The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X Review: Zen 5 is Alive

Conclusion

Since the good old days, or back in 2017, AMD debuted their 1st generation of Ryzen processors on their original Zen microarchitecture, and ever since, there has been no looking back. Back when Intel was dominant in the consumer market, fast forwarding to today, and the competition has never been so hot between the two silicon goliaths. Something that's just as peculiar as it is interesting, though, is that today isn't the first Zen 5 product AMD has launched, which goes the grain from everything we've seen from a Ryzen launch so far.

AMD opened the Zen 5 jar with their Ryzen AI 300 mobile series, which we reviewed last week via the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 mobile SoC. While AMD combines full-fat Zen 5 cores with the more compact Zen 5c cores, also another first for AMD on a new architecture launch day, the Ryzen 9000 series for desktop is finally here for those looking for something with more oomph, albeit static. Again, AMD has gone against the grain once again, and instead of launching their best first, AMD has opted to stagger the launch of the Ryzen 9000 and gave us all the two bottom SKUs in the quartet announced so far.

So, launching today are the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X (8C/16T) and the Ryzen 5 9600X (6C/12T), which occupy the more affordable market segment, with the 9700X costing $359 and the 9600X at the cheaper price of $279. Not only is AMD's Zen 5 chips cheaper than their corresponding SKUs compared to 2022's Zen 4 and Ryzen 7000 series SKUs. That's good for consumers, as we've seen rising hardware prices consistently year on year. Especially in motherboards, where the mid-range in 2015 used to be $200, that would barely get you an entry-level X670E model today, with prices up to and including $800+ for a flagship desktop model.

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, as seen in CPU-Z

Anyway, so not only does Zen 5 bring cheaper chips to consumers, but it also brings equivalent specifications with a lower TDP. However, when you factor in Power Package Tracking (PPT) from the AM5 CPU socket, the 65 W TDP translates into more like 88-90 W, so that's another dagger in the relevance of what value is placed in what the TDP is. It does have to be said, though, even at under 100 W, AMD's previous examples, such as Zen 4, have proved that they can hang with the best, even when dialing down the power output.

So while we're still waiting for the big guns of AMD's Zen 5 based Ryzen 9000 series, the Ryzen 9 9950X, which is the 16C/32T flagship, and the slightly lesser Ryzen 9 9900X, which has 12C/24T, how does Zen 5 stack up in terms of performance, which is the thing people typically care about when purchasing a new processor; price is the other main characteristic people look for. Let's dive into some analysis:

AMD Ryzen 7 9700X & Ryzen 5 9600X: Compute Analysis

Much of the focus isn't just on how well the Zen 5 on desktop performs but how much of an improvement it presents compared to its predecessor, Zen 4, and the Ryzen 7000 series. There are two primary elements to consider when judging the performance going to Zen 5 from Zen 4: single-threaded performance and any associated uplifts, multi-threaded performance because that's where the heavy lifting with intense workloads is done, and power efficiency. Power efficiency is more of a comparison to Intel's offerings in the same tier, so for the Ryzen 7 9700X with an MSRP of $359, this puts it in the realm of the Intel Core i5-14600K, which is currently available at Amazon for $300. This also means that the Ryzen 5 9600X, at $279, is also in the same $250-300 price range as the i5-14600K is also.

Looking at the performance difference between the Ryzen 7 9700X and the Ryzen 7 7700 in Cinebench R23, in the single-threaded test, the 9700X is around 23% ahead, which is a really nice uplift in single-threaded IPC performance. Interestingly, the Intel Core i9-14900K with Intel's recommended settings using the Extreme Power Delivery spec (253 W) actually hit as high as 290 W in our max power test. In Cinebench R23, in the single-threaded test, it managed to stay ahead of Zen 5. Whether that remains the case when AMD launches the other two SKUs, the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X (16C/32T) and the Ryzen 9 9900X (12C/24), is currently anyone's guess.

However, in Maxon's latest Cinebench 2024 multi-threaded test, the Ryzen 7 9700X is only around 5.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 7700. Adding the cheaper Intel Core i5-14600K into the equation, which we tested using Intel's recommended settings after the furor surrounding the instability issues users have been facing with Intel's 13th and 14th Gen Core series processors. Intel has even since extended the warranty on both families by two years to help mitigate concerns. The Core i5-14600K does have more cores (14C/20T vs 8C/16T), so Intel does have an advantage here in multi-threaded tests, which when you factor in the Intel chip is pulling double the power than the Ryzen 7 9700X, shows that there's certainly efficiency within the heart of the Zen 5 core.

