AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

[AMDK11]

honestly it just shows there’s a bottleneck somewhere else in the system.

it’s being held back by memory/or some other component in the design - since zen 5 is basically improved zen 4. I’m wondering if they were able to pump the infinity fabric higher and give it faster ddr5 sweet spot if the story would have been different.

Or maybe if the new am5 chipsets or new agesa come out and there is performance to be gained.

NO. Zen 5 is not an improvement of Zen 4 (microarchitecture). Zen 5 is a radical new approach and a new design from the ground up for AMD. Mike Clark himself admitted that Zen5 is the first microarchitecture (that they learn) that has been so thoroughly redesigned and is the basis for subsequent generations.

This new base for the next generations of Zen is a priority for AMD.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Hey they gotta get people off those A620 motherboards somehow… especially since these pull even less power.

I think you are a believer, I am as well...

 

[Rabit]

You can push single core boost almost to 5,9Ghz

 

[phanbuey]

NO. Zen 5 is not an improvement of Zen 4 (microarchitecture). Zen 5 is a radical new approach and a new design from the ground up for AMD. Mike Clark himself admitted that Zen5 is the first microarchitecture (that they learn) that has been so thoroughly redesigned and is the basis for subsequent generations.

This new base for the next generations of Zen is a priority for AMD.

That’s marketing nonsense speak… it’s so radical it still uses the same ccd design, the same infinity fabric, the same imc, beefed up fpu and redesigned and updated core…

Zen 1 compared to bulldozer was radical - this is not radical IMO - definitions of radical can vary.

 

[Tomgang]

Great power consumption and temperature

Performance however is underwhelming. More feels like a zen 4+ than deserve a new name on its own.

I hope 3D will surprise us. Cause so far zen 5 is well disappointing.

So far cpu news has been sad. Intels problems with gen 13/14 and now zen 5 disappointed performance wise.

So far my 5600X and 5950X will still have a home at my place.

 

[AMDK11]

That’s marketing nonsense speak… it’s so radical it still uses the same ccd design, the same infinity fabric, the same imc, beefed up fpu and redesigned and updated core…

Zen 1 compared to bulldozer was radical - this is not radical IMO - definitions of radical can vary.

I keep talking about the Zen5 x86 core. It's safe to say that Zen4 is an improvement over Zen3. But not about Zen5. Zen5's x86 core is a new microarchitecture design from the ground up.

 

[Bavor]

What's with the low quality CAS 36 DDR5 6000 in the reviews? I've seen other benchmarks where CAS 30 vs CAS 36 had a significant improvement in gaming benchmarks on Zen 4. I assume the same would be applicable to Zen 5.

 

[mkppo]

The way I'm looking at it is from an architectural standpoint. Comparing the best perf per watt a given architecture can produce gives you a true sense of it's efficiency. The 7700X isn't indicative of the 7000 series efficiency, it's essentially a 7700 pushed outside it's sweetspot for very minimal performance gain. It's essentially dead on with the 9700X OC results in that chart.

Saying the 9700X reduces power consumption by 29% is only correct is the very literal sense but completely misses the point that the architecture itself does not appear to be any more efficient. When you compare both architectures within their ideal efficiency range there appears to be zero to potentially negative efficiency improvement. Maybe the 9000 series can be tuned even further for better efficiency but there is not much of a performance gain over the 7000 series for that to happen. Overall it does not paint a good picture.

I somewhat agree with you, but I think the efficiency sweet spot itself has changed. Zen 4 might be almost a match at 65w, but Zen 5 scales better. Makes sense, because all those extra execution engines and beefed up front end will consume more power.

But then Zen 5 looks very memory limited with the extra power. It will be very interesting to see once the 1DPC X870 boards launch and tests are done between Zen 4 and Zen 5 at 8000Mhz 2:1. I bet Zen 5 will stretch it's legs a few more %.

