AMD Ryzen 5 9600 Nearly Matches 9600X in Early Benchmarks

[Cpt.Jank]

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.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[eidairaman1]

Same story like the 5800 and 5800X, then AMD Rebadges the 5800 as a 5700X so it could be Retail Sold.

 

[Arkz]

And it will no doubt clock to 5.4 for the same results too.

 

[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.

 

[Hyderz]

this is cool and i hope they release the ryzen 7 9700 non x .... kinda eyeing on that 8 cores

 

[A Computer Guy]

Same 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.

 

[Frick]

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.

Here the 9600x is cheaper, hovering around €275. AMDs budget platform is AM4, there is nothing "budget" about AM5.

 

[Gigaherz]

there 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.

 

[Quicks]

AMD, should stop making chips without the X3D cache or atleast upgrade the 32MB to 64MB.

 

[AleXXX666]

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.

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...

AMD, 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...

 

[_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.

 

[windwhirl]

AMD, 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.

 

[Quicks]

X3D is expensive, adding more cache is probably expensive as well and might have tradeoffs

And not everything needs giant caches.

Not giant just more.

 

[windwhirl]

Not 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.

 

[Legacy-ZA]

AMD, 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.

 

[rattlehead99]

AMD, 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?

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.
View attachment 391860

The 9800x3d consumes almost double the power of the 9700x

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.

Absolutely not, x3d chips are not worth it.

 

[windwhirl]

The 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

 

[Gigaherz]

I 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.

 

[fevgatos]

It heats up the chip and makes it less efficient causing exponential higher power draw to clock higher.

i believe this is a nonsense

 

[_roman_]

There 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)

The 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.

 

[LabRat 891]

It 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!?

X3D is like driving with handbrake on. Sure it makes fun tricks but it slows everything else down/limits potential.

If you must use a car analogy, a Supercharger might be a better comparison.

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.

 

[rattlehead99]

That topic was explained several times. Why graphic cards are tested with a lower resolution, e.g 720p. (therefore no explanation given why)



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.

That makes the case for the 9800x3d even worse.

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

Because they configured the bios as such, so that it can top benchmark charts, just like intel did with the 13th and 14th gen and AMD and Nvidia have been doing with GPUs since 2020.

 

[Gigaherz]

i believe this is a nonsense

Some people believe the Moonlanding was a haux. Guess you dont believe in thermodynamics and silicon behaviour. *shrug*

 

[_roman_]

That makes the case for the 9800x3d even worse.

No idea honestly.

I read it several times in german language why something is tested as it. I'm sure some youtube channel also explained it.

please be more precise what you want to say.

I agree with post #21. My thought was understood and a very good suggestion was made. I liked that.