AMD Ryzen 5 9600X

[RaceT3ch]

My transition from R5 5600 to R5 7600 32GB cost me extra $10 a year ago + 2-3hours bending back pins in LGA socket under microscope buying broken AM5 board I also get my old AM4 board as broken needed fix broken trace and few missing smd

Congrats on fixing an AM5 board I wouldn't dare try bending pins

 

[ThomasK]

Ryzen 7 5800X3D stay as king here.

Here as well!

 

[wolf]

Not enough to tempt me over to AM5 from my 5800X3D yet, maybe 9800X3D will do that...

 

[A Computer Guy]

I wonder why 9600x is so kneecapped at AES & SHA3 compared to the 7600x?

 

[JWNoctis]

I wonder why 9600x is so kneecapped at AES & SHA3 compared to the 7600x?

View attachment 357926

Web hosting suffered too. Not surprising since it needed crypto functions. What's up with PowerPoint of all things, though? Software version?

Going to have to wait for someone, maybe Agner, to come up with the exact measurements on instruction-level IPC and compare it to Zen 4.

 

[Dyatlov A]

ah that reminds me .. maybe you're running one .. I had that discussion the other day.. does BCLK overclocking still work on Alder Lake with latest BIOS? I vaguely remember Intel nerfed it through microcode updates?

Yepp, still working and we are reaching impressive clocks, 5,4GHz+. Here exist a big topic about and a quite few motherboards are supporting bclk overclocking for 12th gen.

 

[W1zzard]

I wonder why 9600x is so kneecapped at AES & SHA3 compared to the 7600x?

View attachment 357926

Could be that AIDA doesn't have optimizations for Zen 5 yet and falls back to some older code path. Or it uses the Zen 4 optimizations, which just don't work so well on Zen 5

 

[tfdsaf]

Underwhelming performance, especially for the price, If this cost around $240 it would make much more sense as a better and newer alternative to the 7600x, but at this point for almost $80 less you get 94% of the performance with the 7600x or basically for $100 less with the 7600 you get 92% of its performance.

 

[Dyatlov A]

Underwhelming performance, especially for the price, If this cost around $240 it would make much more sense as a better and newer alternative to the 7600x, but at this point for almost $80 less you get 94% of the performance with the 7600x or basically for $100 less with the 7600 you get 92% of its performance.

Yes, or the intel i5-12400F, just 110$ at newegg in discount.

 

[b1k3rdude]

@W1zzard

Can I assume your testing at 720p, just to get raw CPU perf with out GPU bottleneck..? And yeah the price for the 9600x would have to be £200 or less to make it worth buying imho.

 

[W1zzard]

Can I assume your testing at 720p, just get raw CPU perf with out GPU bottleneck..?

On popular demand from comments over the past several CPU reviews, we are including game tests at 720p (1280x720 pixels) resolution. All games from our CPU test suite are put through 720p using a RTX 4090 graphics card and Ultra settings. This low resolution serves to highlight theoretical CPU performance, because games are extremely CPU-limited at this resolution. Of course, nobody buys a PC with an RTX 4090 to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions. So, these numbers could interest high-refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast monitors. Our 720p tests hence serve as synthetic tests in that they are not real world (720p isn't a real-world PC-gaming resolution anymore) even though the game tests themselves are not synthetic (they're real games, not 3D benchmarks).

 

[chrcoluk]

On popular demand from comments over the past several CPU reviews, we are including game tests at 720p (1280x720 pixels) resolution. All games from our CPU test suite are put through 720p using a RTX 4090 graphics card and Ultra settings. This low resolution serves to highlight theoretical CPU performance, because games are extremely CPU-limited at this resolution. Of course, nobody buys a PC with an RTX 4090 to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions. So, these numbers could interest high-refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast monitors. Our 720p tests hence serve as synthetic tests in that they are not real world (720p isn't a real-world PC-gaming resolution anymore) even though the game tests themselves are not synthetic (they're real games, not 3D benchmarks).