The SPEC IPC gains are pretty impressive though, it just can't provide that gain in MT due to memory and to a lesser extent, power.

 

[LazyGamer]

Disappointing gaming performance uplift in comparison to previous gen.

 

[W1zzard]

What's with the low quality CAS 36 DDR5 6000 in the reviews? I've seen other benchmarks where CAS 30 vs CAS 36 had a significant improvement in gaming benchmarks on Zen 4. I assume the same would be applicable to Zen 5.

@dgianstefani .. lol .. told you so

What do you recommend to do when I can't boot at CL30, but a competing CPU vendor boots at CL30? Actually publish one with CL30 and the other with CL36?

But yeah, sure, I guess next rebench .. probably before ARL .. I can buy a CL30 kit and test with that

 

[phanbuey]

I keep talking about the Zen5 x86 core. It's safe to say that Zen4 is an improvement over Zen3. But not about Zen5. Zen5's x86 core is a new microarchitecture design from the ground up.

View attachment 357876



That looks mostly the same to me.




View attachment 357877

Well hopefully they can tweak this design much further because at the moment it seems like the old design was better.

 

[mkppo]

NO. Zen 5 is not an improvement of Zen 4 (microarchitecture). Zen 5 is a radical new approach and a new design from the ground up for AMD. Mike Clark himself admitted that Zen5 is the first microarchitecture (that they learn) that has been so thoroughly redesigned and is the basis for subsequent generations.

This new base for the next generations of Zen is a priority for AMD.

Depends on what you define as radical beecause it's not even close to what FX to Zen was. Zen 5 is primarily a rework of the front end and execution engines compared to Zen 4. Yes, it forms the base for future architectures, right now it's an imbalanced arch which means there's low hanging fruit to be picked for future archs. Simply changing the IO die to get better memory throughput will increase performance greatly, because the front end and execution are bottlenecked by it.

In essence, it's an arch that's stupidly quick to fetch and process data but can't really push all of it through and Zen 6 is supposed to fix exactly that.

 

[Rabit]

I keep talking about the Zen5 x86 core. It's safe to say that Zen4 is an improvement over Zen3. But not about Zen5. Zen5's x86 core is a new microarchitecture design from the ground up.

View attachment 357876




View attachment 357877


View attachment 357878

I wonder how well new arch will scale in X3D model

 

[Xuper]

9700X is just a server CPU in Desktop CPU. First AMD CPU with fully native 512bit.

Zen5's AVX512 Teardown + More...

 

[mb194dc]

Only worth bothering with for very specific use cases if you've got a decent chip from last couple of gens. Stagnation pretty much for many use cases.

 

[AMDK11]

Depends on what you define as radical beecause it's not even close to what FX to Zen was. Zen 5 is primarily a rework of the front end and execution engines compared to Zen 4. Yes, it forms the base for future architectures, right now it's an imbalanced arch which means there's low hanging fruit to be picked for future archs. Simply changing the IO die to get better memory throughput will increase performance greatly, because the front end and execution are bottlenecked by it.

In essence, it's an arch that's stupidly quick to fetch and process data but can't really push all of it through and Zen 6 is supposed to fix exactly that.

So how do you imagine a radical new design? Radical bulldozer? Instead of 1 wide Integer cluster/block with ALUs and AGUs, they gave 2 separate and much narrower Integer clusters. Is this also radical? As radical as the changes in Zen 5, i.e. a 2x wider front-end divided into 2 clusters, with the difference that Zen 5 has a greater chance of using the core resources for ST, because Bulldozer could only do half of the integer.

Whether the project is balanced is another thing. And it is not news that optimization is to be better in the next generations, as Mike Clark mentions.

 

[Garrus]

Overall, this is a major disappointment and does not feel like the CPUs are worthy of a new architecture name. At best Zen4+

ST performance bump is ~12%, but it only translates to 5% MT advantage. The only notable improvement is that it's up to 9% faster than the 65W 7700, but in the end, you might as well just save the $80 and get the 7700 instead of 9700X.

