Admire Leo for not just making a thumbnail with a shocked crying face and just focusing on the facts. Had no idea the 7700x cost more on launch than the 9700x. No one else said that. Learned a lot from this video
Good to see an alternative view. Having slightly more performance for considerably less power is significant, and other reviews have treated the drop in power as completely irrelevant.
It's pretty irrelevant for most single PC users. Is an average user actually able to tell the difference if his total system draw under load in 600 watts or 570? Would you notice it on your power bill? Could you Feel the minute heat difference in the room? Pretty sure everyone including AMD would trade the efficiency for 15% more performance in a heartbeat. These chips just can't do it, otherwise AMD would have pushed the TDP up just like the last gen.
Leo, some will start calling you an AMD shill now :-P Jokes aside, I agree with your finding and conclusion. Being an electronic engineer in my previous life, I have a special appreciation of doing the same amount of work with so much less power. In any case, I have seen another review that shows that you can get 15% higher score in cinebench or something with enabling PBO; that's an easy 'fix' for those who want their significant generational bump in raw performance.
Out of the box testing is only showing how the review motherboard operates. The only way to limit the differences between mbs is to do some degree of controlled tunning. Ideally like a static clocking at different power points. Then there is minimal effect from the motherboard.
Heat is also directly proportional to power used and the more heat the lower longevity. So it's not totally crazy by any means though if you worry more about that it's not the only option.
Professional Game Dev here. Well stated quagmire321able! I too am greatly impressed with AMD's lowered power usage while increasing the efficiency -- doing this generation after generation is impressive as hell. Intel historically used to LOVE to suck down more and more electricity to get more performance (with the appropriate 14nm+++ meme back in the day) until they started shipping P-Cores and E-Cores but AMD is doing the HARD WORK of redesigning to be more efficient while taking advantage of 4 nm. I feel like this is being greatly overlooked with barely a mention by some journalists with the tech UA-camr's being SO focused on "being first" that they are kind of missing the forest through the trees IMHO. *AM5 is a long term platform to build upon.* It is unrealistic and a bit naïve to expect to see a 15% improvement _every_ generation. There are always some teething issues with bleeding edge tech and HUB's benchmarks (which normally are quite good) seem to indicate that there is a potential motherboard BIOS issue. I feel like 50% of the customers who watch the Tech UA-camr's would be fine with AM4 5800X3D or AM5 7800X3D gaming solutions with the rest of us doing "non-gaming" workloads should wait and see what the 9800X3D and 9950X brings to the table -- especially with code compilation, rendering, and scientific computing workloads. With some of the bigger tech UA-camrs cherry picking their gaming benchmarks it can be hard to tell where the outliers are. I don't see any reviewers "tagging" games as being CPU bound, Memory bound, or GPU bound to help inform viewers that they can realistically expect across different brands/models.
Thank-god for Leo and Wendell both coming through with factual and knowledgeable reviews. It seems like many of the other Zero-hour reviews all missed the mark on what these CPU and how to review them.
@@Techcensorshipbot The data center folk are going to be very happy with the jump in enterprise workload performance and appreciably lower core power. And unfortunately for "reviewers" that is where AMD is pulling in the big revenue numbers. Datacenter and mobile are the priority not a bunch of "reviewers" arguing over a couple percentage points of game frame rate which is mostly irrelevant to the majority of gamers anyway.
They didn’t miss the mark. If you want the same performance for lower power on a desktop it’s nothing impressive at all. These are desktop CPU’s not laptops. Even if you double their wattage output you only get a consistent %10 performance gain over the 7700x. These chips are disappointing.
You are not the only one Leo. Anandtech, Tomshardware, Linus, Level 1 Tech and even WCCF, all like these CPUs. I found it strange that Hardware Unboxed and GamerNexus literally disregarded the feat AMD did about efficiency on these CPUs. It doesn't bode well for intel in the mobile and datacenter field against Zen 5.
The architectural improvements seem to benefit non-gaming workloads more than anything. However there is no efficiency gain when you compare the correct parts instead of the ones AMD marketing wants you to: the 9700X should be compared to the 7700 as they're both 65W TDP parts and guess Watt: nearly no improvement gen over gen.
The most pathetic nonsensical ignorant fool I ever here is Steve with the zen 5 9700. He already decided that all zen 5 will be bad😅😅😅Impressive in a way that he doesn't understand anything about 9700.😆Wonder how he'll explain when zen 5 x3d and 16 core become impressive. We can't know yet. But he seems to know without even testing them.
Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed overlooked the efficiency gains because their channels are (and have always been) primarily gaming-focused. Zen 5 is excellent for data centers, servers, and AI image research, but it delivers virtually no improvements for gaming.
@@jarnovilen5259 Steve says all zen 5 is bad after testing the entry models with tdp 65w 9600 and 9700. Several tests and also some games like these perform well in. My favorite game asetto corsa tex. x3d can probably be good. But not according to Steve but even tested it and multicore it has already shown promise. But Steve says everything is bad and sucks without even testing more than the entry-level models as mentioned.
Thanks for doing tests on older gen CPUs and using different power limit settings for context. Would be interesting to see 7700 or 7700X on 88W power limit, for true apples to apples comparison.
I think Leo has been fair with his analysis and even if its unpopular in 2024 to say some aspects of the hardware are good, ive appreciated the well balanced approach to both negatives and positives
@@RobBCactive Synthetic benchmarks often yield results that don't tally with real-world application performance such as gaming performance, which is what the vast majority of people watching these videos care about. A proper IPC analysis relating to gaming performance involves fixing the clock speeds of both architectures and disabling turbo, not comparing SPEC benchmarks on two architectures running at 'about' the same speed.
Why is everyone ignoring the Ryzen 7 7700 non-X? It's got the same 65W TDP and 88W PPT as the 9700x, with 96-98% the performance of the 7700x, while costing just 250$
I understand people dont see a massive performance uplift, but the power reduction is immense, and its the exact opposite of what Intel are doing - which has cost them dearly. Well done AMD I say
But that's valid if you only compare to 7700x. The 7700 performs within a % or two of the 7700x and it's a 65W part and uses the same power. Steve @ HWUB highlighted this. I hope the zen5 gen is building ground work for something, because it didn't bring anything to the table over the last gen. (USB 4 on the new upcoming chipsets as well)
I don't see it as bad. The power saving is still attractive depending on what your use cases are. Also, huge productivity boost for some applications using AVX-512 . It just seems that the 9600x 9700x are focused on Desktop productivity market, not gaming. AMD is splitting up the chips into Desktop Productivity, Gaming with the X3D, and the "Professional" or "Enthusiast" market with the 12 and 16 cores. Seems like a sensible approach.
I think the problem is still that the 7600 and 7700 non-X variants exist that basically meet similar power draw and efficiency to these. Unless we see the 9600 and 9700 non-X in the future being even more power efficient, those 2 existing non-X chips make these seem weak too given they weren't much slower than the X chips to begin with either.
@@somebody700 Can always turn on PBO and have it run 20-25% faster. The 7700x is already running max boost, if you turn on PBO on a 7700, it still falls short of the 9700x with stock settings. Secondly, the architectural improvements to zen 5 will be very conducive to x3d, as they improved latency and cache speeds.
@@somebody700 People need to stop glorifying this race to the bottom of skill. It's literally one click, same as setting your ram speed, which if you're going based on put it together and plug it in defaults, the lower ram speeds will result in a pretty big hit on any platform.
So AMD release a CPU that is a little faster, cost a lot less than the 7700X when it launched - has great software support in Ryzen master, takes 40% less power, runs cooler and overclocks better. And you can run PBO and crank it and its still not good? Tough crowd!
@@tehehe5929 9700x is +18% single-core performance than 7700, yet multicore is similar performance that's where people thought "it's same", but 9700x & 7700's MSRP is also similar, and 1 year later 9700x will drop in price the same way as 7700 today. See 12:16 ,9700x blew every processor away in single-core performance.
Leo said it well in the video, if you have a 7700X no need to upgrade. Looking forward to seeing Ryzen 9 next week. Hoping they clock it a bit better out of the box
Yeah. Honestly now that you mention it , that kind of makes most Sense. But it still doesnt explain the rather bad Gaming Reviews. An 9800X, even with 120 Watts wont be 10% better in Gaming as it seems. In other Apps thats a different Story.
If they were doing that- making the 9800X a "9700X that can draw enough power to unlock its real potential"- AMD _really_ should have released that part at the same time. Then reviews would have said "get the 800 part for performance, get the 700 part for the miniscule power draw."
@@flimermithrandir AMD really screwed this launch up. If they were prioritizing efficiency then they should have communicated that to reviewers and not given internal benchmarks that were run with PBO unlocked.
This channel is the most level headed for the zen 5 reviews. Even Hardware Unboxed now resorting to ott titles and angry faces on their thumbnails to gain viewership.
I like Leo’s approach to this stuff - always very level headed and not one to jump on a bandwagon. Zen 5 cant suck yet, its not all been released. Surely people realise this.
The more reviews I watch, the more the 2 Steves (HUB & GN) disinterest in these chips stands out. HUB focus on price/performance so new chips always fare poorly, which is fair. GN was unimpressed but maybe they didn't have the time to overclock the 9600x/9700x. (edit: GN 9600x was defective.) Other sites like yours, L1tech, Ancient gameplay were all pretty positive after OC. So I guess moral of the story is to watch more reviews. So you have gain a sub from me today.
GN Steve won´t have changed his opinnion on the CPUs with PBO since using PBO is not in AMD default specs and voids the warranty. If AMD would have wanted the CPUs used with higher powertargets and more performance, they need to release CPUs with this powertargets out of the box. I think we should have learned out of the whole Intel "What is default?" story.
The problem is that everyone is only comparing the 9700X to the 7700X and saying that it is incredibly more efficient, when it's not the 9700X that is incredibly efficient, but the 7700X that is inefficient. As soon as you start comparing the 9700X to the 7700 non X you see that it's barely better for the same power usage. HUB found that the 9700X has 7% better performance in games for the same power as 7700. Also it doesn't matter what the initial MSRP of Zen 4 chips was. The only thing that matters for is checking how greedy AMD is. I'll ask you - is 7% better performance for the same power usage worth paying 70 USD more? Not to mention that here in Europe these prices are even worse as you can get a Ryzen 7700 for 227€ while the 9700X is going for 445€ (though obviously these price differences will become less extreme in the coming months).
