Friday, September 6th 2024

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D Beats Ryzen 7 9700X "Zen 5" at Gaming

by
btarunr
 Discuss (42 Comments)
With German retailer Mindfactory.de listing the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, European hardware reviewers are beginning to put the chip through its paces on their Socket AM5 test beds still warm from last month's Ryzen 9000 "Zen 5" launch coverage. PCGH is among the first such reviewers, and has an interesting set of findings. The biggest question everyone is looking to be answered is "how does it game?" and here PCGH has some good news. The processor is very fast at gaming, and in fact beats the 8-core Ryzen 7 9700X "Zen 5" chip in gaming benchmarks, ending up 6% faster than when averaged across the games in PCGH's test suite. It's also about 9% slower than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which remains the reigning champion.

Being faster than the 9700X also means that the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is faster than every other Ryzen 9000 series processor launched till date, including the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X. The 7600X3D is a whopping 11% faster than the 9950X at gaming. When compared to Intel contemporaries, the 7600X3D ends up about 1% slower than the Core i5-13600K, and 2% slower than the newer i5-14600K. These were the two chips the 7600X3D was sent to beat at gaming, so crowds are drawn to the Ryzen 5 series, and the chip ends up falling a touch short. A lot will depend on whether AMD gives the 7600X3D a wider launch, and what its street price ends up being. Find the complete PCGH review of the Ryzen 5 7600X3D in the source link below.
Source: PCGH

Related News

Add your own comment

42 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D Beats Ryzen 7 9700X "Zen 5" at Gaming

#26
Sarajiel
azraelAlternate also has a "Danish" web shop. FWIW, if I could've chosen which German (r)etailer got the exclusivity deal it would probably have been CaseKing. Apparently, their support isn't the best, but at least they ship to pretty much all of Europe.
I assume that Mindfactory directly buys CPUs from AMD, without a distributor in between.

CaseKing is much, much smaller, and I doubt that they even sell many CPUs in general. However, you sadly seem to be right about their customer support. :shadedshu:
BwazeMindfactory also checks if the German address provided is a mail forwarding company like Mailbox.de, Shipgerman etc. , as do many other retailers. It's strange that most of the retailers we're offering wide shipping options 20 years ago when my country wasn't even in EU, and then it slowly eroded to today's state, when most of them only offer shipping to their country, or some random small circle of neighbouring countries. It all just reinforced separation to "EU proper" and "EU third world"...
Not shipping to mail forwarders, etc. seems to be about fraud prevention, while not shipping into other countries looks like cost-cutting to me.

MediaMarkt stores are available across Europe, and NBB.com also ships to most EU countries, but both companies are much pricier and their reputation for customer support isn't really that great either.
redzoThe highest chance is that 9##0X3D vs 7##0X3D might end up same as 9##0 vs 7##0.
9##0X3D only slightly faster than 7##0X3D, with the 7##0X3D being way much cheaper. And then ... here we go again :)
I guess there is still hope that the Zen5 X3Ds will be clocked a bit higher.
Posted on Reply
#27
rv8000
Broken ProcessorMaybe missed it in the article but was the 9700x benchmarked with 105w?
Who knows, their setup/testing information is basically nonexistent, terrible way to try and present conclusive information.

I’d also assume 1080p but I couldn’t find resolution anywhere….
Posted on Reply
#28
A Computer Guy
dgianstefaniEnglish speaking forum, but no this isn't shocking.

The 7900X3D has two CCD but no hardware scheduler, unlike Intel, so suffers from scheduling issues and cross CCD latency, hence why the 7600X3D is faster in games.
Putting AMD's tricks aside isn't the CCD problem mitigated on 7900X3D / 7950X3D by using process lasso? (not convenient but it should work)
dgianstefaniHence why i maintain the 7900X3D is a processor without a reason, it's the slowest of the X3Ds, so 7800X3D makes more sense or even 7600X3D, and if you need the cores for work/money making it makes zero sense to not pony up for the 7950.
Except it seems your always paying what seems a hefty a premium just for those extra 4 cores making the 12 core parts more economical.
Looking at Amazon's pricing at the moment $339 (7900X) vs $500 (7950X). That's $161 one could put toward GPU.
The jump from 7700x $276 vs. $339 is only $63 for comparison.
As far as I can remember this kind of premium has always been between 12 vs. 16 core AMD parts and to make things worse you get 1 good chiplet and one less good chiplet.

