AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

[evernessince]

So, the question then becomes is how do we know that the same isn't true for the 9700x? How do we know if they come out with a 9700 non x that there won't be even more power savings? We don't, not until they come out with one.

All signs points to the 9700X already being efficiency tuned out of the box. It's certainly possible that additional efficiency gains can be had (the same could also be said of the 7700 (non-x)) but the end result is not an interesting product on the efficiency front as there simply is not enough performance gains over last generation that would allow you to make massive cuts to the power consumption.

If we look at the 5.3 ghz OC power consumption that you are referencing it is within one watt of the 7700x in the 47 application average.

If we look at the performance of the 5.3 ghz we can see in the cinebench single thread that the 5.3 ghz OC gets 7.1 points per watt and the 7700x gets 5.5. In Cinebench that is a 29% better performance per watt for single thread. If we do multi thread the advantage is 10.2% in favor of the 9700x. If we do gaming the 5.3 ghz OC of the 9700x is 3.01 fps per watt, the 7700x is 2.66 fps, that means the 9700x gets 13% more fps per watt when overclocked to 5.3 ghz when compared to a stock 7700x. If the architecture wasn't any more efficient then we wouldn't be seeing these results. Maybe the architecture only shows it efficiency when you go up the wattage curve when compared to Zen 4.

You are trying to compare a tweaked config to a stock config, it should go without saying that's not an apples to apples comparison.

If you go back and look at TPU's review of the 7700X to compare apples to apples you can see the same OC setup (the exact same one you are using in your example so it's fair game) achieving a 21.56% increase n multi-threaded efficiency:

Now let's compare that to the 9700X in MT efficiency:

That is a mere 10.2% increase in efficiency over the stock 7700X. When you extrapolate the 7700X OC config onto the 9700X review data, which allows us to compare apples to apples, the 7700X OC 5.1 GHz setup is actually 11.36% more efficient in multi-threaded workloads than the 9700X.

Now let's look at gaming efficiency:

3.01 for the 9700X config:

4.85 for the 7700X OC config:

The 7700X tuned config is actually more power efficient than the 7700.

This is what I meant when I said there isn't enough performance headroom with the 9700X to make tuning the power interesting. There isn't a lot of power to shave off to begin with and Ryzen 7000 chips already get amazing results when tuned for power savings.

 

[Bavor]

What does price got to do with the review?

If you follow the context of the previous messages, its pointless to use slower RAM for both a review and as a consumer when it has a negative effect on the benchmark results and real world use cases. Especially when the slower RAM doesn't cost less than the much faster RAM. The DDR5 CAS 30 A die is among the lowest priced DDR5 6000 RAM available and currently the best performing in most benchmarks, games, and other real world use cases. For example, one of the other review sites showed a 9% difference in FPS between CAS 30 DDR5 6000 and CAS 38 DDR5 6000 in non X3D CPUs.

 

[wheresmycar]

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.

Simple... they nerfed it. Thats all it takes. Lets not be under any illusion performance segmentation or product differentiation isn't a thing. The most likely culprit being enhancing the Zen 5 X3D appeal with that wider performance gap and no doubt costing an arm and a leg to land one. Problem being, if this trend continues for the gaming crowd the entire forward Gen support plan on AM5 seems pointless except for big wallet spenders eyeing up some of that X3D magic. I'm certainly not of the opinion we need more CPU power by todays gaming demands but it is what it is Zen 5 being a performance deprived AM5 add-on with some minor perks which are not worthy of a shout-out. As for other workloads which may fare more advantageously with that reasonably well-attired IPC uplift and efficiency... i'm only in it for the game hence ain't gonna dwell on that.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Man, what a perfect advertisement to wait for Arrow Lake. Maybe in typical AMD fashion the early bios and agesa suck, but this is pretty bad and the power is only good because of the performance ruining low TDP. The hype was strong yet again from AMD and having learned nothing form the RDNA3 fiasco they ploughed on ahead. It's like AMD has just released a 7700XT.

Steve at Hardware unboxed was only getting all core clocks of 4.4GHz, vs 7700X getting 5.2GHz. No wonder it uses less power. Hardly an architectural improvement.

I would love for these results to be due to be due to bad bios/agesa/memory issues, but if they aren't Intel will be finally catching a break. But for now you'd be insane not to buy 7800X3D or if you do both gaming and productivity 7950X3D and for productivity only, 7900X/7950X.

Also got to love the straight up lies from AMD earlier saying 6400 was memory sweet spot and now it's back to 6000 again.

I can only therefore expect RDNA4 rumours to also be full of crap too.

I wouldn't say it's disappointing - progress is progress even when it's minimal.

It's literally not progression. If you get 5% more performance for 20% worse price, it's regression. If Intel does this with Arrow Lake, it will get smashed. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see E-cores only competitive with stock 9700X, they can boost to ~4.7GHz and IPC is said to be ~ 2% up on Raptor cove.

 

[A Computer Guy]

For some reason these new AMD CPU's really don't like to do AES or Powerpoint compared to their predecessors. Some office exec's will see this and be like sorry AMD we still need to buy Intel for now because Powerpoint. Maybe this is where AM5 EPYC fills the void since it's still 7000 series chips? I'm jesting a bit of course. Normally users probably won't be upgrading from 7700x to 9700x but from lower SKU's. I love this format of chart and it would be awesome to be able to pick any two CPU's from the test run to compare like this. I would want to see 5700x vs 9700x.

 

[Minus Infinity]

I use 65 Watt CPU's so i'll never see such temps.

95C on a 65 Watt CPU is just weird.

When does it run at 95C. 95C is the temperature it could safely run all day every day. Even in Cinebench MT it hit what, 59C. That's cooler than my undervolted 5800X which runs at 63C when I set PPT at 118W.

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.

As long as it's apples to apples. 7700X benefits too from lower CAS.

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.

The 2080 Ti is 129TOPS. But 4080 is 820TOPS. My 6800XT though is a rather pathetic 67TOPS and no wonder my stable diffusion using Topaz is so slow.

RTX TOPS

 

[Punkenjoy]

For me, i think the current way of doing chiplets with Infinity Fabrics have been pushed to the maximum on desktop. They probably need a better way to connect the i/o die to the CCDs and need to be able to run much faster memory. By now, those CPU are probably memory starved and need to be able to run faster memory and faster I/O communication.

No progression on the memory side is a big downside but isn't really a surprise since the I/O die is the same as Zen4.

Without a new I/O die, those CPU really seems like a refresh. Also it look like they are doing pretty well in other area. AMD is making the big bucks on the server markets and i wouldn't be surprised if they sacrificed gaming performance for server performance.

 

[Minus Infinity]

So much pessimism. According to phoronix, the situation should be much more similar. They didn't use a 14700K but I think the 14900K gives a clear reading.


View attachment 357892View attachment 357893

All well and good but in the real world looking at productivity and scientific tests it is much less impressive, even showing regression in some tests and barely ever hitting 10% improvement. Now if this were labelled and priced as a 9700 with that same 65W TDP it would be much more palatable.

Super disappointing for sure and while X3D will fix the gaming performance hopefully it will still come with the almost negligible mt improvements over 7000.

WTF happened is my take on this what was AMD doing for 2 years.....

9950X reviews will be interesting I guess.....

Maybe, just maybe 9800X3D will get better bins, and all core clocks will surely need to be better than the terrible 4.4GHz of the 9700X. That's like Zen 3 5800X.

 

[Dyno]

So did anybody find out where the sweet spot is for these new 9000 series AMD cpu's? Is it still 6000 or is it 6400 for the memory portion? There is a review that i noticed they even put in an 8000MHz memory and it only made a difference in one game.

 

[Minus Infinity]

So did anybody find out where the sweet spot is for these new 9000 series AMD cpu's? Is it still 6000 or is it 6400 for the memory portion? There is a review that i noticed they even put in an 8000MHz memory and it only made a difference in one game.

AMD told hardware unboxed 6000 is indeed the sweet spot as IF only runs at 2000MHz, same as in Zen 4.