“After OC” is the key phrase here. OC voids your warranty and is not officially supported. It’s also not a use case for the majority of consumer CPU purchasers. So I think GN and other reviewers are completely valid in being thoroughly unimpressed by its intended use by manufacturer from a cost to performance standpoint.
I mean you and other reviewers are not looking the 7700 non-x. if you look at that processor stock vs stock (so around 88 ish watts) against the 9700X you get that in GAMING the 9700X is on average like 8% faster for the same power consumption, now productivity for SOME of the MULTI THREADED tasks people do, the efficiency gains are impressive for the 9700X it is in fact a very capable CPU at those, but that's the thing if you only game and only do a tiny bit or no productivity with this CPU the 360$ makes absolutely no sense. That's the difference nobody is focusing on. As for PBO or w/e you decide to use to go for 150~ish watts it gives great improvements on some applications but in gaming Debauer review for example showed a mere 2.5 to 3% gaming gain while in other productivity applications it was as high as 20%. So in conclusion no, this CPU is not more efficient than a 7700 non-x for GAMING (the 7700X got dumpstered in 2022 by it's high power consumption so why are we comparing it to that CPU? just because of the name? come on people, and 7700 non-x is only like 5% slower) by more than like 8% but in some PRODUCTIVITY applications it seems to be really fast and efficient up to 20%faster for the same power consumption or the same performance for a lot less power but for 360$ if you only game don't bother just go for the 7800X3D.
Fantastic video KitGuruTech. I love to see that you have swam against the tide here and issued a fair disclaimer to wait for the other variants/models to come out. I believe this processor is just the start of something great. If they're already cutting the TDP/WD/h out by half, then we are yet to expect massive things from the Ryzen 9 series aswell as the aligned X3D parts. Well done big fella. Thank you for going through the facts and stating the obvious that this is not a replacement part, it is just a newer and improved generation.
Zen5 sucks - so I hear - and yet Ryzen 9 hasnt even been released or reviewed yet - drama and claims of 'OMG ITS TERRIBLE' always drive hits and attention to channels. I like Leo's very mature non clickbaity approach to stuff - bravo Sir Leo I raise a glass to you !
The new chips simply aren't demonstrably better, in fact they are worse in some applications and cost more than the old. No reason to pretend they are good.
We might not even have stable bios for them... we don't know how well this will run on the new chipset. Do I think AMD rushed these out for almost no reason, yes. But I think Zen 5 will be better as time goes by.
@@dreadtrain2846The 9600 & 9700 are ok for overclockers anything Normal then yes they suck which is why they are getting Mix Reviews because some are going Normal & Others are Overclocking them. Leave it to AMD to Slack off.
@@SpoonHurler I mean, you're not wrong about things getting better, thankfully. I really hate the pricing on these though, given the current performance.
That thing in your mouth, get it out and stop sucking and caressing it. No reason to do that to a big tech company. You're not their friend, this is an absolutely horrible launch.
Leo, absolutely rose in my views - need to pay more attention to this channel, very well presented and considered with both positive thoughts and some help for people wondering if they should upgrade, I like how you leave it for people to make their own call rather than shouting how bad something is.
well done ! when 7700x was released it cost more than this - prices of old stuff always drop - surprised people dont realise this. when the next gen launches, people will say the 9700x is good value - doh, no sh!t !
Not really, prices of stuff drops when the value proposition sucks, like with 7600x and 7700x at launch, and these chips at launch. It will eventually drop, because no sane person would buy it at this price. For example, 5800x3d was holding value for a very long time, because it was great value for money, but nobody was buying the low end 7000 chips, especially given the prices of motherboards and DDR5 at launch.
but you compare CURRENT PRICE to CURRENT PRICE... not 2 year old price... and then you compare the performance... and in that case the 9700X is just WAY too expensive vs, the 7700X that delivers "same" performance for a LOT cheaper...
@@LiLBitsDK When does ANYONE EVER compare current to current when determining any of what is being spoken about in this review? Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion about 6000 vs 7000 this past year? You sound completely detached.
@@KonglomeratYT all the good reviewers compare the CURRENT price of the 7700/7700X vs. the CURRENT price of the new 9700X.... did you live in lala land and compare to original MSRP of the 7000 series to see if the new 9700X made sense on the current market? or did you compare to what the price on it is right now? and if you release a product (not that you ever will but let us pretend) that is no better... and then expect people to pay a lot more for it instead of just buying the old model?
I actually really appreciate how Leo has tackled this from a different angle , looking at the bigger picture. some of the channels have just said Zen 5 sucks, and its not even all released yet. I dont get it
Oh my... a little common sense in a review instead of just crapping all over a product. Your charts say a lot, especially with the power savings. I'm in exactly the situation you described, except my current PC is 10 years old, and it's finally time to upgrade the heart of it. Likely going to be the 9700x after a bit of time and prices dropping a little teeny bit. The alternative would be a 7700x but running it in eco mode to get down to that 65W TDP, but budget says I can go for the newer product. Oh, and I guess I should point out that you gained a new subscriber with this down to earth, nuts and bolts, no sensationalism review. Awesome work, I look forward to more!
Zen5 seems like power efficient Zen4 , 7700x uses 140 watts and 9700x uses 88 watts for similar performance. Well zen5 does use 60% less watts to get same job done , Amd should have launched these cpu latter , should have showed 9950x first to show case zen5 power . Zen 5 seems good , but zen4 is cheaper so its your choice , less power hungry cpu or cheaper cpu .
@@AssassinIsAfkThat's what I thought, who would buy the 9700x when the 7700 is less than 290 usd? Huge price discount, similar power usage and ~%5 less performance which is very small
@@gabrielvarela5 people have selective memory, they won't think wow the 7700 is a better purchase then the 9700x because most of them don't know the 7700 exists or that it performs the same with the same power efficiency
Absolutely phenomenal video pointing out the obvious which other outlets ignored. Everyone wanted to complain about the 7000 series running at 95°C, AMD pushes significantly less power and everyone throws a fit wondering where the performance went.. okay but did they try overclocking to the 7700X's wattage before calling the 9700X trash? No they didn't.. But you did! 😁 It shows exactly the generational improvement expected. I personally think that power cut was a phenomenal approach on the 9700X leaving the door open for a 120w TDP 9800X if the people reaaaaaaaaaalllly want high performance 8C CPUs.
Seems a lot of angry people around - this is life in 2024 - just drama and arguing over nothing. Zen 5 hasnt all been released yet. if you dont like these, ok cool, move on- stop fighting with everyone !
2 years of cpu progress and most of their claims were exaggerated. People are rightfully irked. The rest of zen 5 has nothing to do with these products being botched and overpriced. There's two major companies processing CPU tech for our entire species. Of course people are going to be mad when they mess up. No one's fighting anyone they're mad at a multi billion dollar company.
Zen 4 launch with temperature limit Zen 5 launch with power limit. "Popular YT channels will complain that "their audience" doesn't understand it. Sigh. Good review KitGuruTech.
Totally agree, this is beyond hilarious. AMD got some shit for way too hot CPUs previously, and now the same people critique AMD for not hot enough CPUs. Never listen to tech bloggers opinion on your product
I like how you guys dont have things on fire in your thumbnails and drama - just calm measured discussions - its refreshing in 2024 to see some channels doing this well
I guess all the viewcount chasers also forgot that AMD explicitly stated they are doing a tick/tock method with their CPU's going forward. This is the 'tick' of these, where AMD introduces new platform features (as described on your slide at 3.56). Next iteration will their 'tock' where they focus on increasing the performance of the previous 'tick' platform improvements. But that doesn't make for good clickbait videos, nor can they pull a stupid face to describe the nuances. Again, blame the jerks at Google for this.
Tick tock was die shrink, architecture, die shrink, architecture. This was both an node change (from N5 to N4) and an unsuccessful architecture change.
Well, given Non-X variants have lost some performance while being efficient & 9000-series have in fact gained some performance at the same power lvls - I believe that's your answer right there.
@@F1stzz so it's an incredibly marginal improvement for quite a bit more money than the current retail pricing of the non-x 7000 series cpus? that's a miss in my book.
@@ThrasherEscapes it's marginal now, on first day after the release - current batches of motherboards are yet to be optimized & RAM compatibility issues are yet to be solved. Till the end of this year, when things get ironed out & new chipsets will be out and optimized as well, we'll see how all this doomsday calling ages. Summer next year (might even be spring with all the negative media around 9000-series) these CPUs will receive around $30-50 price cut and become a bang for buck. Also, sitting on a current gen & jumping right on the next one the second it comes out was never a common practice despite how everyone now pretends it was/is too. Give it some time, these chips are already incredible value for SFF builders & in a year, with all the efficiency brought by 4000-series Nvidia and 9000-series Ryzen, that'd be around 50% of users.
But isn't efficiency good just because it performs so bad. If you lift the clocks to be on par with intel in performance, you get similar efficiency. So basically the better efficiency is just faked. If you lower clocks and voltage on Intel you would get same efficiency.
The 9700x draws the exact same power as the 7700 non-x while only being 5% faster. The 7700x was never an efficient chip, it ran way beyond its efficiency curve. AMD should have released these parts as the non-x skus and nobody would complain. By the way, PBO technically voids your warranty. From AMD themselves: “Use of the feature invalidates the AMD product warranty." Granted there is no fuse (at least for previous Zens) so you can get away with it.
@@Skobeloff... What are you talking about? it's power consumption is low, just because it's such a bad performer. If you'd overclock it so it would do the same score in cinebench multicore as 14600k, the efficiency would be on par with 14600k... Which is also evident from cinebench graphs where you can also see power draw when overclocked. It's the same shit as 14600k.
@@gerardw.7468 I noticed it the last gen. The irony is that when their beloved 9800x3d comes out it will fail the same value performance test. Even then the data is asymmetric. No cost analysis of the energy cost differences as a factor of overall cost. We need more data on power usage from idle to peak efficiency. Also, the overall heat load of a system is not trivial. Could even take it to the other end of the curve. What is the long-term medical cost and quality of life changes of noise? Something most are ignoring. I've spent too much of my life next to fans and its showing.
kitguru - thank yoou for your unbiased approach; you gained a sub. very disappointed by the reviewing community. i feel like your approach was very measured and respectable. thank you. i'm also curious to know how much money we are saving in power bill due to zen 5 architecture. that's real savings to the wallet folks!
