AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

[Dr. Dro]

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

Not really, no. Not even if you use the ultimate example of a binned processor - the i9-14900KS - provides such a consistent improvement over time relative to the original release silicon (13900K). This is a golden sample on a motherboard that costs more than the average Ryzen system. Let's be realistic - also, this is an XOC guy. Not even the average power user is going to compete.

 

[Godrilla]

Meh, hard skip. Wait for the 3D version or just get the 78003D now.

Yep especially the 7800X3D can be had for slightly cheaper at $353 at Amazon currently.

 

[yfn_ratchet]

The release of this was... pretty meh, honestly. I expected as much. It's nice to have something fresh and at the ready to push motherboard chipsets further and maybe a new X3D champion but the biggest benefit is probably the inevitable downtrend in Ryzen 7000 prices. We'll see if AMD has the cojones to double up on X3D dies for Zen 5X3D; that would be something of note for sure.

 

[Bavor]

@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

Other reviewers were able to get their 9700X CPUs to boot with CL30. Maybe its an issue specific to the BIOS the motherboard used for testing. Maybe in a few weeks or months there will be a BIOS update to resolve the issues.

From a consumer perspective there is no financial reason to go with CAS 36, CAS 38, or CAS 40 DDR5 6000. I looked this morning and CAS 30 A die DDR5 6000 is still either the lowest priced or one of the lowest priced memory kits for 32GB depending on where you shop. Going by PCPartpicker prices, you save less than $1 by going with CAS 38 DDR5 6000 vs CAS 30 A die DDR5 6000.

 

[Readlight]

Waiting for portable computer.

 

[SL2]

From a consumer perspective there is no financial reason to go with CAS 36, CAS 38, or CAS 40 DDR5 6000. I looked this morning and CAS 30 A die DDR5 6000 is still either the lowest priced or one of the lowest priced memory kits for 32GB depending on where you shop. Going by PCPartpicker prices, you save less than $1 by going with CAS 38 DDR5 6000 vs CAS 30 A die DDR5 6000.

What does price got to do with the review?

 

[phanbuey]

Yep especially the 7800X3D can be had for slightly cheaper at $353 at Amazon currently.

and 2 games hmmmm so tempting...

 

[harm9963]

My 5950X at 4K , with my 4090, will stay put for now, now have to wait 5090 reviews.

 

[AusWolf]

I expected nearly 7800X3D level gaming performance, but this is barely any better than the 7700X in games and apps alike. Pretty meh.

 

[Rabit]

Not really, no. Not even if you use the ultimate example of a binned processor - the i9-14900KS - provides such a consistent improvement over time relative to the original release silicon (13900K). This is a golden sample on a motherboard that costs more than the average Ryzen system. Let's be realistic - also, this is an XOC guy. Not even the average power user is going to compete.

On example of Ryzen 5 5600 I get few samples later production get +200mhz OC margins

 

[Dr. Dro]

On example of Ryzen 5 5600 I get few samples later production get +200mhz

Well within sample variance, especially on a budget SKU such as the 5600. It's just a discounted version of the 5600X, no different to how a 5900XT is a slightly worse quality 5950X or a 5700X3D similarly a slightly worse quality 5800X3D. However, getting these to 5.9 is beyond their intended design. Not even the 9950X is going to be doing something like that OOB.

I would consider it very foolish to think an average build with run of the mill components will ever be capable of pulling that off.

 

[efikkan]

While it is a decent all-round option for decent performance, especially if efficiency is considered, there are clearly better options for specific workloads. But for those holding out for 9900X/9950X; while these will certainly scale further in a lot of the benchmarks, if you are not using those types workloads regularly, these will offer the same real-world experience as 9700X. It's not going to help your user experience if a CPU only performs better in stuff that you don't do.

I think far too many waste money on 12- and 16-core CPUs they have no need for. I only bought my own 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X for my dev machine because it was on sale for the same price as 5800X at the time. And do I see significant load on many of those cores? Rarely.

-----

The bigger problem for AMD here is what the other team has in store. While we don't know whether Arrow Lake will offer a significant uplift across the board or if it will primarily excel in a few areas, there is a potential for some tough competition.

But there might actually be some room for some really good Zen 5 sales for Black Friday this year (I'm thinking both CPUs and motherboards).

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

The microarchitecture has been redesigned so it technically is a new generation, but the performance improvements are a bit lacking (I was hoping for a little more). If you're comparing it to Zen 1 vs. Zen 1+, which was just a fix and some tweaks, that was not a redesign.

Disappointing, but it can be fixed - bump single thread boost and offer an application with quick switch profiles - 45W (Eco Mode), 65W (Standard Mode), 95W (Performance Mode), 120W (Ultra Performance Mode).

Let's not take things too far so it becomes unstable, I'd rather have an "XT" model based on golden samples with a few hundred MHz more.

 

[GhostRyder]

Actually, we didn't. Yes, AMD first claimed that 7800X3D would maintain a marginal lead but later on, at a tech event in July, AMD stated that 9700X would be 2% faster than 7800X3D.

AMD outright lied, especially if you look at the benchmarks on other sites. TPU is by far the only website that shows 9700X on par with the 7000 X3D CPUs. Just about every single other site shows that 9700X is approximately 15% to 20% behind the X3Ds in gaming. If anyone can find another site with even remotely the same results as TPU then please post it here.

That aside, AMD outright lied in their Zen 5 reveal in general. If you look at the slides from back then and now at the real world performance: Nope. Not sure what happened between now and then but "good guy AMD" have lost a ton of credibility right there.

It makes me wonder if technical issues might be a factor here because, according to ComputerBase, there was quite the commotion going on behind the scenes prior to launch. AMD had to release five new BIOS revisions within a single week to address certain memory compatibility problems. CB are saying that a July 31st launch, as originally planned, would have ended up in a "disaster" and that this was the most "bumpy" launch they have witnessed from AMD in a long time.
The frequent new BIOS revisions and the feedback from testers around the world are supposed to have mostly fixed the issues by now but CB is expecting more frequent patching to come during Zen 5 early days.

You will have to show me which slide because the slides I have seen seem to reference the 5800X3D for performance in gaming not the 7800X3D. I could have missed it, but right now I don't see one on the images I am seeing on the web. The article referenced which says it came from overclock3d, does not have a slide but says AMD said that so I dunno on that one.

The slides always show best case scenarios and are cherry picked I am sure. Either way the great difference is the higher boost clocks, better overclocking, and lower power consumption which was clearly the focus for the chips here and was achieved. We can see more when the Ryzen 9 chips come out.

I would not doubt technical issues are an issue and its going to be board to board how it performs as reviews seems to have bigger gaps depending on who is doing it in some cases. New architectures and platforms do have a learning curve in the real world. But who knows could not change, I generally prefer to use TPU as my go to because theirs's match my experience in the real world the most.

 

[oZ65]

This thing is getting trounced by a default power 14700K on a majority of workloads.

Yet its real competitor is the not yet released Arrow Lake.

This looks like a real flub for AMD to me. Zen 5 has a lot of architectural changes that should have yielded more performance. The 9600X review shows similar results vs the 14600K.

Unless Intel hoses up bigtime with Arrow Lake (entirely possible), this may be the end of AMDs rise in the desktop space. They've left Intel a big opportunity to leapfrog them.

Their saving grace may be that, because of the nature of the changes to Zen 5, compiler optimizations may not be there to take advantage of those changes.

Imagine the chart below if Arrow Lake merely provides a 5% uplift vs 14700K.

Now do 10%.

View attachment 357844

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.

 

[ratirt]

I will say hmm with a bit of erhmm.
The power draw is impressive and frequency is so low. No wonder it performs not what I have expected. Maybe AMD is leaving some headroom for the 9800x and/or x3d?

 

[R0H1T]

For chips that are fundamentally broken? I'd say no one should be recommending new 13/14th gen Intel chips to anyone right now unless of course you work for them

 

[sLowEnd]

The 9700X is a tad expensive and disappointing as far as generational performance improvements go.

Power consumption out of the box is nice, but I'm pretty surprised at how little extra performance PBO nets for such a large increase in power consumption.

 

[THU31]

This should've been a regular 65 W 9700 for $300.

Considering the huge 28% increase in the number of transistors, this is incredibly disappointing. AMD quickly got too comfortable in the lead. Rooting for Arrow Lake now, hopefully it can shake things up.

 

[R0H1T]

They're making space for the 97/800x3d they could probably launch two sku's with different TDP as well?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

About what I expected, disappointing after 2 whole years. This is about as meh to me as Zen+ was.

Power consumption is the only real winner.

Not a bad product just a terrible value at 360 should have been 299.

 

[mkppo]

@W1zzard Just curious about the 7950X3D benchmarks. It seems like it's way too close to the 7950x and the difference between that and 7800X3D shouldn't be that big. Is it something to do with scheduling or is it just the subset of games that don't listen to the game bar and have threads that run away to the other CCD?

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard Just curious about the 7950X3D benchmarks. It seems like it's way too close to the 7950x and the difference between that and 7800X3D shouldn't be that big. Is it something to do with scheduling or is it just the subset of games that don't listen to the game bar and have threads that run away to the other CCD?

Someone else earlier in the thread pointed out the low results already, and they do look pretty low indeed. I'll rerun 7950X3D tomorrow to find out more

 

[oxrufiioxo]

@W1zzard Just curious about the 7950X3D benchmarks. It seems like it's way too close to the 7950x and the difference between that and 7800X3D shouldn't be that big. Is it something to do with scheduling or is it just the subset of games that don't listen to the game bar and have threads that run away to the other CCD?

it has to be set to favor cache in the bios and then with process lasso set all system task to the second CCD... It is gonna vary greatly game to game otherwise. Mine performs better in the games I play by a couple % points than the 7800X3D I was using.

Still there are a couple games that ignore my settings and in those cases it performs more like a 7950X.