Technology & Positioning
With the Ryzen 9000 Series, AMD is launching their new Zen 5 microarchitecture, which brings improved IPC and better energy efficiency, while staying compatible with all Socket AM5 motherboards. For their recent processor releases, Intel has been betting on a mix of P-Cores and E-Cores, AMD's Ryzen 9000 processors are still pure P-Core designs, which simplifies scheduling. Today we have posted reviews for the Ryzen 7 9700X (this review) and the Ryzen 5 9600X, 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. 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 9700X runs at a maximum boost frequency of 5.5 GHz (+100 MHz vs 7700X). Base clocks are much lower though, 3.8 GHz vs 4.5 GHz, because AMD is now using a 65 W TDP on the 9700X, down from 105 W on the 7700X. Priced at $360, the strongest competitors for the 9700X are Intel's 14700K ($380), AMD 7800X3D ($370) and 7700 ($280) / 7700X ($290).

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 7 9700X achieves a 6% performance uplift over the Ryzen 7 7700X, which is less than expected. One of the reasons is that heavy multithreaded loads push the CPU into its power limit, so it will throttle. When we removed the power limit and enabled PBO auto overclocking we gained an additional 6% on average, up to 15% in single tests like rendering. A further 6% gain from enabling PBO is much more than what we typically see on modern CPUs, which are usually configured for peak performance out of the box. While some may argue that the TDP limit is set too low and limits performance, I view it as a strategy to enhance thermals and energy efficiency without significantly compromising performance. Compared to the 7800X3D, the 9700X is 10% faster in applications, and it's pretty much able to match the Intel Core i9-12900K flagship from not long ago. Intel's Raptor Lake processors are still the faster choice for non-gaming applications. For example, the i7-13700K is 10% quicker on average, the i7-14700K is 17% ahead.

AMD's new Zen 5 architecture is setting new standards in single-threaded performance. For example, Zen 5 has broken records in MP3 encoding, achieving speeds nearly 10% faster than the 6 GHz 14900K—AMD's IPC gains are truly remarkable. What is surprising though is that these don't translate into clear wins for multithreaded workloads. For example, our H.265 encoder test runs slower than on Ryzen 7700X, and only marginally faster when the 65 W power limit is removed. Full 512-bit AVX512 is certainly nice, but the gains are not as monumental. Using AVX512-VNNI instructions in our Stockfish Chess test, the 9700X shows only a 6% improvement over the 7700X because it hits its power ceiling very quickly—these new AVX512 units do consume more power than before. When the power limit is removed, the 9700X shows an above-average 15% performance increase.

Gaming Performance
AMD's Zen 4 Ryzen processors are formidable gaming machines, especially the X3D series, led by the 7800X3D. After their Computex announcement, to manage expectations, AMD confirmed that their new Zen 5 processors will not be able to beat the gaming performance of the 7800X3D. Our gaming tests show that AMD has definitely improved gaming performance over Zen 4—the 9700X beats almost any previous AMD processor—only the 7800X3D and 7950X3D are faster. At 1080p, the 9700X is 2% faster than the 7700X, but is not fast enough to beat the 7800X3D, which enjoys an 8% lead. Intel's high-end Raptor Lake processors deliver slightly higher FPS, too, by 2-5%, depending on the model. While the Socket AM4 5800X3D is falling behind at 1080p, at the highly GPU-limited 4K resolution it's still a fantastic gaming CPU, pretty much matching all the competitors. Interestingly, minimum FPS are a little bit lower with the 9700X than with competing processors, including the 7700X—the difference is just 3 FPS though (73.5 vs 76.9). This isn't a power limit issue, because our "PBO Max" test with an unlocked power limit has similar performance (73.9 FPS).