Good decision in my view, as it at least represents those who might pair a much weaker graphics system, or play at 720p for other reasons on the chip.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Hardware Unboxed's opinion of this chip is very low. The more I read on it, the more it becomes apparent to me that the Ryzen 9000 series are an afterthought, they developed this architecture to cater to the demands of their server clients. Massively improved AVX-512 support seems to be the sole star of the show, for consumer workloads, it really does not shine.

 

[LittleBro]

One question:

Why there are such noticeable differences in L1-L3 cache bandwidths between 9600X and 9700X?

 

[Dr. Dro]

One question:

Why there are such noticeable differences in L1-L3 cache bandwidths between 9600X and 9700X?
View attachment 357968 View attachment 357969

This is likely caused by the amount of cores available. These are 75-80% of the 8-core model's results, which are in line with a 6-core processor.

L1 cache read is the perfect example, 75% of 5193 (9700X result) is 3894 (9600X result)

 

[LittleBro]

Makes sense. I've never clearly known how AIDA interpretes those numbers. Is it cache per core bandwidth or all cores combined? I think you're right.
What about L3 cache? This cache is shared among all cores. Difference between 9600X and 9700X in regards to L3 cache is in size only, or not?
I really wonder how the L3 cache's bandwidth gets calculated. Is it virtually split among all cores and uses same approach as with L1/L2?

 

[R0H1T]

That's combined bandwidth, I think there's an option to check for per core as well though.

 

[AnotherReader]

Makes sense. I've never clearly known how AIDA interpretes those numbers. Is it cache per core bandwidth or all cores combined? I think you're right.
What about L3 cache? This cache is shared among all cores. Difference between 9600X and 9700X in regards to L3 cache is in size only, or not?
I really wonder how the L3 cache's bandwidth gets calculated. Is it virtually split among all cores and uses same approach as with L1/L2?

For Zen 4, each core's L2 has a 256 bit wide interface to L3. I expect this to be the case for Zen 5 as well.

 

[Dr. Dro]

For Zen 4, each core's L2 has a 256 bit wide interface to L3. I expect this to be the case for Zen 5 as well.

L1 and L2 bandwidth has increased, as well as associativity, but I just looked at the deep dive article and I was not able to find anything regarding the L3. Unless the doubling of bandwidth per clock also impacts L3.

 

[AnotherReader]

L1 and L2 bandwidth has increased, as well as associativity, but I just looked at the deep dive article and I was not able to find anything regarding the L3. Unless the doubling of bandwidth per clock also impacts L3.

We'll get more insight into this when Chips and Cheese analyze Zen 5. I don't expect it to have changed as the doubled bandwidth from L1 and L2 should be sufficient for many AVX-512 based workloads.

 

[Vincero]

Hardware Unboxed's opinion of this chip is very low. The more I read on it, the more it becomes apparent to me that the Ryzen 9000 series are an afterthought, they developed this architecture to cater to the demands of their server clients. Massively improved AVX-512 support seems to be the sole star of the show, for consumer workloads, it really does not shine.

Partly that, but also when you look at / think about how that gets leveraged alongside their NPU in something like strix point products it's clear they are looking to make Zen better suited to either 'AI' compute or wider processing scenarios be it handheld/mobile or server. Some may see it as a good or bad thing, but you can only design for the intended/expected near-term workloads of the time / what the competition are also doing.
I'm hoping the Zen5 desktop APUs will actually offer better performance per clock if all of the suspicions bottlenecks of existing infinity fabric, etc., are true - even if internally it is still present, not going chiplet to chiplet should help.

AVX compute is fine for a few tasks but most normal processor tasks are standard ALU/FPU x86/64 instructions, unless we are on the cusp of popular application software development moving to relying heavily on AVX-512/10 instructions (which may suit some Adobe style apps but not likely to make much difference to MS Office, etc.). Unfortunately I expect in a few years all the big guys will have pushed generative AI in to every app they can so maybe it's a correct anticipation... maybe.

 

[Chrispy_]

The price reduction from the $300 MSRP of the 5600X and 7600X is welcome but that still makes these MSRPs really dumb prices overall.

MSRP vs MSRP is the fair way to compare apples to apples, but the temporary reality is that the 7600X costs 30% less and really isn't much slower at all.

If you're building a new system, the 7800X3D is within striking distance too, as the total platform cost of an entry-level B650 board, affordable DDR5 kit, and basic air cooler makes the $600 cost of a 7800X3D build look way more attractive than the $530 cost of a 9600X build whether you're a gamer or not. An 11% discount it may be, but you're losing 25% of the cores for productivity and that "wins every gaming benchmark by a country mile" 3D V-Cache.

 

[Kapone33]

The price reduction from the $300 MSRP of the 5600X and 7600X is welcome but that still makes these MSRPs really dumb prices overall.

MSRP vs MSRP is the fair way to compare apples to apples, but the temporary reality is that the 7600X costs 30% less and really isn't much slower at all.

If you're building a new system, the 7800X3D is within striking distance too, as the total platform cost of an entry-level B650 board, affordable DDR5 kit, and basic air cooler makes the $600 cost of a 7800X3D build look way more attractive than the $530 cost of a 9600X build whether you're a gamer or not. An 11% discount it may be, but you're losing 25% of the cores for productivity and that "wins every gaming benchmark by a country mile" 3D V-Cache.

Honestly if you are using one of these or 7800X3D. You could save even more and just use a A620 board (if you are not looking for lot's of storage). Right now I was looking at one for $94 CAD. There was a RAM kit that I just bought for $129 CAD that is 6000 mt/s 30 timings. This has just added more choice to the equation as when you think about it there are also choices like the 8600G or even (Maybe not) 8500G.

If I was building new I would do that instead of getting AM4. As the upgrade path on AM5 looks super promising.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't think there's any merit to AM4 any more for new builds.

It's still a great platform and will be relevant for several more years to those who already own compatible DDR4, but DDR5 costs have come down enough that the modest premium it commands over DDR4 pricing is going to be almost irrelevant in the total build cost of any new build; The cost difference between the cheapest A520 and A620 boards that aren't garbage-tier is minimal, likewise for the B550/B650 comparison, too.

Yes, there are great value AM4 CPUs like the 5600 and 5700X3D, but for the minimal cost increase (just $15 more for DDR5 if you're building on a tight budget with 16GB RAM, and $60 more to buy a Ryzen 5 7600 instead of a 5600) you really should get AM5: That $75 saving today results in worse performance/$ for a typical ~$750 build cost of the entry-level PC as whole - and it'll be a disappointing false economy in 3-5 years from now when you're hoping to drop in a faster CPU.

 

[Kapone33]

I don't think there's any merit to AM4 any more for new builds.

It's still a great platform and will be relevant for several more years to those who already own compatible DDR4, but DDR5 costs have come down enough that the modest premium it commands over DDR4 pricing is going to be almost irrelevant in the total build cost of any new build; The cost difference between the cheapest A520 and A620 boards that aren't garbage-tier is minimal, likewise for the B550/B650 comparison, too.

Yes, there are great value AM4 CPUs like the 5600 and 5700X3D, but for the minimal cost increase (just $15 more for DDR5 if you're building on a tight budget with 16GB RAM, and $60 more to buy a Ryzen 5 7600 instead of a 5600) you really should get AM5: That $75 saving today results in worse performance/$ for a typical ~$750 build cost of the entry-level PC as whole - and it'll be a disappointing false economy in 3-5 years from now when you're hoping to drop in a faster CPU.

100% true. The only thing we need now is a $300 CAD GPU from all 3 GPU vendors that kills it in 1440P and Sim Racing titles. That is where it is at for PC Gaming for me right now as most serious Sim Racers do exactly that and wheels are selling quite well if they are priced right.