Now on the other hand 7900X3D (at $450) vs. 7950x is only $50 making that jump is some what reasonable if you need the cores with another $50 jump on top of that for 7950X3D. This makes 7900X a really good deal at $339.

So now that I have come full circle 7900X3D at $450 doesn't seem worth it but $400 or below it can be a deal if you use your PC for both work and gaming.
Posted on Reply
#29
dirtyferret
but but but all the eight core idiot fan boys say their CPUs are "future proof", how can a six core CPU beat them unless CPUs should be judged only on performance and not cores...
Posted on Reply
#30
A Computer Guy
dirtyferretbut but but all the eight core idiot fan boys say their CPUs are "future proof", how can a six core CPU beat them unless CPUs should be judged only on performance and not cores...
The problem with future proofing is it doesn't work if your needs change in a way that you haven't future proofed for. So you either overpay for what you don't need but might need later (using what will eventually be older slower tech) or you just get what you need, and later when your needs change, you get what you need that is also more current and faster tech.
Posted on Reply
#31
dgianstefani
TPU Proofreader
A Computer GuyPutting AMD's tricks aside isn't the CCD problem mitigated on 7900X3D / 7950X3D by using process lasso? (not convenient but it should work)
What percentage of the population that buys these CPUs/prebuilts with these CPUs would you say knows about or wants to pay extra in time and money to do this? And why is AMD shipping 12 core parts that perform worse than 6 core parts, entirely because of scheduling issues?
A Computer GuyExcept it seems your always paying what seems a hefty a premium just for those extra 4 cores making the 12 core parts more economical.
Looking at Amazon's pricing at the moment $339 (7900X) vs $500 (7950X). That's $161 one could put toward GPU.
The jump from 7700x $276 vs. $339 is only $63 for comparison.
As far as I can remember this kind of premium has always been between 12 vs. 16 core AMD parts and to make things worse you get 1 good chiplet and one less good chiplet.
Now on the other hand 7900X3D (at $450) vs. 7950x is only $50 making that jump is some what reasonable if you need the cores with another $50 jump on top of that for 7950X3D. This makes 7900X a really good deal at $339.
So now that I have come full circle 7900X3D at $450 doesn't seem worth it but $400 or below it can be a deal if you use your PC for both work and gaming.
dgianstefaniEnglish speaking forum, but no this isn't shocking.

The 7900X3D has two CCD but no hardware scheduler, unlike Intel, so suffers from scheduling issues and cross CCD latency, hence why the 7600X3D is faster in games.

Hence why i maintain the 7900X3D is a processor without a reason, it's the slowest of the X3Ds, so 7800X3D makes more sense or even 7600X3D, and if you need the cores for work/money making it makes zero sense to not pony up for the 7950.
Hardware costs are a small percentage of software costs. If you *earn money* with your PC as I said, then ~$1-200 for 4 additional cores, full 8 core CCDs and higher frequencies is peanuts. This isn't a gaming scenario, I already said if you game just get the 7800X3D. The only reason for the 7900/X3D existing is to offload two defect dies at once, twice as good for AMD as the 7600/X/X3D, which does have a reason to exist because it's still a good gamer and it's cheap.
Posted on Reply
#33
phanbuey
R0H1TAnyone who's buying a $500 or more 12/16 core CPU ~ these are not play things & if you cannot make them work then you're better off buying a Mac!
www.macrumors.com/2024/08/26/apple-new-macs-16gb-ram-standard/
You mean the rumored mac mini that's going to be out in november with 16 gigs of ram?