Problem is, they are on a bandwagon; the AMD marketing one that suggests the 9700X should be compared to the 7700X instead of comparing it to the 7700 which it should be based on specs...
Thank you. Finally a review that takes everything into consideration. Performance per watt is a significant factor in grading a CPU’s overall worth. That reduced power draw saves you money in the long term. And anyone who has a 7000 series processor should think real hard before upgrading or writing off the 9000 series processors.
Great breakdown of this curious new cpu. I think the usual big tech influencers jumped the gun on this one, but they're starving for something new in the gaming space, so it's understandable.
I liked this review and Wendells review too, very measured and loads of good thoughts to share. I like how we are allowed to make up our own view rather than shouting at us
No, they just aren't afraid to call out rubbish products. You're completely ignoring their positive reviews of good parts. But by all means keep watching channels that test 4 games (lol) and think that's a fair sample size to draw conclusions about the gaming performance of the parts.
Good review Leo thanks - dont know how you can say this isnt as good as the original launch of 7000 when we look back the pricing is less. Big channels love drama, its how they love it
"this isnt as good as the original launch of 7000 when we look back the pricing is less. " Cause the 7700 exists - that was cheaper back then, and is just about as efficient and as fast as the 9700X. With the difference that not only was it already cheaper at launch but now it is significantly cheaper.
Thank you Kitguru - best review of the new processors I have seen. I havent understand the focus on comparing this price today with a 2 year old processor with price cuts
+10% more performance with 40% less power usage - this is a huge improvement! I looked at some of the reviews and was completely stunned by the complains. I have no idea why they are ignoring this. I would even say that this CPU is a gamechanger on the market. Can power smaller devices with desktop performance.
1 it isn’t 10% faster on aggregate.more like negligibly faster compared to the 7700x/7600x 2 it’s 7-10% faster then the 7700/7600 (non X) which have roughly the same power draw. This might be able to be achieved with just a Die shrink of the 7k series. So I am disappointed that 2 years of development with very talented and previously very successful engineers. Lead to absolute jack shit. It has been an colossal waste of time and money.
First sensible review I sw on these processors... 1. The power is taken into account.... 2. It does not crash like the intel...or degrade? That is a win... I am looking forward tot he Ryzen 9 CPU's, and specifically the X3D versions whenever they get released. Thanks!
@@Morne_Smith I know you're denser than rocks but I'm making fun of the fact you have nothing to list. There's zero reason to buy or upgrade to these CPUs if you own anything remotely modern. Be delusional all you want, just get the AMD tattoo already. As an AMD owner that has owned a 7700X and 7800X3D in two different systems, there's no reason for being this much of a fanboy. Admit wrongs when your team does them or you are not a genuine person.
@@JordanJ01 Power efficiency is of massive benefit if you want performance in a small form factor machine. Just because it isn't the metric you seem to care about doesn't mean for a large group of people it is not a huge improvement. If you want performance turn on PBO to recover the power behaviour of the 7xxx series... or as stated in the video wait for the x3d parts.
Great and honest review, no reason to claim “fail” or “win”, if you just make the review and explain the data the conclusion is straightforward. It is a product not basketball/soccer/whatever team to defend or blame just based on preference. Just take it easy, a review is your work done to inform us and you hit the goal at 200%.
I also thought GN's review was pretty poor - the repeatedly test AMD chips on stock when they know full well nearly their entire audience will be, at the very least, switching on PBO and likely also mucking with Curve Optimizer. Zen 5 has clearly been set u for a lower power draw out of the box experience, but with a few moments spent in the bios it shows that it is 10 to 20% up on zen 4.
Yeah I feel like both GN and HUB (which are normally quite good) really dropped the ball here. Maybe this is the proof that we need to take tuning of system/BIOS config more serious to really take advantage of AM5 and/or motherboards are still too "new"?
@MichaelPohoreski shit take. "I like these reviewers who are professional unless I disagree" Testing anything other than stock at a day1 review would be misleading.
Finally, a competent and fair review of this part focusing on where it truly shines, that being much better 1440p gaming and production than its predecessor while using far less power and still having an insane amount of OC headroom for those who want to pursue that. Thank you. For those building their first system like me, this is an amazing part.
@@tehehe5929 no. You’d get dramatically far less performance on that part in 1440p gaming, and no ability to oc without ECG, and even then, even an OC 7700/7700x wouldn’t even get close to the performance of an OC 9700X in 1440p gaming and production benchmarks. Assuming you’re on AM5 and playing only in 1080p and doing no productivity work given your question, I’d suggest the 7600x which performs practically identically to the other 7000x non-3D parts in *1080p* gaming.
What people need to keep in mind, is that this new part is an *_EITHER OR_* part. Meaning, if you want it, you get slightly better performance than a 7700x but in what is practically eco-mode using basically half the power of the 7700x, *_OR_* you have a part which absolutely fkn slays when OC, even beating the 7800x3D in 1440p gaming and nipping at the heels of the 5950x in production.
Well, make it 105W then, why not. Tech blogger elite shat on AMD for very hot Ryzen CPUs previously, it listened, and now it is shat upon again by the same tech bloggers for making reasonably power limited CPUs. It is hilarious.
Great review, very level headed and comprehensive. While I agree with the take that these chips are more for new builders than gen on gen upgrades (which honestly, is usually the case in hardware), that doesn't preclude the last gen parts as an option for a new builder either. Both the 7700 and 7700x are still available, and at cheaper prices. So the 9700X still has to compete with them for new builders $$$. So it comes down to is the increase in efficiency/lower power worth the increased price? That's the decision a new builder has to make.
Thumbs up for a legit review. It does seem like these new processors have to be unleashed with more power usage allowed in PBO and probably curve optimizer settings to undervolt, to shift the power curve. I'm going to get one but only because I'm prepared to use an AIO and really crank the power to get it to perform like it can.
I'm in the market myself for a new build. These are tempting with the power draw for similar specs in gaming. And also, theyre all tested at 1080 to show the bottleneck, im running triple 1440 with a 4090, so im not (i think) going to be bottlenecked to utilise the CPU like in these tests. PC will run quieter, AIO wont be straining, this actually seems like a decent cpu. Especially coming from an intel 8700k 😅
was that the same sentiment when Nvidia launched 4000 series? 4060 was 10% faster than 3060 but also way efficient. but still that did not stop people from shitting on Nvidia? Maybe people are more lenient on AMD than on Nvidia.
Good review. Lots of quick bad takes this review cycle - although I do see that AMD setting this to 65w TDP threw a lot of people off their expected outcomes. Those who were unable to understand we're aiming at 65w instead of 105w didn't really see much improvement - the PBO / OC results show this is a great architecture. Can't wait for the higher TDP 9900 and 9950 - I bet people will turn their opinions around in a heartbeat.
Leo is not a sheep. well done for sticking to your views and explaining why - I dont think the anti AMD guys will care they dont really understand half of what is being said at times.
My PC journey (year bought): AMD Athlon XP 3200 (2003) -> Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (2008) -> Xeon X3360 (Core 2 Quad Q9550 equivalent 2013) -> i7-6700K (2016 - now). The i7-6700K with 32GB RAM and NVMe OS & Data drives (+some SATA) still does everything I need it to. Still on the fence as to whether I'll stick with Intel (Arrow Lake?) for my next build or go back to AMD (Zen 5/6?). I mostly use it for heavy browsing and office work (Excel, Teams, WhatsApp and remote support mainly). Will definitely want 10G Ethernet and plenty of storage options.
Last time they did that and people mostly asked why and actually use power saving mods added in bios later to get 95% performance for much less power wasted. To me this is what they should do last time.
I am so glad forLeo who appreciate these cpu's for what they are and gives a honest review. Regretfully GamersNexus and HUB are missing it completely this time. DerBau3r is also a bit more favourable with his review and he also did show that these cpu's run very well when OC'ed and still doesn't act like a heatstove as the Intel ones with even a way more powerdraw. Could be because GamersNexus and HUB are living in countries where the prices for electricity and gas are low even very low compared to europeans.
If anything, what this reviews shows is that limiting the 9700X to 65W was a mis-step on AMD's part. If this had been a 105W part like the previous-gen 7700X, I doubt the initial reviews would have been as negative. In my opinion, the smarter play would have been to release it as a 105W part, but include review guidance emphasizing its 65W Eco mode as providing similar performance as the previous gen for 40% less power. Alas, hindsight is 20/20, and foresight decidedly less so.
Its been interesting watching these reviews unfold this week - some weird and unusual viewpoints i dont get , and people getting angry over things that make little sense to me.
Thanks Leo and team. Love the approach and information presented, the Zen5 certainly looks like a solid improvement overall. Unfortunately some just prefer to go with very few metrics to evaluate the CPU.
Your point in the intro would make sense… …if the older models weren’t available alongside it for much better price, didn’t have the same lifespan as these new ones and those efficiency gains were actually measurable in terms of the electricity bill.
50w power draw difference is about 1p for every hour the computer is on, over the life of a PC that most definitely adds up. eg, my desktop at home has been running at least 50hrs/week (v conservative) for the last 4 years of working from home. About £30/year, £120 just for the last 4 years, which is a fairly conservative lifespan for a decently high end PC --- as it happens, my CPU is a 4770k that I bought in 2014, so over those 10 years actually a 50w saving for equivalent performance would've saved me the cost of a new CPU
@@thenayancat8802 perhaps, at full chat yes, but you rarely if ever run your cpu at full utilization for any significant period of time. Usually, they turbo up and down depending on their own coding, making this difficult to calculate.
@@TheLastCrankers Efficiency adds up though! That may be the case with one gaming PC - and a 50w drop is noticeable even then (especially with heat in the room), but spread that out to all my systems? and spread that efficiency to the rest of the users? Especially the business users? That 50w per part can make kilowatts of saving across a full building. Not to mention that efficiency gives you more OC headroom. If your max safe operating temp is 95C - efficiency will net you more power per degree as well. I'm excited for the 120 and 170w TDP parts - I bet we'll see a big performance increase.
No, it was MORE expensive than this. Not sure why people dont seem to work that out. selective memory maybe. Its hardly a shocker two year old hardware drops in price over time. unless you are Nvidia or Apple thats always the case.
Yep 7700x was £420. Around £90 more than the 9700x. People say 9700x is badly priced against 2 year old hardware. I am not sure the logic. I can buy 2 year old anything for less than a new design
We pay retail prices, not launch MSRP. When new model offers negligible benefits over the previous one, but demands a disproportionately higher price, it's a bad price on the current market. Why would I buy a 9700X over a 7900X? Or 7800X3D?
@@SaltyMaud Leo did go over this in the video - he said people shouldn't upgrade from a 7700x to a 9700x if they own one. But he went over the new buyer angle. You pay launch prices at launch - has anyone said differently? In two years, the 9700x will have dropped in price in a similar way. Its how this market works
Very well structured & laid out review, with a mature opinion. The Ryzen 9600x & 9700x are not inherently bad. Nor great. Just Ok/alright. I personally find value in a CPU that can achieve better power efficiency, heat reduction, small bump in performance & a Reduced launch price compared to the previous gen. Now if it were an extra 30-50$ cheaper id be giving it a stellar review. Lets see what the future brings us, im more excited about AMD's new GPUs more than the CPUs.
As far as prices go, when you want to buy CPU you only care about price today, not 2 years ago. What a strange mental gymnastic that was. 7700 non X is just a s power efficient and about 7% slower and a lot cheaper. 9700x is just too expensive for what it is.
The biggest differentiator is the 9700X can be overclocked. A couple of sites already showed that you can get 15-20% more performance in single and multi threaded workloads if you use PBO and curve optimizer. You can't do that with the 7700X. Zen 4 is already running balls to the walls. Zen 5 has more headroom. If you already have Zen 4, no need to upgrade. If you don't want to fiddle with your chip and OC and don't care about efficiency, don't get Zen 5. Lastly, Zen 4 chip production is being cut down and most probably stopped for the i7-i9 chips which means once stocks run out, it's gone. EDIT: There's 1 channel so far that has shown the different ways to OC this new chip which none of the main stream reviewers either don't know or don't show. Look for "skatterbencher" on YT. He has OC'd his 9700k to 5860 Mhz and shows the different levels/ways to OC Zen 5. It's very straight to the point and shows how much you can push these newer chips. OCing is actually back with these chips.
As someone looking to buy a zen5 processor in late 2024, owning a 4 year old pc with a zen4 processor, you’re spot on. Here in Europe electricity prices are high. I want something both more powerful and more power efficient.
That are certain channels that only seem to exist to create negative reviews and videos, they never have anything positive to say, they do not even attempt. It is embarrassing. I appreciate this channel and Wendel for just doing there own thing
I have no idea what, but something weird is going on with the Zen5-CPU's. The results are not in line with AMD's benchmarks and there is no way that AMD expected this level of performance until recently. Two weeks ago AMD decided to postpone the launch with 2 weeks. +weird and inconsistent resullts among the reviewers. The most worrisome part for me: the singlethreaded clock-frequency not getting achieved (I experienced this with my current 3700X which gets stuck at 4.25 GHz and twice a hour for a microsecond 4..35 GHz) and the lack of gained performance when PBO gets used, when you increase the electrical power with PBO then you should get at least 50% extra multithreaded performance compared to the extra power, so for 2x power you should get 1.5 performance in multithreaded loads. My guess: there is a big firmwareproblem and AMD hoped to fix this within 2 weeks but it didn't happen. Time will tell. I was considering upgrading to Zen5 (from a 3700X) but it looks like it might be Zen6.
@@JMNovak1011 OS scheduler for sure, the rest remains to be seen. Otherwise it wouldn't perform so much better in the comparisons from the Phoronix guy. The big mysterie for me is why some techtubers/webmagazines got a better result for the same games/productivity-software than others even when the others (Hardware Unboxed) seemingly used good enough DDR5. Anyway, the Phoronix benchmarks make me more optimistic about maybe upgrading to a 7950X3D or 7800X3D. I have a 3700X and 5700 XT (getting old) so I am kind of due for an upgrade. I use Linux so I don't care about Windows-specific problems with 16-core Ryzen-CPU's.
The fact that this one can achieve such clocks at this voltage can mean a lot for the x3d, where the clock speed was always the major bottleneck. Also, the focus on low voltage could mean a dual CCD dual 3D cache design in the next release.
Fair play to Leo. There is, as usual, a lot of clickbaiting and failure to stand back and realise new is just that and takes time to bed in. Well done Leo!
I think zen 5 will come of age nicely, having the low power/heat option, or apparently higher performance on tap with better ram speed and oc. I'm waiting for x3d part to decide what I do.
Actually he didn't say its bad, HUB did. Steve's total review was unimpressed.. but he literally *prefaced it* by pointing out it has far lower power draw then before. Maybe its a bad review because he only mentioned that context once at the start then ignored it for the next 10 minutes?
So many people arguing, if you like the 7700 or 7700x , then just keep it, you never planned to move to 9700x anyway, lets be honest about it. just a good reason to whinge
Admire Leo for not just making a thumbnail with a shocked crying face and just focusing on the facts. Had no idea the 7700x cost more on launch than the 9700x. No one else said that. Learned a lot from this video
Right now 7700x does not cost more than 9700x. In my region I can find 7700x3d less than 9700x. Why would I even bother with a "regression". (Edited)
Agree.... Level1techs was also abit more calm about it. ua-cam.com/users/level1techs
What, literally everybody in their beginning segment showed the pricing of the 7000 and 9000 series
How is that relevant now? To show that amd is less off this time?
@@modernlogix 7700x3d?
How much more disinformation do you spread?
Good to see an alternative view. Having slightly more performance for considerably less power is significant, and other reviews have treated the drop in power as completely irrelevant.
7700 makes this cpu irrelevant af
What Assassin said. The comparison of the 400€ 9700X against the 304€ 7700 is damning. Tray versions of the 7700 sell for 220-230€.
Yeah especially if you don't have the best cooling
It's pretty irrelevant for most single PC users. Is an average user actually able to tell the difference if his total system draw under load in 600 watts or 570? Would you notice it on your power bill? Could you Feel the minute heat difference in the room? Pretty sure everyone including AMD would trade the efficiency for 15% more performance in a heartbeat. These chips just can't do it, otherwise AMD would have pushed the TDP up just like the last gen.
ESRO was supposed to be 359 dollars, looks like scalpers are already at it…
Leo, some will start calling you an AMD shill now :-P
Jokes aside, I agree with your finding and conclusion. Being an electronic engineer in my previous life, I have a special appreciation of doing the same amount of work with so much less power. In any case, I have seen another review that shows that you can get 15% higher score in cinebench or something with enabling PBO; that's an easy 'fix' for those who want their significant generational bump in raw performance.
Leo has been called an Intel shill for years - so its quite refreshing - Allan. Thanks for the comment !
Out of the box testing is only showing how the review motherboard operates. The only way to limit the differences between mbs is to do some degree of controlled tunning. Ideally like a static clocking at different power points. Then there is minimal effect from the motherboard.
@@robertmyers6488 Most people buying this will plug it in and run it. Dont for one minute think the audience here is representative of the real world.
Heat is also directly proportional to power used and the more heat the lower longevity. So it's not totally crazy by any means though if you worry more about that it's not the only option.
Professional Game Dev here. Well stated quagmire321able! I too am greatly impressed with AMD's lowered power usage while increasing the efficiency -- doing this generation after generation is impressive as hell. Intel historically used to LOVE to suck down more and more electricity to get more performance (with the appropriate 14nm+++ meme back in the day) until they started shipping P-Cores and E-Cores but AMD is doing the HARD WORK of redesigning to be more efficient while taking advantage of 4 nm. I feel like this is being greatly overlooked with barely a mention by some journalists with the tech UA-camr's being SO focused on "being first" that they are kind of missing the forest through the trees IMHO. *AM5 is a long term platform to build upon.* It is unrealistic and a bit naïve to expect to see a 15% improvement _every_ generation.
There are always some teething issues with bleeding edge tech and HUB's benchmarks (which normally are quite good) seem to indicate that there is a potential motherboard BIOS issue.
I feel like 50% of the customers who watch the Tech UA-camr's would be fine with AM4 5800X3D or AM5 7800X3D gaming solutions with the rest of us doing "non-gaming" workloads should wait and see what the 9800X3D and 9950X brings to the table -- especially with code compilation, rendering, and scientific computing workloads.
With some of the bigger tech UA-camrs cherry picking their gaming benchmarks it can be hard to tell where the outliers are. I don't see any reviewers "tagging" games as being CPU bound, Memory bound, or GPU bound to help inform viewers that they can realistically expect across different brands/models.
Thank-god for Leo and Wendell both coming through with factual and knowledgeable reviews. It seems like many of the other Zero-hour reviews all missed the mark on what these CPU and how to review them.
Was going to post the exact same thing. Beat me to it 👍🏻
Nah it’s just that other reviewers had expectations for a drastic jump in performance vs cost. Thats not what these chips did.
@@Techcensorshipbot The data center folk are going to be very happy with the jump in enterprise workload performance and appreciably lower core power. And unfortunately for "reviewers" that is where AMD is pulling in the big revenue numbers. Datacenter and mobile are the priority not a bunch of "reviewers" arguing over a couple percentage points of game frame rate which is mostly irrelevant to the majority of gamers anyway.
Fax I think it's a brill bit of kit, getting more efficiency shouldn't be looked down upon!
They didn’t miss the mark. If you want the same performance for lower power on a desktop it’s nothing impressive at all. These are desktop CPU’s not laptops. Even if you double their wattage output you only get a consistent %10 performance gain over the 7700x. These chips are disappointing.
You are not the only one Leo. Anandtech, Tomshardware, Linus, Level 1 Tech and even WCCF, all like these CPUs. I found it strange that Hardware Unboxed and GamerNexus literally disregarded the feat AMD did about efficiency on these CPUs. It doesn't bode well for intel in the mobile and datacenter field against Zen 5.
The architectural improvements seem to benefit non-gaming workloads more than anything. However there is no efficiency gain when you compare the correct parts instead of the ones AMD marketing wants you to: the 9700X should be compared to the 7700 as they're both 65W TDP parts and guess Watt: nearly no improvement gen over gen.
The most pathetic nonsensical ignorant fool I ever here is Steve with the zen 5 9700. He already decided that all zen 5 will be bad😅😅😅Impressive in a way that he doesn't understand anything about 9700.😆Wonder how he'll explain when zen 5 x3d and 16 core become impressive. We can't know yet. But he seems to know without even testing them.
Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed overlooked the efficiency gains because their channels are (and have always been) primarily gaming-focused. Zen 5 is excellent for data centers, servers, and AI image research, but it delivers virtually no improvements for gaming.
@@selohcin And x3d AMD is for gaming and still he do this Steve. He is stupid stupid stupid.
@@jarnovilen5259 Steve says all zen 5 is bad after testing the entry models with tdp 65w 9600 and 9700. Several tests and also some games like these perform well in. My favorite game asetto corsa tex. x3d can probably be good. But not according to Steve but even tested it and multicore it has already shown promise. But Steve says everything is bad and sucks without even testing more than the entry-level models as mentioned.
Thanks for doing tests on older gen CPUs and using different power limit settings for context.
Would be interesting to see 7700 or 7700X on 88W power limit, for true apples to apples comparison.
Manual Overclocking is BACK!
I'm sure AMD played it safe with the out of the box performance considering what Intel is going through.
It's how I ran the 7600x and 7700x. AMD never seem to get the power curves right.
@@robertmyers6488 If the 6 core is limited to 88 watts the 8 core limit should be around 115 watts.
I think Leo has been fair with his analysis and even if its unpopular in 2024 to say some aspects of the hardware are good, ive appreciated the well balanced approach to both negatives and positives
Guess I won't be buying Zen 5 as soon as I planned too... I'll wait for the big sales to make it worthwhile (hopefully).
I'm amazed no one's done a proper IPC analysis of Zen 5 vs 4.
Anandtech has done exactly that. SPEC is outside my sphere so I leave it to experts.
Leo
@@KitGuruTechgigachad
Mysticial (the creator of y-cruncher) has an incredible Zen5's AVX512 & IPC teardown on his numberworld blog, check it out!
@@gw7624 MLiD mentioned that the SPEC suite had been run and produced results in line with AMD claims.
@@RobBCactive Synthetic benchmarks often yield results that don't tally with real-world application performance such as gaming performance, which is what the vast majority of people watching these videos care about. A proper IPC analysis relating to gaming performance involves fixing the clock speeds of both architectures and disabling turbo, not comparing SPEC benchmarks on two architectures running at 'about' the same speed.
Why is everyone ignoring the Ryzen 7 7700 non-X? It's got the same 65W TDP and 88W PPT as the 9700x, with 96-98% the performance of the 7700x, while costing just 250$
If they’re going to test the 9700x with PBO they should test the 7700x with Eco Mode. In no world is this product worth buying at current price.
People love suffixes, the same applies to non x graphics cards. Marketing $$$
@@Skobeloff... Maybe AMD should release CPUs with "Non X" als suffix, to get the suffix onto the suffixless parts.
yeah 7700 alone make 9700X absolutely irrelevant
Because that would destroy their arguments for the 9700x being a good chip, and it's easier to ignore and hope your viewers don't notice.
I understand people dont see a massive performance uplift, but the power reduction is immense, and its the exact opposite of what Intel are doing - which has cost them dearly. Well done AMD I say
I feel the same way. I am surprised so many people are crapping on the 9000 series.
But that's valid if you only compare to 7700x. The 7700 performs within a % or two of the 7700x and it's a 65W part and uses the same power. Steve @ HWUB highlighted this.
I hope the zen5 gen is building ground work for something, because it didn't bring anything to the table over the last gen. (USB 4 on the new upcoming chipsets as well)
False the efficiency is not all that great.
@@jellowigglerif you look at the architechture daigrams compared to zen/4 it most definitly is ground work foundation for just that!
You're not aware that Intel chips use less power overall than AMD chips?
Intel chips only use more power when it's necessary.
😂
I don't see it as bad. The power saving is still attractive depending on what your use cases are. Also, huge productivity boost for some applications using AVX-512 . It just seems that the 9600x 9700x are focused on Desktop productivity market, not gaming. AMD is splitting up the chips into Desktop Productivity, Gaming with the X3D, and the "Professional" or "Enthusiast" market with the 12 and 16 cores.
Seems like a sensible approach.
It is still a massive gaming CPU, c'mon. Who really needs overcosted X3D anyway, some whales with top-notch GPUs to uphold their hubris?
Unfortunately their predecessors beat them in some applications with similar power consumption, for a lower price.
@@dreadtrain2846 I've not seen any comparisons showing similar power consumption with better performance?
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь 3D is best for gaming mate.
@@dreadtrain2846 there's not a single benchmark which would show comparable performance and even remotely similar TDP.
THANK YOU for not being so emotional or overly dramatic like the other youtube reviewers. I appreciate you being calm throughout the review
Always 👍🏻
I think the problem is still that the 7600 and 7700 non-X variants exist that basically meet similar power draw and efficiency to these. Unless we see the 9600 and 9700 non-X in the future being even more power efficient, those 2 existing non-X chips make these seem weak too given they weren't much slower than the X chips to begin with either.
@@somebody700 no
@@somebody700 Can always turn on PBO and have it run 20-25% faster. The 7700x is already running max boost, if you turn on PBO on a 7700, it still falls short of the 9700x with stock settings. Secondly, the architectural improvements to zen 5 will be very conducive to x3d, as they improved latency and cache speeds.
@@somebody700 That's just mental gymnastics to justify being bad at computers. Stop glorifying being dumb.
@@somebody700 the software lately makes overclocking a two click process i dont see how their point doesnt stand. 20-25% is significant.
@@somebody700 People need to stop glorifying this race to the bottom of skill. It's literally one click, same as setting your ram speed, which if you're going based on put it together and plug it in defaults, the lower ram speeds will result in a pretty big hit on any platform.
So AMD release a CPU that is a little faster, cost a lot less than the 7700X when it launched - has great software support in Ryzen master, takes 40% less power, runs cooler and overclocks better. And you can run PBO and crank it and its still not good? Tough crowd!
You should compare 9700x to 7700 (non X) and keep in mind it is half the price. Then you might wonder why everybody thinks 9700x is utter shit.
@@tehehe5929 9700x is +18% single-core performance than 7700, yet multicore is similar performance that's where people thought "it's same", but 9700x & 7700's MSRP is also similar, and 1 year later 9700x will drop in price the same way as 7700 today. See 12:16 ,9700x blew every processor away in single-core performance.
Thanks Leo for the balanced thoughts, nice to listen to someone putting things in context
Massive oversight to not include the 7700 non-x. This is a better comparison as it has the same TDP as the 9700x.
Leo said it well in the video, if you have a 7700X no need to upgrade. Looking forward to seeing Ryzen 9 next week. Hoping they clock it a bit better out of the box
Or if you can buy a 7700X then buy that instead, no need to consider the new parts.
When was the last time there was an upgrade to the next immediate generation (within 18months) worth doing?
Why do I think that AMD is saving a 9800X part that would be the 105W? Same as what they did with the 3700X and 3800X
Or just enable CO with PBO.
Yeah. Honestly now that you mention it , that kind of makes most Sense. But it still doesnt explain the rather bad Gaming Reviews. An 9800X, even with 120 Watts wont be 10% better in Gaming as it seems. In other Apps thats a different Story.
If they were doing that- making the 9800X a "9700X that can draw enough power to unlock its real potential"- AMD _really_ should have released that part at the same time.
Then reviews would have said "get the 800 part for performance, get the 700 part for the miniscule power draw."
@@flimermithrandir AMD really screwed this launch up. If they were prioritizing efficiency then they should have communicated that to reviewers and not given internal benchmarks that were run with PBO unlocked.
They would normally release the performance part 1st. Normally
This channel is the most level headed for the zen 5 reviews. Even Hardware Unboxed now resorting to ott titles and angry faces on their thumbnails to gain viewership.
Yeah, the have gone full TikTok click bait.
Have to had it to Intel and their PR team, some of these comments are cracking value to read. well done !
Can’t handle that zen 5 is trash can ya? Let it sink in bud, they are garbageeee
I like Leo’s approach to this stuff - always very level headed and not one to jump on a bandwagon. Zen 5 cant suck yet, its not all been released. Surely people realise this.
Yeah, it seems like some people are jumping the gun a bit early here. We still don't know how the 9800X3D and 9950X perform.
The more reviews I watch, the more the 2 Steves (HUB & GN) disinterest in these chips stands out. HUB focus on price/performance so new chips always fare poorly, which is fair. GN was unimpressed but maybe they didn't have the time to overclock the 9600x/9700x. (edit: GN 9600x was defective.) Other sites like yours, L1tech, Ancient gameplay were all pretty positive after OC.
So I guess moral of the story is to watch more reviews. So you have gain a sub from me today.
It looks like the 9700x was only slightly faster or even slower in some games after OC in this video?
GN Steve won´t have changed his opinnion on the CPUs with PBO since using PBO is not in AMD default specs and voids the warranty. If AMD would have wanted the CPUs used with higher powertargets and more performance, they need to release CPUs with this powertargets out of the box.
I think we should have learned out of the whole Intel "What is default?" story.
The problem is that everyone is only comparing the 9700X to the 7700X and saying that it is incredibly more efficient, when it's not the 9700X that is incredibly efficient, but the 7700X that is inefficient. As soon as you start comparing the 9700X to the 7700 non X you see that it's barely better for the same power usage. HUB found that the 9700X has 7% better performance in games for the same power as 7700.
Also it doesn't matter what the initial MSRP of Zen 4 chips was. The only thing that matters for is checking how greedy AMD is. I'll ask you - is 7% better performance for the same power usage worth paying 70 USD more? Not to mention that here in Europe these prices are even worse as you can get a Ryzen 7700 for 227€ while the 9700X is going for 445€ (though obviously these price differences will become less extreme in the coming months).
“After OC” is the key phrase here. OC voids your warranty and is not officially supported. It’s also not a use case for the majority of consumer CPU purchasers. So I think GN and other reviewers are completely valid in being thoroughly unimpressed by its intended use by manufacturer from a cost to performance standpoint.
Yes but none of them equilibrated the cost of energy into their analysis.
