Tuesday, June 11th 2024

AMD Ryzen 5 9600X ES Overclocked to 5.70 GHz All-core

by
btarunr
 Discuss (47 Comments)
An AMD Ryzen 5 9600X "Zen 5" processor engineering sample has been overclocked to 5.70 GHz on all cores, and put through the CPU-Z Benchmark. Here, the chip is found to score 871 points in the single-thread benchmark, and 7096 points in the multithreaded benchmark. The overclock to 5.70 GHz is significant, as this is the maximum boost frequency of the upcoming Ryzen 9 9950X flagship part. The single-thread benchmark highlights that "Zen 5" has a similar IPC to the "Raptor Cove" P-core of the Intel Core i9-14900K processor, while the 7096 points multithreaded score is higher than the that of the Ryzen 7 5800X "Zen 3," meaning that AMD is overcoming the deficit of two whole cores (33% of the core-count of the 9600X) with just IPC and faster memory. AMD is expected to launch the Ryzen 9000 series desktop processors in July 2024.
Source: HXL (Twitter)

Related News

Add your own comment

47 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 9600X ES Overclocked to 5.70 GHz All-core

#26
kane nas
Dr. DroShould be simple enough to solve that dispute. Here's my score on the CPU-Z 2015 benchmark. It doesn't have the faintest clue about how Raptor Lake works, so I suspect these scores are about as worthless as it comes. Still of academic interest, considering the cache sizes on Raptor Lake are larger than even that of the first Ryzen Threadripper processors. Anyone on Zen 4 X3D to step up?



Download link: www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_1.78-en.zip
No ryzen processor is going to beat your score because very simply the cpuz reads the L1 and the score in one thread for Intel will always be greater because of a smaller L1 in the AMD processors,the "problem" presented at that time was that when the Zen1 processors were released they had a higher CPUZ score relative to the competition and suddenly all of that changed with an update.
Posted on Reply
#27
Carillon
Durvelle27Not substantially higher as the clocks are close to that of the 7600X
It was compared to a 5800x, and the OC is all core
Posted on Reply
#28
Durvelle27
CarillonIt was compared to a 5800x, and the OC is all core
Doesn't matter. It's a successor to Zen 4. So clock for clock its just like the 7600X

Weather the clocks were lower it would still be faster. Even the 7600X beats the 5800X on average
Posted on Reply
#29
londiste
marios15He's right though, CPUZ default benchmark algorithm was replaced with a different codepath to reduce scores on Ryzen (supposedly to match "expected performance") because the benchmark would run extremely fast on Zen microarchitecture due to its cache.

Imagine a game releasing a patch that made the game slower because it's "running too fast" on a new architecture
Are you sure it was cache? I very much doubt that, Intel had and I think still has less L1 cache. L2 and later should not play a part here.

If game is used extensively for benchmarking, it will inevitably get patches to level the playing field. Especially if whatever gives a bonus to one or the other participant is specific to this game or benchmark and does not really provide a similar overall benefit. I am drawing a bit of a blank for specific examples though. Crysis2 and tessellation maybe? Or DX12 paths on various games that were faster but otherwise broken?

edit:
This turned out simple enough to search - the search results quickly led to CPU-Z release notes on the change in question: www.cpuid.com/news/51-cpu-z-1-79-new-benchmark-new-scores.html
Why do the Ryzen performance decrease in comparison to the Intel processors with the new benchmark ?
When the 1st version of the benchmark was released in 2015, it was tested on all existing architectures to check the relevancy of the scores. Almsot two years later, Ryzen was introduced, and scored - core for core and clock for clock - almost 30% higher than Intel Skylake. After a deep investigation, we found out that the code of the benchmark felt into a special case on Ryzen microarchitecture because of an unexpected sequence of integer instructions. These operations added a noticeable but similar delay in all existing microarchitectures at the time the previous benchmark was developed. When Ryzen was released, we found out that their ALUs executed this unexpected sequence in a much more efficient way, leading to results that mismatch the average performance of that new architecture. We reviewed many software and synthetics benchmarks without being able to find a single case where such a performance boost occurs. We're now convinced that this special case is very unlikely to happen in real-world applications. Our new algorithm described below does not exhibit this behaviour.
Posted on Reply
#30
Dr. Dro
kane nasNo ryzen processor is going to beat your score because very simply the cpuz reads the L1 and the score in one thread for Intel will always be greater because of a smaller L1 in the AMD processors,the "problem" presented at that time was that when the Zen1 processors were released they had a higher CPUZ score relative to the competition and suddenly all of that changed with an update.
I don't care if my score is beat or not, but the whole thing did raise my curiosity, especially in the 7950X3D that has a boatload of cache. I just wanna see how it measures up

Anyone able to run this or does it cause a BSOD on AMD? (understandable since that CPU-Z version is almost 9 years out of date)
Posted on Reply
#31
Unregistered
Dr. DroI don't care if my score is beat or not, but the whole thing did raise my curiosity, especially in the 7950X3D that has a boatload of cache. I just wanna see how it measures up

Anyone able to run this or does it cause a BSOD on AMD? (understandable since that CPU-Z version is almost 9 years out of date)
No blue-screen, but it does throw an error on startup.

I paused the BOINC client to run this, plus the machine has been up for 22 days and is being accessed via RDP. Whether or not that impacts performance in unknown. Probably not.

Posted on Edit | Reply
#34
Dr. Dro
Super Firm TofuNo blue-screen, but it does throw an error on startup.