Integrated Graphics
While the RDNA 2 integrated graphics are not a main selling point of the Ryzen 9700X, we've still tested it. Performance for non-gaming tasks is good, you'll be able to run all productivity, office, web browsing and media playback apps easily. From a technical perspective, this is the same iGPU as on Ryzen 7000 processors, because AMD is using the same IO die, where the iGPU lives. In gaming, the performance is identical to that of the Ryzen 7000 iGPU. AMD has always made it clear that the iGPU is not for serious gaming, yet it's still faster than what Intel sells in their Raptor Lake processors, and it works with all games, while the Intel iGPU failed in 3 out of 9 game tests.

Power Consumption
As mentioned before, AMD has set a 65 W TDP for the Ryzen 7 9700X, which matches the Ryzen 7 7700 non-X and is considerably lower than the 105 W setting on the 7700X. Combined with the enhancements in microarchitecture and the 4 nm production process, this design makes the Ryzen 7 9700X a remarkably energy-efficient design. On average, in our mix of 49 applications, the 9700X consumed 61.5 W, which is less than half of the 140 W that we're seeing on the Core i7-14700K in the same tests! Compared to the 7700X, you're getting a 25 W improvement and higher performance at the same time. Once the power limit is lifted, power consumption does go up quite a lot and I can see why AMD chose to set a 65 W power limit. No doubt, you can get more performance, but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra power and heat. In gaming, power draw reaches 70 W on average—higher than average application power draw—which is still almost 50 W less than the 14700K, but similar to the 7700X. With our 2024 Test Suite we've added full system idle power consumption measurements, here the 9700X doesn't do so well, just like the older Zen 4 processors. 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 9700X 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 serious heat output—the CPU will reach 95°C in demanding multithreaded workloads, even with watercooling—so better cooling means higher performance. 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 difference is really minor. With both processors having a 65 W TDP, the Ryzen 7 9700X reaches 59.1°C, while the 7700 non-X operates at 61.7 °C, marking a 2.6°C difference. I talked to a couple of colleagues and some of them are seeing 7–8 °C indeed, so this might have to do with the silicon lottery, too.

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 9700X in this review has only small improvements. After installation (or from a power disconnected/CMOS clear, with MCE disabled), the time spent on memory training is almost three minutes—feels like an eternity. However, once that is complete, powering the machine on is 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. When running overclocked with voltage increases, the processor does get pretty hot fairly quickly, so good cooling definitely helps. A full run with 5.3 GHz is included in the charts, and while it does win in some cases, such as rendering, it's really not that much faster than the stock processor, while wasting a ton of energy at the same time. 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, I was able to run at CO all cores -20 fully stable, which yielded another few percent in extra 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 three-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 7 9700X will sell for $360, which is not cheap. There's also plenty of competition in this price range. If you're a gamer, then the 7800X3D for $370 will give you a better experience, but it'll be slower in applications. Other good gamer CPUs (if you don't mind the power draw) are the Intel Core i7-13700K ($320) and the 14700K ($380), which are faster in both applications and games. If your focus is on applications, then the 14600K for $300 is just as fast as the 9700X, but $60 cheaper, or buy a 12700K for $235—it's 8% slower, but you can save $125 (35%). 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. AMD's Ryzen 7 7700X is currently selling for $290, which is a pretty attractive offer, too. Not sure if it's worth saving another $10 to buy the 7700 non-X.

I don't know why AMD is pricing the 9700X so high, maybe to please the shareholders, but at that pricing it's definitely not going to fly off the shelves. Rather 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 9700 non-X is planned—there is no flexibility left in TDP choices, or maybe they release it with 45 W TDP. A 105 W 9800 or non-X could be an option, but it seems unlikely that it'll be worth the cost, especially when you can unlock the 9700X manually in 30 seconds. The upcoming Zen 5 X3D CPUs are expected to deliver exceptional gaming performance, hopefully at competitive prices. Although the exact release date remains uncertain, gamers who are eyeing Zen 5 should certainly wait for these new offerings. 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, which could make things interesting, but performance and pricing is unknown.