I mean you and other reviewers are not looking the 7700 non-x. if you look at that processor stock vs stock (so around 88 ish watts) against the 9700X you get that in GAMING the 9700X is on average like 8% faster for the same power consumption, now productivity for SOME of the MULTI THREADED tasks people do, the efficiency gains are impressive for the 9700X it is in fact a very capable CPU at those, but that's the thing if you only game and only do a tiny bit or no productivity with this CPU the 360$ makes absolutely no sense. That's the difference nobody is focusing on. As for PBO or w/e you decide to use to go for 150~ish watts it gives great improvements on some applications but in gaming Debauer review for example showed a mere 2.5 to 3% gaming gain while in other productivity applications it was as high as 20%. So in conclusion no, this CPU is not more efficient than a 7700 non-x for GAMING (the 7700X got dumpstered in 2022 by it's high power consumption so why are we comparing it to that CPU? just because of the name? come on people, and 7700 non-x is only like 5% slower) by more than like 8% but in some PRODUCTIVITY applications it seems to be really fast and efficient up to 20%faster for the same power consumption or the same performance for a lot less power but for 360$ if you only game don't bother just go for the 7800X3D.
Fantastic video KitGuruTech. I love to see that you have swam against the tide here and issued a fair disclaimer to wait for the other variants/models to come out. I believe this processor is just the start of something great. If they're already cutting the TDP/WD/h out by half, then we are yet to expect massive things from the Ryzen 9 series aswell as the aligned X3D parts.
Well done big fella. Thank you for going through the facts and stating the obvious that this is not a replacement part, it is just a newer and improved generation.
Zen5 sucks - so I hear - and yet Ryzen 9 hasnt even been released or reviewed yet - drama and claims of 'OMG ITS TERRIBLE' always drive hits and attention to channels. I like Leo's very mature non clickbaity approach to stuff - bravo Sir Leo I raise a glass to you !
The new chips simply aren't demonstrably better, in fact they are worse in some applications and cost more than the old. No reason to pretend they are good.
We might not even have stable bios for them... we don't know how well this will run on the new chipset. Do I think AMD rushed these out for almost no reason, yes. But I think Zen 5 will be better as time goes by.
@@dreadtrain2846The 9600 & 9700 are ok for overclockers anything Normal then yes they suck which is why they are getting Mix Reviews because some are going Normal & Others are Overclocking them. Leave it to AMD to Slack off.
@@SpoonHurler I mean, you're not wrong about things getting better, thankfully. I really hate the pricing on these though, given the current performance.
That thing in your mouth, get it out and stop sucking and caressing it. No reason to do that to a big tech company. You're not their friend, this is an absolutely horrible launch.
Leo, absolutely rose in my views - need to pay more attention to this channel, very well presented and considered with both positive thoughts and some help for people wondering if they should upgrade, I like how you leave it for people to make their own call rather than shouting how bad something is.
I am sticking with my 7700X. If they had released this at the price of the 7700X now, would be good - far too expensive.
Great review by the Kitguru team, Wendell and Leo flying the flag for top quality journalism
Intel PR team are in overdrive in the comments - Amazing to read some of the comments !
ikr. "Please. Forget our gen 13 and 14 100% failure rate." Can you imagine the comments when AMD bungles with 100% failure rate.
well done ! when 7700x was released it cost more than this - prices of old stuff always drop - surprised people dont realise this. when the next gen launches, people will say the 9700x is good value - doh, no sh!t !
Not really, prices of stuff drops when the value proposition sucks, like with 7600x and 7700x at launch, and these chips at launch. It will eventually drop, because no sane person would buy it at this price. For example, 5800x3d was holding value for a very long time, because it was great value for money, but nobody was buying the low end 7000 chips, especially given the prices of motherboards and DDR5 at launch.
but you compare CURRENT PRICE to CURRENT PRICE... not 2 year old price... and then you compare the performance... and in that case the 9700X is just WAY too expensive vs, the 7700X that delivers "same" performance for a LOT cheaper...
@@LiLBitsDK When does ANYONE EVER compare current to current when determining any of what is being spoken about in this review? Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion about 6000 vs 7000 this past year? You sound completely detached.
@@KonglomeratYT all the good reviewers compare the CURRENT price of the 7700/7700X vs. the CURRENT price of the new 9700X.... did you live in lala land and compare to original MSRP of the 7000 series to see if the new 9700X made sense on the current market? or did you compare to what the price on it is right now? and if you release a product (not that you ever will but let us pretend) that is no better... and then expect people to pay a lot more for it instead of just buying the old model?
I actually really appreciate how Leo has tackled this from a different angle , looking at the bigger picture. some of the channels have just said Zen 5 sucks, and its not even all released yet. I dont get it
Oh my... a little common sense in a review instead of just crapping all over a product. Your charts say a lot, especially with the power savings. I'm in exactly the situation you described, except my current PC is 10 years old, and it's finally time to upgrade the heart of it. Likely going to be the 9700x after a bit of time and prices dropping a little teeny bit. The alternative would be a 7700x but running it in eco mode to get down to that 65W TDP, but budget says I can go for the newer product.
Oh, and I guess I should point out that you gained a new subscriber with this down to earth, nuts and bolts, no sensationalism review. Awesome work, I look forward to more!
Thanks !
Zen5 seems like power efficient Zen4 ,
7700x uses 140 watts and 9700x uses 88 watts for similar performance.
Well zen5 does use 60% less watts to get same job done ,
Amd should have launched these cpu latter , should have showed 9950x first to show case zen5 power .
Zen 5 seems good , but zen4 is cheaper so its your choice , less power hungry cpu or cheaper cpu .
Performance seems to be better in linux than windows with zen 5, there appears to be some likely scheduler or firmware issues to be worked out.
@@KAMS-r3s this would be true if the 7700 non x didn't exist, since that's what the 9700x is, it's a 7700 which a slightly higher clock speed
@@AssassinIsAfkThat's what I thought, who would buy the 9700x when the 7700 is less than 290 usd? Huge price discount, similar power usage and ~%5 less performance which is very small
@@gabrielvarela5 people have selective memory, they won't think wow the 7700 is a better purchase then the 9700x because most of them don't know the 7700 exists or that it performs the same with the same power efficiency
Absolutely phenomenal video pointing out the obvious which other outlets ignored.
Everyone wanted to complain about the 7000 series running at 95°C, AMD pushes significantly less power and everyone throws a fit wondering where the performance went.. okay but did they try overclocking to the 7700X's wattage before calling the 9700X trash? No they didn't.. But you did! 😁 It shows exactly the generational improvement expected.
I personally think that power cut was a phenomenal approach on the 9700X leaving the door open for a 120w TDP 9800X if the people reaaaaaaaaaalllly want high performance 8C CPUs.
Seems a lot of angry people around - this is life in 2024 - just drama and arguing over nothing. Zen 5 hasnt all been released yet. if you dont like these, ok cool, move on- stop fighting with everyone !
2 years of cpu progress and most of their claims were exaggerated. People are rightfully irked. The rest of zen 5 has nothing to do with these products being botched and overpriced. There's two major companies processing CPU tech for our entire species. Of course people are going to be mad when they mess up. No one's fighting anyone they're mad at a multi billion dollar company.
Outstanding review sir you have nailed exactly who and what these chips are for
Zen 4 launch with temperature limit
Zen 5 launch with power limit.
"Popular YT channels will complain that "their audience" doesn't understand it. Sigh.
Good review KitGuruTech.
well said
Totally agree, this is beyond hilarious. AMD got some shit for way too hot CPUs previously, and now the same people critique AMD for not hot enough CPUs. Never listen to tech bloggers opinion on your product
I like how you guys dont have things on fire in your thumbnails and drama - just calm measured discussions - its refreshing in 2024 to see some channels doing this well
I guess all the viewcount chasers also forgot that AMD explicitly stated they are doing a tick/tock method with their CPU's going forward.
This is the 'tick' of these, where AMD introduces new platform features (as described on your slide at 3.56).
Next iteration will their 'tock' where they focus on increasing the performance of the previous 'tick' platform improvements.
But that doesn't make for good clickbait videos, nor can they pull a stupid face to describe the nuances.
Again, blame the jerks at Google for this.
Tick tock was die shrink, architecture, die shrink, architecture.
This was both an node change (from N5 to N4) and an unsuccessful architecture change.
Great content, so many good thoughts and opinions in the video . I left it feeling quite educated.
How does it compare to the R7 7700(non x) though? iirc those were fairly efficient compared to the x variants for a minor loss of performance
Well, given Non-X variants have lost some performance while being efficient & 9000-series have in fact gained some performance at the same power lvls - I believe that's your answer right there.
@@F1stzz so it's an incredibly marginal improvement for quite a bit more money than the current retail pricing of the non-x 7000 series cpus? that's a miss in my book.
@@ThrasherEscapes your getting 4% less performance for so much less money
@@ThrasherEscapes it's marginal now, on first day after the release - current batches of motherboards are yet to be optimized & RAM compatibility issues are yet to be solved. Till the end of this year, when things get ironed out & new chipsets will be out and optimized as well, we'll see how all this doomsday calling ages. Summer next year (might even be spring with all the negative media around 9000-series) these CPUs will receive around $30-50 price cut and become a bang for buck. Also, sitting on a current gen & jumping right on the next one the second it comes out was never a common practice despite how everyone now pretends it was/is too. Give it some time, these chips are already incredible value for SFF builders & in a year, with all the efficiency brought by 4000-series Nvidia and 9000-series Ryzen, that'd be around 50% of users.
they are not efficient. Just underclocked.
Leo and Wendell flying the flag for good journalism - top job Leo
Steve from GN mentions something that should be held in much higher regard, improved efficiency is a very positive advancement.
But isn't efficiency good just because it performs so bad. If you lift the clocks to be on par with intel in performance, you get similar efficiency. So basically the better efficiency is just faked. If you lower clocks and voltage on Intel you would get same efficiency.
The 9700x draws the exact same power as the 7700 non-x while only being 5% faster. The 7700x was never an efficient chip, it ran way beyond its efficiency curve. AMD should have released these parts as the non-x skus and nobody would complain.
By the way, PBO technically voids your warranty. From AMD themselves: “Use of the feature invalidates the AMD product warranty." Granted there is no fuse (at least for previous Zens) so you can get away with it.
@@benjaminpedi2302 dodgy tech channels must love you.
@@MaDrung Odd, I could see the comparison graphs in the videos, I am not sure why they were invisible for you, it really is a mystery.
