Cache models. We called Zen 5 a flop in our day-one review, and we completely stand by that. For those already on AM5, it was extremely disappointing, and for those yet to transition to AM5, there was really no incentive to make the move.
Of course, performance is just one part of the equation. Pricing is equally important, and at launch, the 9700X was priced at $360, while the 9600X came in at $280. Meanwhile, comparable Zen 4 models like the 7700 cost just $290 and included a cooler, while the Ryzen 5 7600 was only $180 and also came with a box cooler – something neither the 9600X nor the 9700X offered.
Given the meager performance gains, paying nearly a 24% premium for the 9700X made no sense, while an almost 60% premium for the 9600X made even less sense. Thankfully, pricing has since dropped, while Zen 4 prices have crept up slightly.
The 9700X can now be found for around $300, with the 7700X at roughly the same price and the 7700 available for $285. At that point, you might as well buy the Zen 5 part, and we predicted this would eventually be the case back in our day-one review.
At launch, we said this:
Making matters worse is the price premium. If the 9700X was slotting in at the same $290 asking price as the 7700X, then I guess sure, that's fine – a small upgrade, nothing to get excited about, but it's not bad. But at a 24% premium, AMD can keep it; we have no interest in the 9700X at this point in time.
As expected, pricing did settle down. Zen 5 sales were so poor that AMD began cutting prices just two months after release. By December, it was possible to purchase a 9700X for $320, though even then, the 7700X – which had dropped to $260 at the same time – remained the better deal.
The Ryzen 9600X can now be purchased for the same $185 as the non-X version of the 7600. At that price, you might as well go with the Zen 5 part. We've finally reached a point where buying Zen 5 makes sense financially, but it's still far from an exciting upgrade. As we've just seen, gaming performance improves by only about 3 – 6% on average.
Despite all the drama and confusion, a year later, very little has changed when comparing Zen 5 to Zen 4.