AMD made a big mistake by not including their NPU in these, losing the only reason to recommend Zen5 over Zen4.

no, you don't need an NPU, your GPU has way better AI performance, NPUs are for mobile (phones especially, I don't really see the point in a laptop either as a laptop should have a strong iGPU instead of weak iGPU + NPU, Qualcomm made a huge mistake in not doubling their iGPU for their Snapdragon laptops instead of wasting die space on the NPU)

 

[wheresmycar]

Performance wise (esp. gaming) the 9700X feels like a mildly polished up Zen 4 refresh - which SUCKS!

If this is how AM5 will play out with the remainder of its platform FWD-GEN support offerings then i'm a very happy customer having bought into the 5800X3D.

Feels like AMD is holding back non-X3D ZEN 5 perf for greater product differentiation (and price to profit) by enhancing the X3D appeal which will no doubt see wider performance gains (gaming).

With Intel on a little downer, AMD could have done a little better. FFS, I don't even get out of bed for 2%

 

[Dr. Dro]

You can push single core boost almost to 5,9Ghz

Unrealistic settings. Such advanced options aren't available on most motherboards, and he's doing both asynchronous eCLK + meticulously tuned curve shaper on what's no doubt an excellent sample. Most chips won't go that far.

 

[SL2]

Feels like AMD is holding back non-X3D ZEN 5 perf

How would AMD be able to do that? It's not lower clocks, that's for sure after looking at OC headroom. It is what it is.

With Intel on a little downer, AMD could have done a little better.

Those aren't related. These CPU's would have performed the same either way, only price could have changed.

With 5000/7000/9000 in the market, AMD doesn't care what you buy. Older chips have lower prices but at the same time they're cheaper to produce.

 

[Zach_01]

This is interesting...
But be prepared for X2 power consumption (for all core) over stock
And like said, how many chips can do this. Also 95C is guaranteed with this just as efficiency is kicked in the butt hard.

 

[Makaveli]

Was expecting a bigger performance gap and higher FLCK but will need to wait for the newer boards to see how that pans out.

also

• No NPU for AI acceleration

Not really needed on a desktop with a DGPU.

NPU on current laptops do about 45-50 Tops

And old 2080 ti does something like 300 tops.

 

[thegnome]

Honestly.. From what I've seen there's a lot of confusion around. A lot of people being dissapointed and salty at the near 0% perf increase in some cases.

But it seems that these parts are mostly power limited, with quite some uplift when at iso power compared to Zen 4's 7600X/7700X. It also occured to me Zen 5 is merely a basis for the next gens, it's not exactly designed to be a good everything beater now, but later with a Zen 6 and 7, rather than Zen 1 continually getting upgrades and hitting it's limits.

I sure do hope Zen 6 will be more than the 5 year old dual CCD with IOD layout, especially since it's always seems strange why the IOD was so far from the CCD's.

For me, Zen 5X3D will be next, if it proves that it can OC, be a proper upgrade over 7800X3D with nice wins and if Intel doesn't simply beat Zen 5.

 

[Rabit]

Unrealistic settings. Such advanced options aren't available on most motherboards, and he's doing both asynchronous eCLK + meticulously tuned curve shaper on what's no doubt an excellent sample. Most chips won't go that far.

Silicon quality improve over production timeline 5,9 will easier to do after few months of production

 

[Zach_01]

Was expecting a bigger performance gap and higher FLCK but will need to wait for the newer boards to see how that pans out.

also

• No NPU for AI acceleration

Not really needed on a desktop with a DGPU.

NPU on current laptops do about 45-50 Tops

And old 2080 ti does something like 300 tops.

I saw a couple of reviews that was running FCLK to 2133-2200MHz with 6400MT/s DDR5
Also there's seems to be some benefit (in general benchmarking) going from 6000 to 6400 and an additional one (to memory performance numbers) with tight-er timings.