@@Skobeloff... What are you talking about? it's power consumption is low, just because it's such a bad performer. If you'd overclock it so it would do the same score in cinebench multicore as 14600k, the efficiency would be on par with 14600k...
Which is also evident from cinebench graphs where you can also see power draw when overclocked. It's the same shit as 14600k.
Perhaps an additional side to the story: No significant performance uplift = less discounts on the previous gen, which DOES harm new builders like me
Great review, very balanced - we need more of this today in a market of media just feeding on drama.
The Steve's have frankly embarrassed themselves.
@@robertmyers6488Unfortunately, I would agree with this.
@@gerardw.7468 I noticed it the last gen. The irony is that when their beloved 9800x3d comes out it will fail the same value performance test. Even then the data is asymmetric. No cost analysis of the energy cost differences as a factor of overall cost. We need more data on power usage from idle to peak efficiency.
Also, the overall heat load of a system is not trivial. Could even take it to the other end of the curve. What is the long-term medical cost and quality of life changes of noise? Something most are ignoring. I've spent too much of my life next to fans and its showing.
kitguru - thank yoou for your unbiased approach; you gained a sub. very disappointed by the reviewing community. i feel like your approach was very measured and respectable. thank you. i'm also curious to know how much money we are saving in power bill due to zen 5 architecture. that's real savings to the wallet folks!
This is why I like Kitguru - never one to just jump on a bandwagon
Problem is, they are on a bandwagon; the AMD marketing one that suggests the 9700X should be compared to the 7700X instead of comparing it to the 7700 which it should be based on specs...
@@MacGuyver85 Nobody is being prevented from doing 7700 benchmarks.
@@tomstech4390 Exactly, that's what Hardware Unboxed did and you immediately see how the 9700X offers almost no improvement compared to the 7700.
@@MacGuyver85 ❤❤
Thank you. Finally a review that takes everything into consideration. Performance per watt is a significant factor in grading a CPU’s overall worth. That reduced power draw saves you money in the long term. And anyone who has a 7000 series processor should think real hard before upgrading or writing off the 9000 series processors.
As I see It is the good solution for low noise PC builds.
You could get 7700 for half the price with the same power but -%5 performance.
Great breakdown of this curious new cpu. I think the usual big tech influencers jumped the gun on this one, but they're starving for something new in the gaming space, so it's understandable.
nice. i think there is an issue at 12:10, the 7900X is highlighted in the bottom instead of the 9700X with the unlocked TDP.
Curses. yes, quite correct. Well spotted.
Leo
@@KitGuruTech I don't blame you with all the 7s, 9s and Xs in there to be honest...
I liked this review and Wendells review too, very measured and loads of good thoughts to share. I like how we are allowed to make up our own view rather than shouting at us
GN and HUB - drama queens of youtube. Hate everything, EKWB, Intel, AMD, the list goes on.
No, they just aren't afraid to call out rubbish products. You're completely ignoring their positive reviews of good parts. But by all means keep watching channels that test 4 games (lol) and think that's a fair sample size to draw conclusions about the gaming performance of the parts.
Great analysis from Leo to clear the confusion.
Good review Leo thanks - dont know how you can say this isnt as good as the original launch of 7000 when we look back the pricing is less. Big channels love drama, its how they love it
"this isnt as good as the original launch of 7000 when we look back the pricing is less. "
Cause the 7700 exists - that was cheaper back then, and is just about as efficient and as fast as the 9700X. With the difference that not only was it already cheaper at launch but now it is significantly cheaper.
Love to see some real explanations and opinions in these videos, most youtubers just spout whatever for views. Love this channel!
SO much hate, we need more love ! lol
Thank you Kitguru - best review of the new processors I have seen. I havent understand the focus on comparing this price today with a 2 year old processor with price cuts
+10% more performance with 40% less power usage - this is a huge improvement!
I looked at some of the reviews and was completely stunned by the complains. I have no idea why they are ignoring this.
I would even say that this CPU is a gamechanger on the market. Can power smaller devices with desktop performance.
1 it isn’t 10% faster on aggregate.more like negligibly faster compared to the 7700x/7600x
2 it’s 7-10% faster then the 7700/7600 (non X) which have roughly the same power draw.
This might be able to be achieved with just a Die shrink of the 7k series.
So I am disappointed that 2 years of development with very talented and previously very successful engineers. Lead to absolute jack shit.
It has been an colossal waste of time and money.
You're right! Good explanations!
First sensible review I sw on these processors...
1. The power is taken into account....
2. It does not crash like the intel...or degrade? That is a win...
I am looking forward tot he Ryzen 9 CPU's, and specifically the X3D versions whenever they get released.
Thanks!
Glad it was useful to you
Wow two whole things you could list! Good job! Maybe we can get to the number 3 next time.
@@JordanJ01 If you want more detail...watch the review. Why do I need to list it all, seems redundant?
@@Morne_Smith I know you're denser than rocks but I'm making fun of the fact you have nothing to list.
There's zero reason to buy or upgrade to these CPUs if you own anything remotely modern. Be delusional all you want, just get the AMD tattoo already.
As an AMD owner that has owned a 7700X and 7800X3D in two different systems, there's no reason for being this much of a fanboy. Admit wrongs when your team does them or you are not a genuine person.
@@JordanJ01 Power efficiency is of massive benefit if you want performance in a small form factor machine. Just because it isn't the metric you seem to care about doesn't mean for a large group of people it is not a huge improvement. If you want performance turn on PBO to recover the power behaviour of the 7xxx series... or as stated in the video wait for the x3d parts.
Great Review Mr. Leo! Finally Someone That Enables PBO and Lets These Processors Show What They Can Do! Gained A Up Vote And New Subscriber!
as owner of I5 7500, this feel like skylake-kabylake debacle all over again , minimal uplift release after 2 years for ridiculous price
In a way it is but not because AMD didn't try like intel at the time.
Great and honest review, no reason to claim “fail” or “win”, if you just make the review and explain the data the conclusion is straightforward. It is a product not basketball/soccer/whatever team to defend or blame just based on preference. Just take it easy, a review is your work done to inform us and you hit the goal at 200%.
I also thought GN's review was pretty poor - the repeatedly test AMD chips on stock when they know full well nearly their entire audience will be, at the very least, switching on PBO and likely also mucking with Curve Optimizer. Zen 5 has clearly been set u for a lower power draw out of the box experience, but with a few moments spent in the bios it shows that it is 10 to 20% up on zen 4.
Yeah I feel like both GN and HUB (which are normally quite good) really dropped the ball here.
Maybe this is the proof that we need to take tuning of system/BIOS config more serious to really take advantage of AM5 and/or motherboards are still too "new"?
@MichaelPohoreski shit take. "I like these reviewers who are professional unless I disagree"
Testing anything other than stock at a day1 review would be misleading.
@@elirantuil5003Yeah typically AMD idiot fanboys.
Zen 5 is shaping up well, looking forward to seeing the Ryzen 9 review from Leo
Finally, a competent and fair review of this part focusing on where it truly shines, that being much better 1440p gaming and production than its predecessor while using far less power and still having an insane amount of OC headroom for those who want to pursue that. Thank you. For those building their first system like me, this is an amazing part.
I wonder if 7700 (non X) for half the price would get you almost (-5%) the same thing. This is true competition to 9700x not the 7700x.
@@tehehe5929 no. You’d get dramatically far less performance on that part in 1440p gaming, and no ability to oc without ECG, and even then, even an OC 7700/7700x wouldn’t even get close to the performance of an OC 9700X in 1440p gaming and production benchmarks.
Assuming you’re on AM5 and playing only in 1080p and doing no productivity work given your question, I’d suggest the 7600x which performs practically identically to the other 7000x non-3D parts in *1080p* gaming.
What people need to keep in mind, is that this new part is an *_EITHER OR_* part. Meaning, if you want it, you get slightly better performance than a 7700x but in what is practically eco-mode using basically half the power of the 7700x, *_OR_* you have a part which absolutely fkn slays when OC, even beating the 7800x3D in 1440p gaming and nipping at the heels of the 5950x in production.
Thanx Leo, excellent review. Signed up. The HUB and GN reviewers are just sensation seekers!
The thought is that this CPU should have been 105 watts. At 65 watts, it does not reach full potential.
Maybe they are saving a 9800X as the 105W same before with 3700X and 3800X
Well, make it 105W then, why not. Tech blogger elite shat on AMD for very hot Ryzen CPUs previously, it listened, and now it is shat upon again by the same tech bloggers for making reasonably power limited CPUs. It is hilarious.
Great review, very level headed and comprehensive. While I agree with the take that these chips are more for new builders than gen on gen upgrades (which honestly, is usually the case in hardware), that doesn't preclude the last gen parts as an option for a new builder either. Both the 7700 and 7700x are still available, and at cheaper prices. So the 9700X still has to compete with them for new builders $$$.
So it comes down to is the increase in efficiency/lower power worth the increased price? That's the decision a new builder has to make.
Thumbs up for a legit review. It does seem like these new processors have to be unleashed with more power usage allowed in PBO and probably curve optimizer settings to undervolt, to shift the power curve. I'm going to get one but only because I'm prepared to use an AIO and really crank the power to get it to perform like it can.
I'm in the market myself for a new build. These are tempting with the power draw for similar specs in gaming. And also, theyre all tested at 1080 to show the bottleneck, im running triple 1440 with a 4090, so im not (i think) going to be bottlenecked to utilise the CPU like in these tests.
PC will run quieter, AIO wont be straining, this actually seems like a decent cpu.
Especially coming from an intel 8700k 😅
Good to see some other viewpoints like techpowerup and kitguru
Lower power consumption while retaining performance should always be considered a good thing.
Good thing is cost more too.
@@Rispes-ne1fk 7700 did this, gets same results, it does not have a X on the end of it so everyone forgets it exists and is cheaper
was that the same sentiment when Nvidia launched 4000 series? 4060 was 10% faster than 3060 but also way efficient. but still that did not stop people from shitting on Nvidia? Maybe people are more lenient on AMD than on Nvidia.
It’s not a good thing if efficiency with the same performance is a thing in a freaking desktop market.
@@KenpachiAjaxAMD double standards BS is one of the reasons why I hate the tach community.