Back to single-threaded performance, and in Cinebench 2024 ST, the Ryzen 7 9700X is ahead again by around 23.5% over its older counterpart. Granted, it's the non-X version, but both chips have a TDP of 65 W, so it's a good comparison of where Zen 5 is at; it definitely has good single-threaded gains over the previous Zen 4 cores, but in multi-threaded scenarios, Zen 5 isn't as potent as some may have hoped. The Ryzen 7 9700X even marginally beat the Core i9-14900K, which has been limited to around 290 W in terms of maximum power; this is a huge contrast to the 378 W our Core i9-14900k pulled in our original review.

One of the key improvements on Zen 5 is a full 512-bit data path for AVX-512 workloads, and in instances where this can be leveraged in a workload or application, it does offer a substantial performance increase over Zen 4 core-for-core. The Ryzen 7 9700X is also within touching distance of the Ryzen 9 7900, although the 16C/32T Zen 4 chips, the Ryzen 9 7950X, and the 3D V-Cache laden Ryzen 9 7950X3D still dominate despite featuring two 256-bit data paths to funnel through AVX instructions.

Perhaps the biggest win of all for the two Zen 5 chips over the competition is in y-cruncher, where both the full 512-bit data path really shows its worth. AMD did make a bold claim that Zen 5 has 16% higher IPC performance than Zen 4, but this is factoring in these kinds of situations where the full utility of a 512-bit data path and AVX-512 instructions come together like peanut butter and jelly. 

In gaming, especially when looking at lower resolutions such as 720p, we typically see more CPU-limited situations than CPU-limited situations. In Company of Heroes 3, the Intel Core i9-14900K shows its dominance as the bigger and better CPU. Interestingly, we see the Ryzen 7 9700X outperform the competition Core i5-14600K, which, despite having more cores and threads, is a direct competitor in terms of price. 

At higher resolutions, such as 4K, things are more GPU bound, and we see all of the chips tested so far on our new game suite compete closely within a fine margin of each other despite the line-up ranging from 6C/12T all the way up to 24C/32T. Even then, in Returnal at 4K, the predecessor is on top by just 0.2 frames per second, which, depending on the runs, could have gone either way; that's how close the margins are. 

In gaming, it really depends on the title. If it can be utilized and the game itself is optimized for more than 8C, then Intel will certainly come out on top. For the most part, 8 cores are still plenty for gaming; as we can see, when gaming at higher resolutions, such as 4K, the graphics card is certainly much more important.

Final Thoughts: Zen 5 is Cheaper, Faster, And a Taster Before Ryzen 9 Hits

Finally, seeing Zen 5 in action on the desktop and in direct competition to both the predecessors (Zen 4/Ryzen 7000) and even Intel's 14th Gen Core series, it becomes a case of what type of workloads are being undertaken, and of course, power consumption and pricing have to be factored in. As Intel's Core i5-14600K has more cores, it does come out on top in the heavily multi-threaded workloads unless AVX-512 is being utilized somehow, and then it becomes a different story.

As we would expect from a new iteration of AMD's Zen microarchitecture, now into its 5th Generation, and Zen 6 already in the pipeline and emblazoned on the AMD CPU roadmap, AMD doesn't look like it stopping when it comes to serving up Intel some stiff competition. AMD's first two Ryzen 9000 series processors, especially in the certainly excels over Intel's current 14th Gen Core series when factoring in performance per watt, and the underlying Zen 5 architecture has certainly exceeded expectations in the desktop.

In single-threaded tasks, Zen 5 is a clear winner over Zen 4, which we would expect to see given that Zen 5 packs a plethora of architecture improvements and also gets the advantage of being built on a newer process node with TSMC's N4P. In a lower-powered environment, especially in a small form factor chassis or in a conventional desktop where overclocking isn't a concern, AMD's Ryzen 7 9700X at $359 certainly delivers plenty of bang for the buck when compared to Intel.

The caveat is in multi-threaded workloads compared to the previous Zen 4 chips. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of benefit from opting for a Ryzen 7 9700X over the Ryzen 7 7700, even with the former's slight clockspeed advantage. The classic catch with reusing a platform, as in the case with AM5, is that while there's faster CPU cores, there's not much in the way of additional memory bandwidth to help feed those CPU cores. AMD's performance uplifts largely pan out for lightly-threaded workloads, but we aren't seeing as large of gains for heavily threaded tasks.

Still, we are talking about 65 Watt chips. Or rather, more like 90 Watt chips once you factor in AMD's Package Power Tracking mechanisms. So TDPs may be a factor here, and it'll be something to look at in the future. As an aside, I still believe it would have been more advantageous for AMD to market the processors at 90 W with the PPT value, but I digress...

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!