The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X Review: Zen 5 is Alive
by Gavin Bonshor on August 7, 2024 9:00 AM ESTProductivity and Web
Our previous sets of ‘office’ benchmarks have often been a mix of science and synthetics, so this time, we wanted to keep our office and productivity section purely based on real-world performance. The biggest update to our Office-focused tests for 2024 and beyond includes UL's Procyon software, which is the successor to PCMark. Procyon benchmarks office performance using Microsoft Office applications, and we've thrown in some timed compiler benchmarks such as Node.js, Linux, and PHP.
In the productivity section of our CPU suite for 2024, all of the desktop chips tested perform similarly in the UL Procyon office-based benchmarks, which use Microsoft Office and is an everyday piece of software most people will use, especially in a work or study-based setting. The benchmark where the Zen 5 chips seem to make an impact is in the Jetstream 2.1 web-based benchmark, which puts both the Ryzen 7 9700X and the Ryzen 5 9600X ahead of the competition comfortably.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
LarsBars - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
Are you still planning on including the core-to-core latency testing?Silver5urfer - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
I second that, it would be great to see a proper deep dive into Zen 5. Please do that with upcoming bigger core parts.Silver5urfer - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
Why did AT did not do a PBO2 run on these ? Also why not compare them to a 7700X.From what I was seeing across the board AMD's mistake was letting the 8C16T processor get a huge TDP power cap, from 105W to a mere 65W resulting in lack of IPC gains translation in IRL workloads from gaming to everything.
No idea why AMD make this stupid move. Zen 5 seems efficient but the lack of power envelope is bad. Esp when the x86 ISA always scales with power. This is a desktop socket not a cheap use and throw BGA garbage.
And now the OC part, with PBO2 this chip really excels it throws out that stupid 65W efficiency and performs like it should. Esp when we factor in Curve Shaper tool.
AT you should consider that new Curve Shaper in your next Zen 5 processor reviews like esp that 16C32T part, it will be a nice advantage for anyone who likes tinkering.
Ryan Smith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
"Why did AT did not do a PBO2 run on these ?"PBO is a form of overclocking. Given more time, it would have been nice to play with it as well, to see what the chip could do. But for our baseline testing, we do not run anything at overclocked settings.
"Also why not compare them to a 7700X"
We felt the 7700 was the more interesting and informative comparison, since it had the same TDP as the 9700X. This way we could get right down to business and see how the chips and architectures compared at what's essentially iso-power.
Golgatha777 - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
Anecdotal evidence, but in tweaking my personal 7700X, I found the sweet spot for full boost and highest all-core frequency to be around 100w PPT. I think AMD potentially missed an opportunity to do better in default benchmarks by not making the 9700X a 105w part, or at least a bit higher than 65w.OFelix - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Absolutely - it appears that AMD could have avoided the bad reviews if this processor had been either given more power or marketed as "9700" without the X to match the 65W 7700.The interesting question is why they didn't? Just a normal large company screw-up? Or have they found issues with the new process node that means they are not comfortable selling these processors in large number at higher power levels?
From a marketing perspective something has gone horribly wrong! :-)
Hopefully the 9800X and the 9950X will be able to maintain the single-thread performance advantage whilst trashing Intel in the multi-threaded benchmarks.
Targon - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
You could say that XMP is a form of overclocking, but no one has a problem turning THAT on when benchmarking.Zoolook13 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Except for Anandtech, they are consistent.James5mith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
Gavin: There is an inconsistency from page 1 to page 3.Page 1: "Also, it has a 65 W TDP. Still, both their predecessors, the Ryzen 7 7700X (8C/16T Zen 4) and the Ryzen 5 7600X (6C/12T Zen 4), have a higher 105 W TDP."
Page 3: "Given that both processors are nearly identical (8C/16T at 65 W TDP/88-90 W PPT), aside from the underlying core architecture"
So do they have identical TDP ratings? Or did the predecessors have a TDP rating 40w higher?
Ryan Smith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
The comment on page 1 is in reference to the 7700X. That is a 105W TDP processor.The comment on page 3 is in reference to the vanilla (non-X) 7700. That is a 65W TDP processor.