Good review. Lots of quick bad takes this review cycle - although I do see that AMD setting this to 65w TDP threw a lot of people off their expected outcomes. Those who were unable to understand we're aiming at 65w instead of 105w didn't really see much improvement - the PBO / OC results show this is a great architecture. Can't wait for the higher TDP 9900 and 9950 - I bet people will turn their opinions around in a heartbeat.
Leo is not a sheep. well done for sticking to your views and explaining why - I dont think the anti AMD guys will care they dont really understand half of what is being said at times.
Precisely. Well said.
Yes he's not a sheep but he clearly feels like someone who sold out.
My PC journey (year bought): AMD Athlon XP 3200 (2003) -> Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (2008) -> Xeon X3360 (Core 2 Quad Q9550 equivalent 2013) -> i7-6700K (2016 - now).
The i7-6700K with 32GB RAM and NVMe OS & Data drives (+some SATA) still does everything I need it to. Still on the fence as to whether I'll stick with Intel (Arrow Lake?) for my next build or go back to AMD (Zen 5/6?).
I mostly use it for heavy browsing and office work (Excel, Teams, WhatsApp and remote support mainly). Will definitely want 10G Ethernet and plenty of storage options.
I feel like AMD should just let this shit run uncapped. Then, we’ll see how fast this thing actually is. This should have been a 9700 non X.
u can do it
der8auer
9700x are always been 65w my friend they just need to release a 95/105w 9800x
@@ThaexakaMavro but it draws more than 65 ^^
Last time they did that and people mostly asked why and actually use power saving mods added in bios later to get 95% performance for much less power wasted.
To me this is what they should do last time.
I am so glad forLeo who appreciate these cpu's for what they are and gives a honest review. Regretfully GamersNexus and HUB are missing it completely this time. DerBau3r is also a bit more favourable with his review and he also did show that these cpu's run very well when OC'ed and still doesn't act like a heatstove as the Intel ones with even a way more powerdraw. Could be because GamersNexus and HUB are living in countries where the prices for electricity and gas are low even very low compared to europeans.
If anything, what this reviews shows is that limiting the 9700X to 65W was a mis-step on AMD's part. If this had been a 105W part like the previous-gen 7700X, I doubt the initial reviews would have been as negative. In my opinion, the smarter play would have been to release it as a 105W part, but include review guidance emphasizing its 65W Eco mode as providing similar performance as the previous gen for 40% less power. Alas, hindsight is 20/20, and foresight decidedly less so.
Agreed. They could have even named it 9700 as well. Then we would expect efficiency as a priority.
yeah release a 9700XT with 105W... and lower the price of the 9700X with like 50 bucks..
Thank you - enjoyed the video, Zen 5 upcoming products using this low power architecture will do very well
Its been interesting watching these reviews unfold this week - some weird and unusual viewpoints i dont get , and people getting angry over things that make little sense to me.
Thanks Leo and team. Love the approach and information presented, the Zen5 certainly looks like a solid improvement overall. Unfortunately some just prefer to go with very few metrics to evaluate the CPU.
Your point in the intro would make sense…
…if the older models weren’t available alongside it for much better price, didn’t have the same lifespan as these new ones and those efficiency gains were actually measurable in terms of the electricity bill.
The older models beat the new chips in some applications as well, not good.
50w power draw difference is about 1p for every hour the computer is on, over the life of a PC that most definitely adds up. eg, my desktop at home has been running at least 50hrs/week (v conservative) for the last 4 years of working from home. About £30/year, £120 just for the last 4 years, which is a fairly conservative lifespan for a decently high end PC --- as it happens, my CPU is a 4770k that I bought in 2014, so over those 10 years actually a 50w saving for equivalent performance would've saved me the cost of a new CPU
@@thenayancat8802 perhaps, at full chat yes, but you rarely if ever run your cpu at full utilization for any significant period of time. Usually, they turbo up and down depending on their own coding, making this difficult to calculate.
@@TheLastCrankers Efficiency adds up though! That may be the case with one gaming PC - and a 50w drop is noticeable even then (especially with heat in the room), but spread that out to all my systems? and spread that efficiency to the rest of the users? Especially the business users? That 50w per part can make kilowatts of saving across a full building.
Not to mention that efficiency gives you more OC headroom. If your max safe operating temp is 95C - efficiency will net you more power per degree as well. I'm excited for the 120 and 170w TDP parts - I bet we'll see a big performance increase.
@@Tuhar refer to my previous comment
...awesome! refreshing take with alternative context.. thank you!
I think its good - Leo nailed it in the start bit around the pricing stuff - when the last gen came out it was just as expensive as this !
No, it was MORE expensive than this. Not sure why people dont seem to work that out. selective memory maybe. Its hardly a shocker two year old hardware drops in price over time. unless you are Nvidia or Apple thats always the case.
more expensive
Yep 7700x was £420. Around £90 more than the 9700x. People say 9700x is badly priced against 2 year old hardware. I am not sure the logic. I can buy 2 year old anything for less than a new design
We pay retail prices, not launch MSRP. When new model offers negligible benefits over the previous one, but demands a disproportionately higher price, it's a bad price on the current market. Why would I buy a 9700X over a 7900X? Or 7800X3D?
@@SaltyMaud Leo did go over this in the video - he said people shouldn't upgrade from a 7700x to a 9700x if they own one. But he went over the new buyer angle. You pay launch prices at launch - has anyone said differently? In two years, the 9700x will have dropped in price in a similar way. Its how this market works
Very well structured & laid out review, with a mature opinion.
The Ryzen 9600x & 9700x are not inherently bad. Nor great. Just Ok/alright.
I personally find value in a CPU that can achieve better power efficiency, heat reduction, small bump in performance & a Reduced launch price compared to the previous gen.
Now if it were an extra 30-50$ cheaper id be giving it a stellar review.
Lets see what the future brings us, im more excited about AMD's new GPUs more than the CPUs.
As far as prices go, when you want to buy CPU you only care about price today, not 2 years ago. What a strange mental gymnastic that was. 7700 non X is just a s power efficient and about 7% slower and a lot cheaper. 9700x is just too expensive for what it is.
This. Very disappointing by kitguru.
An incremental update (at best) and looking very poor value against what is currently available.
The biggest differentiator is the 9700X can be overclocked. A couple of sites already showed that you can get 15-20% more performance in single and multi threaded workloads if you use PBO and curve optimizer. You can't do that with the 7700X. Zen 4 is already running balls to the walls. Zen 5 has more headroom. If you already have Zen 4, no need to upgrade. If you don't want to fiddle with your chip and OC and don't care about efficiency, don't get Zen 5. Lastly, Zen 4 chip production is being cut down and most probably stopped for the i7-i9 chips which means once stocks run out, it's gone.
EDIT: There's 1 channel so far that has shown the different ways to OC this new chip which none of the main stream reviewers either don't know or don't show. Look for "skatterbencher" on YT. He has OC'd his 9700k to 5860 Mhz and shows the different levels/ways to OC Zen 5. It's very straight to the point and shows how much you can push these newer chips. OCing is actually back with these chips.
@@pkpnyt4711 Believe me a lot of people will do just that.
Perhaps a fair take, but I see that many critiques of this CPU aren’t that nuanced.
Give it a year, price will fall. Always does with AMD.
As someone looking to buy a zen5 processor in late 2024, owning a 4 year old pc with a zen4 processor, you’re spot on.
Here in Europe electricity prices are high. I want something both more powerful and more power efficient.
That are certain channels that only seem to exist to create negative reviews and videos, they never have anything positive to say, they do not even attempt. It is embarrassing. I appreciate this channel and Wendel for just doing there own thing
Thanks James 👍🏻
Thanks Leo for the amazing review - very good job
Glad you liked it!
I have no idea what, but something weird is going on with the Zen5-CPU's. The results are not in line with AMD's benchmarks and there is no way that AMD expected this level of performance until recently. Two weeks ago AMD decided to postpone the launch with 2 weeks. +weird and inconsistent resullts among the reviewers. The most worrisome part for me: the singlethreaded clock-frequency not getting achieved (I experienced this with my current 3700X which gets stuck at 4.25 GHz and twice a hour for a microsecond 4..35 GHz) and the lack of gained performance when PBO gets used, when you increase the electrical power with PBO then you should get at least 50% extra multithreaded performance compared to the extra power, so for 2x power you should get 1.5 performance in multithreaded loads. My guess: there is a big firmwareproblem and AMD hoped to fix this within 2 weeks but it didn't happen. Time will tell. I was considering upgrading to Zen5 (from a 3700X) but it looks like it might be Zen6.
Most likely a agesa/firmware issue as well as some OS scheduler issue going on. Give it month or so.
@@JMNovak1011 OS scheduler for sure, the rest remains to be seen. Otherwise it wouldn't perform so much better in the comparisons from the Phoronix guy. The big mysterie for me is why some techtubers/webmagazines got a better result for the same games/productivity-software than others even when the others (Hardware Unboxed) seemingly used good enough DDR5. Anyway, the Phoronix benchmarks make me more optimistic about maybe upgrading to a 7950X3D or 7800X3D. I have a 3700X and 5700 XT (getting old) so I am kind of due for an upgrade. I use Linux so I don't care about Windows-specific problems with 16-core Ryzen-CPU's.
The fact that this one can achieve such clocks at this voltage can mean a lot for the x3d, where the clock speed was always the major bottleneck.
Also, the focus on low voltage could mean a dual CCD dual 3D cache design in the next release.
Fair play to Leo. There is, as usual, a lot of clickbaiting and failure to stand back and realise new is just that and takes time to bed in. Well done Leo!
I think zen 5 will come of age nicely, having the low power/heat option, or apparently higher performance on tap with better ram speed and oc. I'm waiting for x3d part to decide what I do.
Wow Steve Burke has really got the masses foaming at the mouth, its like a cult leader on youtube now. Steve says its bad, get the pitchforks out
Actually he didn't say its bad, HUB did.
Steve's total review was unimpressed.. but he literally *prefaced it* by pointing out it has far lower power draw then before. Maybe its a bad review because he only mentioned that context once at the start then ignored it for the next 10 minutes?
@@tomstech4390 Ya It can be bad eview!
Its like you went out of your way to forget about the 7600 and 7700 non-X parts that have the dame power draw with minimal impact to oerformance
So many people arguing, if you like the 7700 or 7700x , then just keep it, you never planned to move to 9700x anyway, lets be honest about it. just a good reason to whinge
This is a really great review - no bias and fair conclusions thanks