If you don't want to play games or run half the software, then that's a killer deal.
Posted on Reply
#34
A Computer Guy
dgianstefaniWhat percentage of the population that buys these CPUs/prebuilts with these CPUs would you say knows about or wants to pay extra in time and money to do this? And why is AMD shipping 12 core parts that perform worse than 6 core parts, entirely because of scheduling issues?
It's a fair point that out of the box it shouldn't require any shenanigan's to get the best performance.
dgianstefaniHardware costs are a small percentage of software costs. If you *earn money* with your PC as I said, then ~$1-200 for 4 additional cores, full 8 core CCDs and higher frequencies is peanuts. This isn't a gaming scenario, I already said if you game just get the 7800X3D. The only reason for the 7900/X3D existing is to offload two defect dies at once, twice as good for AMD as the 7600/X/X3D, which does have a reason to exist because it's still a good gamer and it's cheap.
If you *earn money* with your PC you would be wise not to be playing games on it anyway due to the risk of bs causing downtime and/or security concerns, but that's just my opinion. For work use X3D is a poor choice on performance and cost in general. (there are probably some exceptions to this I'm sure) This comes back to reinforcing your point I guess to go 7950x as it makes sense.
Posted on Reply
#35
R0H1T
phanbueyYou mean the rumored mac mini that's going to be out in november with 16 gigs of ram?

If you don't want to play games or run half the software, then that's a killer deal.
I doubt waiting a couple of months is that big of a deal tbh, one of the biggest issues of this millennia is that too many people want things on day 1 or just as soon as it launches. FOMO probably! The 12/16 core x86 chips are by no means cheap nor are they for streaming cat videos across 5 monitors. So bottom line ~ if you are spending that amount of money be smart about it & know how you can make use of it. I don't have a soft corner for users with more money than brains.
Posted on Reply
#36
Lost_Troll
I guess no read the review at PCGH and saw the PPT limit on the 7600x3D.

It only has a factory set PPT of 88 Watts....


I think it is the 7600 CCD with the added 3D V-Cache, which means that this might be full up CPU and not blem's. Now I wonder how the over clock is and how low you can get it under Volt. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#37
dir_d
petr88How is it possible that the I5-13600K is better for gaming than the 7600X3D? It has a worse manufacturing process, a smaller cache, so how is it possible that it is a bit faster?
Ill say pure clock speed, i think the 13600k is almost 500 mhZ faster
Posted on Reply
#38
Vayra86
dirtyferretbut but but all the eight core idiot fan boys say their CPUs are "future proof", how can a six core CPU beat them unless CPUs should be judged only on performance and not cores...
There's an X AND 3D in this one. Duh
Posted on Reply
#39
kapone32
dgianstefaniEnglish speaking forum, but no this isn't shocking.

The 7900X3D has two CCD but no hardware scheduler, unlike Intel, so suffers from scheduling issues and cross CCD latency, hence why the 7600X3D is faster in games.

Hence why i maintain the 7900X3D is a processor without a reason, it's the slowest of the X3Ds, so 7800X3D makes more sense or even 7600X3D, and if you need the cores for work/money making it makes zero sense to not pony up for the 7950.
Yes we know how you feel. Want to do a City Skylines Comparison?
Posted on Reply
#40
Makaveli
A Computer GuyIf you *earn money* with your PC you would be wise not to be playing games on it anyway due to the risk of bs causing downtime and/or security concerns, but that's just my opinion. For work use X3D is a poor choice on performance and cost in general. (there are probably some exceptions to this I'm sure) This comes back to reinforcing your point I guess to go 7950x as it makes sense.
This 1000%

A machine for work will be separate from the gaming machine if I earn income from it. Stability is king no overclocked ram will be using ECC, just not worth risking it for something that helps pay the bills!
Posted on Reply
#41
kapone32
MakaveliThis 1000%

A machine for work will be separate from the gaming machine if I earn income from it. Stability is king no overclocked ram will be using ECC, just not worth risking it for something that helps pay the bills!
AMD have created 3 discrete CPU usages.

1. X3D for PC Gaming (and Mining)
2. Regular X and non X chips for Computing
3. G Chips for IGPU use.

They have even separated these chips in terms of architecture level so the difference in different applications can be expected. I guess this is the promise of chiplets realized. Maybe reviews need to change when it comes to AMD vs AMD.
Posted on Reply
#42
R0H1T
Probably the bigger issue's "gaming" is still tied with Windows at the hip!



I doubt Linux has these issues with the frequency Windows does, not all of it's down to MS but they have to put their foot down somewhere & make sure latest gen hardware isn't gimped because of this!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Sep 6th, 2024 15:19 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts