Technology & Positioning
Today the review embargo lifts for AMD's Ryzen 9000 Series, which introduces the new Zen 5 microarchitecture. This update brings improved IPC and better energy efficiency while remaining compatible with all Socket AM5 motherboards. Unlike Intel's recent processors that blend P-Cores and E-Cores, AMD's Ryzen 9000 processors feature a pure P-Core design, simplifying scheduling. Today's review coverage includes the Ryzen 5 9600X (this review) and the Ryzen 7 9700X, the reviews for Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X will be published closer to the release date of these two SKUs next week (Aug 15th).

While the IO die is exactly the same as on Zen 4, the new Zen 5 "Granite Ridge" CPUs introduce a new CCD design, which is still eight cores per die, with 32 MB L3 cache, but fabricated on TSMC's 4 nanometer production process. On the 9600X, two of the eight cores are disabled. An interesting change is the switch from 256-bit to a full 512-bit data path for AVX512, more on that later, the frontend and L1 and L2 caches have been improved, too. Clock speeds are roughly similar to previous gen, the 9600X runs at a maximum boost frequency of 5.4 GHz (+100 MHz vs 7600X). Base clocks are much lower though, 3.9 GHz vs 4.7 GHz, because AMD is now using a 65 W TDP on the 9600X, down from 105 W on the 7600X. Priced at $280, the Ryzen 5 9600X is the most affordable entry to the Zen 5 generation. Its strongest competitors are the Intel Core i5-14600K ($300), the Intel Core i7-13700 ($320), AMD 7800X3D ($370) and 7600 ($185) / 7600X ($195).

Application Performance
Just a few weeks ago, we introduced our new 2024 CPU Test Suite, which runs the newest versions of our apps and includes new workloads, especially for AI-related tasks, which are becoming more and more important every day. Averaged over these 49 tests, the Ryzen 5 9600X achieves a 7% performance uplift over the Ryzen 5 7600X, which is less than expected. With this performance it can almost match the application performance of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Intel's Core i5 offerings are still ahead though. The Core i5-13600K has an 8% lead and the 14600K is a pretty impressive 12% faster. While the 9600X does hit its 65 W power limit in some tests, the effect is relatively small. We did do a full benchmarking run "PBO Maximum," which not only removes the power limit, it also increases the maximum frequency of the processor, and yet the gains were only 2.4% on average, around 5-6% in specific rendering apps. Looking at the frequency scaling we can see that the 9600X runs at 5.45 GHz most of the time and drops to around 5.3 GHz when fully loaded. The 7600X will run at 5.45 GHz pretty much all the time, even when fully loaded with all six cores active. Still, I would have expected bigger differences, especially considering the impressive single-threaded gains.

AMD's new Zen 5 architecture is setting new standards in single-threaded performance. For example, the 9600X is able to outperform every other non-Zen 5 CPU on the market, including Intel's 6 GHz Core i9-14900K—AMD's IPC gains are truly remarkable. Having a full 512-bit AVX512 data path will definitely be useful for servers, which use the same CCD dies, not sure if it matters much for the 9600X. On the other hand, a +13% performance improvement in our Stockfish AVX512-VNNI Chess test is pretty nice. Since there's "only" six cores, the AVX512 power consumption hit isn't as high as on the 9700X, and there are some apps that use AVX512 only for a moment, and only on one or two threads.

Gaming Performance
The Zen 4 Ryzen processors from AMD, especially the 7800X3D or other X3D series chips, offer exceptional gaming performance. After their Computex announcement, AMD clarified that their Zen 5 processors would not exceed the gaming capabilities of the 7800X3D. Still, Ryzen 9600X delivers outstanding gaming performance that's better than any previous AMD processor—only the 7800X3D and 7950X3D are faster. This is even more impressive coming from the lowest SKU in the stack! At 1080p, the gap to the 7600X is 3.4%, which is pretty significant, but not enough to catch 7800X3D, which is still 8.5% faster. Intel's high-end Raptor Lake processors also deliver slightly higher FPS, by 2-5%, depending on the model, but they are more expensive and more power hungry, too. Compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X the 9600X loses by a small 2% at 720p, but it keeps on gaining as resolution increases and beats it at 1440p and 4K by a wafer thin 0.3 and 0.4%. While that's not exactly conclusive, it's strong evidence that gaming performance between those two processors will be virtually identical.

Integrated Graphics
Although integrated graphics are not a major highlight of the Ryzen 9600X, we tested them nonetheless. The iGPU performs well for non-gaming applications such as productivity, office tasks, web browsing, and media playback. This is the same iGPU as found in Ryzen 7000 processors due to the reused IO die. In gaming, it therefore provides performance equivalent to the Ryzen 7000 iGPU. AMD has consistently stated that this iGPU is not meant for serious gaming, yet it still surpasses Intel's Raptor Lake iGPU, which didn't even manage to run 3 out of 9 game tests.

Power Consumption
As mentioned before, AMD has set a 65 W TDP for the Ryzen 5 9600X, which matches the Ryzen 5 7600 non-X and is considerably lower than the 105 W setting on the 7600X. Combined with the enhancements in microarchitecture and the 4 nm production process, this makes the Ryzen 5 9600X a remarkably energy-efficient design. On average, in our mix of 49 applications, the 9600X consumed 60 W, which is very similar to what we measured on the 9700X (61 W). It's 30 W less than the Intel Core i5-14600K, and 16 W lower than the 7600X. The 65 W single CCD Zen 4 models such as the 7600/7700 reach slightly less than 60 W. In gaming the 9600X is slightly more energy efficient than Intel's 14600K (66 W vs 76 W), but the differences are not as night-and-day as on the higher-end models. The clear winner for gaming power is still the 7800X3D, which gets notably more FPS, with just 46 W on average. Unlike the 9700X, where the 65 W TDP setting is a bit controversial, there is no doubt that 65 W is the optimal setting for the 9600X. Energy efficiency is very good overall, and well-balanced, too. Our 2024 Test Suite now features full system idle power consumption measurements. Here, the 9600X, like the previous Zen 4 processors, doesn't perform particularly well. You should expect around 20 W more than a similar Intel system. The underlying reason seems to be the tiled die design, especially the IO die, which can't fully power down in idle.

Cooling Requirements
At its default 65 W limit, cooling the 9600X is really easy. While AMD has previously included a basic heatsink with 65 W TDP models, this is no longer the case—just buy something cheap and it'll be fine. If you plan on increasing the power limit, do expect increased heat output, but it's not too difficult to keep it away from thermal throttle. Just like on Zen 4, the thermal limit for boost is 95 °C, and there's no way to increase that (unlike on Intel). During their press briefings AMD mentioned a 15% / 7°C improvement in thermals due to optimized floor planning and better placement of the thermal sensor. They also confirmed that no significant changes were made to the IHS and the TIM. At least on my sample it seems the 9600X runs a bit warmer than the 7600 non-X, but since both are so easy to cool, it really doesn't matter.

Platform
We've seen very long boot times from the bigger AM5 processors in the past, and it seems that this is something that AMD can't really fix conclusively. While we saw very good memory training times with the monolithic Phoenix 2 (Ryzen 8500G), which doesn't use a separate IO die, the Ryzen 9600X in this review has only small improvements. After installation (or from a power disconnected/CMOS clear scenario, with MCE disabled), the time spent on memory training is almost three minutes—feels like an eternity. But once that is complete, powering the machine on goes very fast and takes only 12 seconds to the Windows startup screen, which is just as fast as on Intel systems. Good job, AMD for improving that! As expected, you get full support for PCIe 5.0 x16 for graphics and 5.0 x4 for the M.2 SSD on all high-end motherboards. I also really like that AMD continues to support Socket AM5. They actually confirmed that future CPUs will support the socket, too, until 2027 at least! Intel will be switching sockets again this year with the release of Arrow Lake.

AMD is announcing new 800-Series chipsets with Ryzen 9000, but the motherboards aren't ready yet. These are expected to come out later this summer, with the biggest innovation being USB4 and Wi-Fi 7. All features, including overclocking, Curve Shaper, etc., are fully supported on existing AM5 motherboards (after a BIOS update).

Overclocking
All Zen 5 processors have their multiplier unlocked for easy overclocking. Using a classic all-core OC approach I got 5.3 GHz stable in all workloads. While some lighter tests could run at 5.4, this wasn't fully stable, no matter the voltage. Due to the six-core design, it's much easier to keep the CPU cool during overclocking. 5.3 GHz was actually pretty easy to run in terms of voltage, too, so I lowered the voltage to 1.275 V, which definitely helps with power consumption. Still, the better approach is to use AMD Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) overclocking, which tweaks how the processor manages the operating frequencies. This has the advantage that low loads will boost very high, while demanding tasks can run at lower clocks to ensure stability. The "PBO Maximum" run is with the power limits removed, PBO Scalar set to x10, Clock to +200 and Curve Optimizer at default, which achieved really nice gains in both apps and games. If you play with Curve Optimizer you can unlock even more performance.

Despite the excellent stability and performance of Zen 5, the overclocking experience with Ryzen Master is lacking. Whenever I used it for PBO/overclocking and the system crashed, POST would freeze at code 1A. Resetting didn't solve the problem, requiring a CMOS clear and a 3-minute wait for memory training before testing could continue. I'm confident AMD will eventually address this issue, but it's surprising that it wasn't noticed prior to release.

Pricing & Alternatives
According to AMD, the Ryzen 5 9600X will sell for $280, which is not cheap, but not super expensive either. There is plenty of competition in this price range, so there are many good options. If your tasks are focused on applications, you could opt for the Core i5-14600K ($300), which is 12% faster, or the 13600K (+8% perf and $40 saved). AMD's own Ryzen 5 7600 ($185) and 7600X ($195) are still pretty interesting. They are not that much slower, but considerably cheaper. For gaming, there's no doubt that the 7800X3D is the best gaming CPU, but at $370 it's pretty expensive relative to the 9600X. If you want something that's still great for gaming, yet more affordable, then the 9600X should be on the top of your list. It's the fastest sub-$300 gaming CPU. On the Intel side there's not a single gaming-focused alternative to the 9600X. While the 13700K ($320) and 14700K ($380) are a bit faster indeed, they are too expensive to make a difference for gaming. If you are primarily using applications and game from time to time, these could still make sense, especially the 13700K for $40 more, because they offer superior application performance, while still being excellent at gaming—something that not even 7800X3D can do. Of course there's lots of drama around Intel's instability woes right now, and it remains to be seen how they will fix it. Intel has extended the warranty of all models by an additional two years, which definitely helps in case things do go wrong.

While the Ryzen 5 9600X is priced "alright," it would definitely help if it was $20+ cheaper. It seems that now that the roles are reversed, AMD is positioning their product as a premium-priced alternative to Intel—not sure if that's the right strategy.

Upcoming Releases
At this time it doesn't look like a cheaper Ryzen 5 9600 non-X is planned—there is not much flexibility left in TDP choices, or maybe they'll release it with 45 W TDP. An 8-core 45 W Ryzen 7 9700 non-X doesn't seem probable either, and it's probably going to be too expensive. While the upcoming Zen 5 X3D CPUs are expected to deliver exceptional gaming performance, I doubt that these will be anywhere close to $300, considering the 7800X3D sells for $370 right now. Maybe if AMD decided to release a 9600X3D, but that would go against their strategy to keep X3D at higher price points for better margins. Intel's next-gen Arrow Lake is expected to launch later this year, on a new socket, with a major redesign compared to existing Raptor Lake LGA1700 processors. It could still spell trouble for the low-end Ryzens. No doubt, Intel will have entry-level four and six core options, at price points of $200 and below, and due to the Lion Cove core design these should be pretty strong, especially for gaming, which doesn't require a ton of cores—but let's wait and see. Traditionally Intel launches the high-end first and follows it up with non-K and lower segment models at CES time, so it'll be a while.