I paused the BOINC client to run this, plus the machine has been up for 22 days and is being accessed via RDP. Whether or not that impacts performance in unknown. Probably not.

Interesting. As I suspected, the whole cache argument makes no sense (in modern processor terms). The single-thread sounds about the right ballpark, with my 13900KS having a bit higher IPC and 6 GHz clock to help it there, still, quite in line with expectation. Both your and my MT scores are badly skewed with nonsense MT ratios, though. So really, there you have it. CPU-Z isn't doing anything shady, and this 2015 benchmark is just too old to have any relevancy today.
LionheartCPU-Z favour's Intel
It really doesn't
umeng2002Is that a lot?
Yeah, it's a healthy bit ahead of Zen 4 on this benchmark. It's slower than Raptor i9's, but that's mostly due to their sky high clock speeds. For an ES of the low-end chip, I think this is an excellent score.
Posted on Reply
#35
Random_User
Prima.VeraOK. What is the score under normal operation?
Exactly. All the frequency race aside, the most interesting thing is what the CPU does, with least amount of power and clocks. That is really where the progress, efficacy and IPC uplift is.
The moment the company begins to participate in the 5-6GHz "all core" BS, it usually means the product struggles to deliver a required performance, and needs more frequency and voltage to do the same job it should have do otherwise, regardless the company. Or this can be a bad decision, that really shifts the efficiency tresthold far beyond the sweet spot.
In any case, it's good sign of chip OC capabilities, but it's great that 65/25/Eco modes exist.
Posted on Reply
#37
Minus Infinity
Man, so much angst about unverified outdated benchmarks. Couldn't care less about hype or negativity until we see this tested throughly by TPU, Techspot, Anandtech, Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed etc.

I'm almost certainly getting a Zen 5 especially if they have improvements for X3D which BTW is launching only 3 months after Zen 5 rather than next year as people are claiming. If so, perfect timing for my late Q3 early Q4 new build.
Posted on Reply
#38
Dr. Dro
Minus InfinityMan, so much angst about unverified outdated benchmarks. Couldn't care less about hype or negativity until we see this tested throughly by TPU, Techspot, Anandtech, Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed etc.

I'm almost certainly getting a Zen 5 especially if they have improvements for X3D which BTW is launching only 3 months after Zen 5 rather than next year as people are claiming. If so, perfect timing for my late Q3 early Q4 new build.
Agreed, it's looking pretty good from where I'm standing. Although, regarding that angst... it's clubbism 101, people hold pointless grudges for years, sometimes decades, letting vicious anger and prejudice ferment with time, just to blow up at any remote possibility that the deity they have sworn their allegiance and fealty to has been slighted. It's irrational to expect them to be reasonable about anything.
Posted on Reply
#39
PaddieMayne
Dr. DroAgreed, it's looking pretty good from where I'm standing. Although, regarding that angst... it's clubbism 101, people hold pointless grudges for years, sometimes decades, letting vicious anger and prejudice ferment with time, just to blow up at any remote possibility that the deity they have sworn their allegiance and fealty to has been slighted. It's irrational to expect them to be reasonable about anything.
Welcome to the human race...

To be honest I just hope they sort out the IHS on the zen5s, as its thickness is a real bottle kneck for efficient heat transfer on my 7800x3d. I'm not even fussed if I have to buy a new mounting bracket to be compatible with a thinner IHS.
Posted on Reply
#40
JWNoctis
Dr. DroAgreed, it's looking pretty good from where I'm standing. Although, regarding that angst... it's clubbism 101, people hold pointless grudges for years, sometimes decades, letting vicious anger and prejudice ferment with time, just to blow up at any remote possibility that the deity they have sworn their allegiance and fealty to has been slighted. It's irrational to expect them to be reasonable about anything.
Written in the books since Roman times, and arguably more...tamed, since the bygone days of one tribesman bashing others' heads in. :laugh:
PaddieMayneWelcome to the human race...

To be honest I just hope they sort out the IHS on the zen5s, as its thickness is a real bottle kneck for efficient heat transfer on my 7800x3d. I'm not even fussed if I have to buy a new mounting bracket to be compatible with a thinner IHS.
Or that they put in the vapour chamber they tried. The version they tested supposedly only improved thermals by a couple degrees, but they should be able to do better than that, considering how that's mature tech on video cards. Granted that GPUs are less power dense, but anything should help.
Posted on Reply
#41
RaceT3ch
At what temps and power consumption though? If it's like 100 watts that's amazing.
Posted on Reply
#42
phanbuey
The fact that an ES is sitting at 5.7 is pretty promising.

First 6Ghz zen chips?
Posted on Reply
#43
RaceT3ch
phanbueyThe fact that an ES is sitting at 5.7 is pretty promising.

First 6Ghz zen chips?
I dunno man, might need direct die or something stupid for that
Posted on Reply
#44
phanbuey
RaceT3chI dunno man, might need direct die or something stupid for that
Stock chips already look like they're going to boost at 5.8, and extra 200Mhz OC should be doable on AIO, or even high end air.
Posted on Reply
#45
RaceT3ch
phanbueyStock chips already look like they're going to boost at 5.8, and extra 200Mhz OC should be doable on AIO, or even high end air.
5.8 out of box or PBO?
Posted on Reply
#47
Velome
I tested with my 7900x3d oc pbo and my 7800x3d oc eblck 5.226 GHZ
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 10th, 2025 20:50 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts