Wednesday, March 26th 2025

AMD Ryzen 5 9600 Nearly Matches 9600X in Early Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600 launched recently as a slightly more affordable variant of the popular Ryzen 5 9600X. Despite launching over a month ago, the 9600 still appears rather difficult to track down in retail stores. However, a recent PassMark benchmark has provided some insights as to the performance of the non-X variant of AMD's six-core Zen 5 budget CPU. Unsurprisingly, the Ryzen 5 9600X and the Ryzen 5 9600 are neck-and-neck, with the 9600X scraping past its non-X counterpart by a mere 2.2% in the CPU benchmark.

According to the PassMark result, the Ryzen 5 9600 scored 29,369, compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X's 30,016, while single-core scores were 4581 for the 9600X and 4433 points for the 9600, representing a 3.2% disparity between the two CPUs. The result is not surprising, since the only real difference between the 9600 and the 9600X is 200 MHz boost clock. All other specifications, including TDP, core count, cache amount and base clock speed, are identical. Both CPUs are also unlocked for overclocking, and both feature AMD Precision Boost 2. While the Ryzen 5 9600 isn't available just yet, it will seemingly be a good option for those who want to stretch their budget to the absolute maximum, since recent reports indicate that it will be around $20 cheaper than the Ryzen 5 9600X, coming in at around the $250-260 mark.
Sources: X86 is dead&back on X, PassMark, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

20 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 9600 Nearly Matches 9600X in Early Benchmarks

#1
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Same story like the 5800 and 5800X, then AMD Rebadges the 5800 as a 5700X so it could be Retail Sold.
Posted on Reply
#2
Arkz
And it will no doubt clock to 5.4 for the same results too.
Posted on Reply
#3
LabRat 891
My 'opening' with Ryzen was a 3600(non-X) followed by a 5600(non-X). 'Was very pleased with both.
I'd bet this new 9600 will also be a perfect budget 'opener', for fresh AM5 adopters.
Posted on Reply
#4
Hyderz
this is cool and i hope they release the ryzen 7 9700 non x .... kinda eyeing on that 8 cores
Posted on Reply
#5
A Computer Guy
eidairaman1Same story like the 5800 and 5800X, then AMD Rebadges the 5800 as a 5700X so it could be Retail Sold.
or the 3800X vs. 3700X all over again. :slap:
Posted on Reply
#6
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
LabRat 891My 'opening' with Ryzen was a 3600(non-X) followed by a 5600(non-X). 'Was very pleased with both.
I'd bet this new 9600 will also be a perfect budget 'opener', for fresh AM5 adopters.
Here the 9600x is cheaper, hovering around €275. AMDs budget platform is AM4, there is nothing "budget" about AM5.
Posted on Reply
#7
Gigaherz
Frickthere is nothing "budget" about AM5.
You can currently get a 6core AM5 cpu with 32gb ddr5 and board for under 300€

Its not ultra budget, but far away from entry prices like threadripper has.
Posted on Reply
#8
Quicks
AMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.
Posted on Reply
#9
AleXXX666
GigaherzYou can currently get a 6core AM5 cpu with 32gb ddr5 and board for under 300€

Its not ultra budget, but far away from entry prices like threadripper has.
i've tried 7500f and 8500g, vs 7600x already looks not so "budget" but perf gap is greater. And it's always was like that, X have had better RAM controller etc. At least 1700 vs 1800X was like comparing 911 Porsche "basic" version vs "track" one, lol. But still, AM4 with it's DDR4 is massively cheaper, or you can get Intel 1700 with DDR4 when AM5 is not even closer...
QuicksAMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.
Upgrade 8 to 16 I agree, upgrade 16 to 32 too, or maybe to medium 20-24 range, but 32+, IDC...:rolleyes::oops:
Posted on Reply
#10
_roman_
ryzen 7500f / 7400f / 7600 / some ryzen 8000 processors are am5 budget
when comparing old tech - compare it with old tech like ryzen 8000

i saw many am5 mainboards around 90€ recently.
Posted on Reply
#11
windwhirl
QuicksAMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.
X3D is expensive, adding more cache is probably expensive as well and might have tradeoffs

And not everything needs giant caches.
Posted on Reply
#12
Quicks
windwhirlX3D is expensive, adding more cache is probably expensive as well and might have tradeoffs

And not everything needs giant caches.
Not giant just more.
Posted on Reply
#13
windwhirl
QuicksNot giant just more.
It's a pretty big cache as is. And it's fairly pointless to increase it even more if even with V-cache the increase in performance is minimal despite getting nearly triple the cache of a non X3D variant.
Posted on Reply
#14
Legacy-ZA
QuicksAMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.
I am in complete agreement, it's time to just manufacture them all like that, a 9600X3D would be a little beast for gaming, and at 65W too. :love:
Posted on Reply
#15
rattlehead99
QuicksAMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.
Absolutely not, you gain performance only in games and it's barely any performance even with a 5090 at 720p, you can check Techpowerup's own benchmarks. There are a few exceptions where it gains a lot, but at the same time, who plays at 720p with a 5090?
windwhirlIt's a pretty big cache as is. And it's fairly pointless to increase it even more if even with V-cache the increase in performance is minimal despite getting nearly triple the cache of a non X3D variant.
The 9800x3d consumes almost double the power of the 9700x
Legacy-ZAI am in complete agreement, it's time to just manufacture them all like that, a 9600X3D would be a little beast for gaming, and at 65W too. :love:
Absolutely not, x3d chips are not worth it.
Posted on Reply
#16
windwhirl
rattlehead99The 9800x3d consumes almost double the power of the 9700x
Oh, yeah. For application purposes the power consumption really goes high. I wonder why tho. It doesn't seem to me that the V-cache should be that much of a power hog since we don't see that behavior on gaming stuff




Posted on Reply
#17
Gigaherz
windwhirlI wonder why tho. It doesn't seem to me that the V-cache should be that much of a power hog
It heats up the chip and makes it less efficient causing exponential higher power draw to clock higher. X3D is like driving with handbrake on. Sure it makes fun tricks but it slows everything else down/limits potential.
Posted on Reply
#18
fevgatos
GigaherzIt heats up the chip and makes it less efficient causing exponential higher power draw to clock higher.
i believe this is a nonsense
Posted on Reply
#19
_roman_
rattlehead99There are a few exceptions where it gains a lot, but at the same time, who plays at 720p with a 5090?
That topic was explained several times. Why graphic cards are tested with a lower resolution, e.g 720p. (therefore no explanation given why)
rattlehead99The 9800x3d consumes almost double the power of the 9700x
When your only metric is Watts than maybe. it should be compile time in seconds vs Wattage in seconds for each processor compared.
As of now I know no tech site or setup which i s able to measure a cpu power consumption. not like igorsnewbie who measures the hole mainboard + dram + cpu + other components. I just want cpu measurements on the over 1000 cpu pins, each pin voltage and current with over 5000 sample per seconds per pin.

the metrics are wrong. It should be named Wattage for component bundle mainboard a, cpu b, dram c.
Posted on Reply
#20
LabRat 891
GigaherzIt heats up the chip and makes it less efficient causing exponential higher power draw to clock higher.
Oh no! More hardware under the hood, boosting the rest of the hardware, means more power and heat! Whatever shall we do!?
GigaherzX3D is like driving with handbrake on. Sure it makes fun tricks but it slows everything else down/limits potential.
:roll:

If you must use a car analogy, a Supercharger might be a better comparison.
_roman_When your only metric is Watts than maybe. it should be compile time in seconds vs Wattage in seconds for each processor compared.
As of now I know no tech site or setup which i s able to measure a cpu power consumption. not like igorsnewbie who measures the hole mainboard + dram + cpu + other components. I just want cpu measurements on the over 1000 cpu pins, each pin voltage and current with over 5000 sample per seconds per pin.

the metrics are wrong. It should be named Wattage for component bundle mainboard a, cpu b, dram c.
(IMO) While seemingly pedantic, the most-accurate, useful, and comparable measure of task efficiency would be
Joules/Task or Watt-time/Task.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 30th, 2025 18:31 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts