Yeah. Except it applies to both the budget option and to the average one. I'd say AMD is currently pulling a classic Intel (remember Intel before Ryzen).
Honestly this is worse than the 4060 ti after the drivers update the 4060 ti was at least 12% faster and actually had newer tech like DLSS 3 and frame generation which are very impactful and actual much lower power consumption compared to the 3070 and a 16gb option that actually dropped quite a lot in price after no one bought it. It's still terrible it only landed at around 3070 power and AMD is still better value for money but I could see someone for the reasons above actually choosing the 4060 TI. 9700x or 9600x I literally don't see any reasons to buy this for gaming at all. Same fps only a few watts lower power consumption which wouldn't even save the extra money between buying the more expensive 9700x or just getting a 7600x/7700x or non x versions even if you live in Europe or another high energy consumption area. No new tech or benefits of Zen 5 like this is an actual pointless product.
even the 3060ti and 4060 ti had a 10% perf increase, when a product is one percent better than the previous product at a $80 price increase, it should NEVER be sold in general.
Actually, with an unbuggy bios/cpu batch along with the same power limits as last gen. Remember also that the 7600x has a higher power limit than 5600x so the difference is larger. Ryzen 5 7600X = +93% Ryzen 5 9600X = +105%
To quote Steve: "It depends". With PBO enabled, the 9700X and 9600X are roughly 20% faster than the 7700X and 7600X. AMD however made the rather strange choice to power limit these CPU's, essentially making them non-X or ECO mode stock CPU's and they should have marketed these as such and release the not power limited versions as the X variant. So no, this isn't like Skylake at all, it's just AMD being AMD and marketing their products in a flawed way.
Look at IPC gains, and how power limited the 9600X and 9700X are, they perform a bit better than previous gen while using 40% less power. In order to get the true performance, you have to enable PBO, where they perform 20% better than previous gen while using a similar amount of energy. The only mistake made by AMD was limiting the power too much. Also in pricing they get cheaper, the 9700X got released with $40 cheaper price than the 7700X launch price ($359 vs $399) and $30 cheaper price for the 9600X. HUB isnt considering PBO, he is just testing stock.
@@mirceastan94 Why should these have a cheaper launch MSRP? The 7600 msrp was $229 and 7700 msrp was $330 and nobody wanted to buy them, suddenly everyones got 12 months of lag saying "ooh Zen4 good, imma buy that!" Their prices dropped now but is this review going to suddenly change on the youtube servers when they drop to $180 and $260 respectively? Cant wait for everyone to be talking about how good these are in 6 months time when all the braindonors finally wake up.
Sitting Steve: General information, comparisons, neutral analysis. Standing Steve: Menacing, bad news, bad product, critcism. Hopefully some time in the future, when a killer high-quality product is released (highly unlikely): Steve sitting sideways with his feet on the desk.
Feet-up-Steve: "This is it. There is no other game in town. The other brands are screwed. If you do not get this product I'm going to loudly speculate about the genetic contribution to your cognitive ability".
The best thing about this generation is the price drop of the previous one. The 7500F (tray), the cheapest AM5 CPU currently being sold for 150€. I spent 240€ on a 7700 a couple of months ago and now it's sitting at 215€.
@@robertopazsoldan9641 to be fair? no because AMD is literaly doing it for themselves they are claiming 9600X is better than i7-14700K -> while in real that i7 even with its flaws.. STILL gets better scores than 9700X
@@vadnegru Probably. Might have to tweak settings. In some cases you can get full perf on lower power settings. The default power setting have to keep ALL of a sku working stable at listed specs, this includes the worst chip that met the bin requirements. So a 'golden sample' might run like an xt part with non-x power usage if tweaked to that.
То же самое, взял в России за 120 баксов r5 7500f. Ест как r5 9600x, по производительности на 5% хуже r5 9600x без упора в видеокарту. Боялся, что прогадаю с процессором, а попал в самую точку
The retail 9600X on Newegg and Best Buy's listings as of launch day show a box that lists an included cooler now. It is updated photography showing a box with Zen 5 branding on it, not a mistaken/shopped photo from a 7600. I see Steve's photographed box with his 9600X is the slim CPU only one, and all of the early listings including what PcPartPicker still has showing no included cooler. The retail 9700X however does not - which is interesting as it is spec'ed at the same TDP. Was that a last second change they made when they pulled back all of the stock?
Intel isn't thinking there is still hope, intel is thinking hm, maybe we can release another re spinn of the 12th gen since zen 5 has zero increase in performance. Although it's probably too late now and arrow lake is already on their way to resellers probably.
Seriously though, it looks like the bar is really damn low for the Arrow Lake at this point. Especially since they claim the new CPUs should consume at least 100W less power (which of course we'll see how it turns out, but unless it's some AMD-level lie, the gains in power efficiency should be solid)
@@Aquaquake Yeah, AMD really presented Intel with a golden opportunity on a silver platter for Arrow Lake to come in and dominate everything except outright power efficiency. Hopefully they don't screw it up, Intel could use a W.
yup, thatd be the way to redeem this generation. Lowering the tiers, or at least the prices. 9600x-> 9400x, 9700x-> 9600x and so on. And make a higher core count top card or just scrap it. Anyways names dont matter much, mostly about the price
@@LTPottenger Intel almost did it with 12th gen and AMD lowers the Ryzen 5000s prices and made Ryzen 7000s as fast as possible with higher TDP and intel continues the price/performance war with 13th gen But they didn't hit the top tier performance by 14th gen and I think that they couldn't with the new core ultra 200 desktop series too, because the lack of hyper threading AMD knows that, and they won't have major problems at the top tier CPUs, but they would have challenges in the midrange probably
I built an am4 build about a year ago due to budget constraints and was wondering if I was making a bad decision, thankfully I'm not missing out on much with AM5 lol.
Tim, I think you should repost the 9700x review but make sure to have the 7700 included on all of the charts. Also might be helpful including the PBO enabled version as well. Rewatching it, I just realized it is missing most of the time. That would be so much more helpful in understanding the data on a comparative basis
Aside from the fact the lineup is mediocre in terms of performance, AMD are yet again releasing products at too high an MSRP and will likely reduce it in the coming weeks or months. Every time they do this, they cause unfavourable day 1 reviews which will be seen by potential customers for the entire lifecycle of the part.
Yes, that's AMD weird sales strategy. They launch their products at very optimistic MSRP to be very aggressive later on price cuts. Next month these CPUs will probably be 20$ off and in BF they will probably be even more heavily discounted.
Hey Steve, could you run the games AMD showcased during the announcement. Would be interesting to see how "creative" they were with their marketing....
Architecture overhaul, where none of the improvements matter for gaming. Datacenter-focused reviews love Zen 5, and AI ones have their jaws on the floor, but for gamers there's jack diddly.
bad bioses, bad settings depending on mobo, too low of power limits, etc. the reviewers with normal samples, they get a 10-15% gain at similar power to the previous parts. people seem to blind about the fact that these are heavily power limited nor good for gaming (because amd wants to go all out with x3d for gaming)
Is it possible that AMD released the 9600X and 9700X at an artificially low (65 Watt) TDP so that they could release an "XT' variant later on at 105 Watts, which should show a substantial performance uplift? Should these parts have been released as non-X variants at their current TDP and the X versions released at 105 watts with prices adjusted accordingly?
It seems crazy to me that KitGuru are saying “Ryzen 9600X is great!” and HWUB are saying “total flop”. What’s happened to this launch to have such binary reviews from similar trusted reviewers?
Just skipped through the LTT (not a regular viewer) review and it seems like their results were great aswell. I guess time will tell if someone messed up with the testing or something.
You forget GN Steve got a 9600X so bad they couldn't benchmark it, and the 9700X was unstable enough they had to use different memory than they've used for every other AM5 review.
@@Matty-rn5gt Phoronix, Tom's Hardware, Level1Techs, and AnandTech also had much more positive reviews. There must be some kind of issue to cause so much variance.
I currently have a 5600x, and I thought of finally upgrading to AM5. It looks like it's much better for me to stay in AM4 with the 5800X3D instead of selling a kidney for a platform upgrade. Here in the Philippines by the way, where everything costs so much.
One has to wonder a little how much of the 7% efficiency at iso power comes down to the node shrink and what a 4nm (N4P) Zen 4 would have achieved, considering TSMC claims N4P is a 22% improvement in efficiency at iso power over N5.
7-Zip is so bizarre... Zen started was an monster in this task, but the lead from Intel was decreasing each generation. Now not only it stopped improving in this task, it actually regressed. Hard to understand.
we are still early in the game. we can expect software improvements to increase performance a couple percent (doesn't change them being underwhelming though)
@@ThunderingRoar Honestly a lot of it just comes down to some tasks simply require brute force power and clocks to perform. When you choke off its ability to do that it's going to be slower.
Honestly so tired of these corporations. This isnt the first time. I was so excited for the 5000 Radeon graphic gpus only to realise over time it was buggy and hot mess. They had a golden opportunity to dunk on Nvidia but naaah got chase the mullah instead
pretty much spot on, even with the technical details, lower power comsumption but same performance as last gen, potentially bad pricing(?), sounds exactly like the 4000 series gpus
@@ChengsHardwareIntel with useless architecture, Nvidia for completely unjustified price increases. They've done a 2 in 1. Pathetic that all 3 of the companies do this sh.
@@iamrobot396Interesting analogy, since that mess was sorted out in a few months. I wonder if this will be the same? Forget Radeon FineWine™ technology, we're getting Ryzen FineWine™ now!
... why? A 7950X would have been much better for multi-core use cases, and a 7800X3D would have been much better for gaming. Otherwise, why not just continue to use your perfectly good 12600K?
@@radiglaz Somewhat, but a big jump in performance too. Else why not just use his existing 12600K, which is zero cost and while not quite as good as the 12900KS in multicore tasks, it's still no slouch.
Finally some reviewer acknowledged the "Zen 5 efficiency" debacle, congrats, who the hell cares about 7700X when 7700 was just as good 4 months later, had better efficiency and came with a Wraith Prism? In fact, it was still better value at 329$ then 9700X Is today at 359$, let alone that it today costs 279$, which is crazy!
While TDP is not exact power draw, but 7600X/7700X is 105w and 9600X/9700X again is 65w like 5000 was (for 5800X3D 105w, 7800X3D is 120w ) And for games and some apps X3D is bis, so AMD screwed themself 😅
Edit: got to the point where you mentioned PBO didn't change much for you - which means that somehow different outlets achieved just completely different results than yours. Waiting to see for someone to figure out what's going on here, otherwise what you found is what you found and the conclusion you drew from your results would be valid. Hope fuckery is afoot and not a misrepresentation of other outlets that showed more favorable data. I disagree with the notion of a like-for-like comparison with their previous gen namesakes. I understand what the reasoning in favor of doing so is, but I think the reasoning against it outweighs that. To use an exaggeration to make my point - you could just as well have compared a 28w mobile version of a 9600x or 9700x to the 105w 7600x and 7700x, and conclude that the zen 5 chips are a regression. At 65w, the 9700x and 9600x should be compared to the 7700 and 7600, or the 7700x and 7600x in eco mode. Then, compare them to the 7700x and 7600x with PBO enabled on both sets of cpu's. The comparisons you draw are only a like for like comparison if considering the names of the products, something this channel has itself pointed out the flaws of. What I'd expect to see, is testing of both cpu's on both stock and PBO modes, and drawing a conclusion considering both sets of results, drawing the appropriate comparisons. It's a poor choice of hill to die on showcasing low power performance as the maximum performance you're going to get when PBO exists and has led multiple outlets to draw much more favorable and, imo, representative conclusions.
Just turning on PBO isn't enough. You need to do as der8auer did and set it to use as much power as it wants, for as long as it wants. Not difficult. You'll need a decent cooler, though, he showed around 170W on the 8-core.
@@panjak323 the problem that they said that the 9700x only consums 11% less power at stock compered to the 7700x which is not ture because the other rewievs like gamersnexus,der8bauer etc. had 40% less energy consuption.
I think there will be fix for this, like magical bios update or clever ram timings. Let us be of good cheer 😆 I notice AMD like to experimenting, when they have oportunity to do it, which sometimes is not well received by the recipients.
@@Six_Gorillion These "guys" test the chips as they are sent to them and as 99% of the consumers will use them which is the proper way to test a product.
@@rooster1012 They're doing only the easy half of the work. Everyone here is an enthusiast and we want to know what these chips are actually capable of in our hands.
@@Hardwareunboxed Sorry i was not necessarily talking only about gaming . For exemple toms hard got 12% uplift for the 9700x and 9600x (geomean) . But i agree with the conclusion the pricing is bad. I think those chip will get better with some bios updates .
@@HardwareunboxedPhoronix has the 9700X matching or beating the 7900 in a lot of tests on Linux. The fact your results are so low might point to an issue with Windows and not necessarily the chip itself.
@@TheFeelTrain AFAIK his tests used a lot of AVX512 heavy stuff which architecturally is a massive advantage for Zen 5. Most tests that don’t utilize that the 7900 smokes the 9700x
Another question is. Have we gotten to the point that some instructions just cannot be accelerated any more, so only clock speed and cache have an influence. The fact that a simple PBO and setting limits to max (as Debauer did), gives you a massive boost.
I am curious why he went against AMD's testing guidelines though. They specifically state the 9600 and 9700x should be paired with 6000mhz RAM to maintain the 1:1 ratio. Anything higher breaks that ratio to 1:2, making worse performance across gaming by what percentage I don't know. They set the range for 6000mhz because they didn't want low-end parts to need high-end RAM speeds to get the best price for performance. I would like to see testing inside the testing guidelines they provided and wonder if this won't be an issue in the higher-end parts.
The 9000 series represent a 20% uplift from last gen while having cheaper launch prices, the problem was that AMD limited the power too much, but its still impressive that they are able to beat the older gen in a lot of situation while using 40% less power on full load. To access the true performance, enable PBO, now you will see that CPUs performing as they should on the same energy usage.
Ancient Gameplays found some decent extra performance by tweaking his 9700X - almost 20% in some games. I think "disaster" is a bit strong, give it time to drop in price like Zen 4 did and for new BIOS/chipset drivers to mature and I think it'll be ok. You are right that at the current price it's hard to recommend though. Remember how it was impossible to recommend Zen 4 at launch price + platform costs yet now it's seen as a no brainer.
What memory configuration are you using here? Wendel over at Lvl 1 Tech has a video detailing how memory profiles affect the Zen 5 CPUs, and the difference can be... significant. He had the 9700X beating the 7950X in many benchmarks, which is very different than what we're seeing here. Most other reviews also demonstrate a much better result with PBO enabled, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Perhaps that comes down to memory timing shenanigans, too. I want the products to be fairly represented, so look into the memory bit! It seems to make quite a difference!
So why do WccTech, Forbes, LTT, Hot Hardware, Kitguru, and many others get great results with performance at the top of the charts and 15% higher than the 7700x just like AMD said?
Because Steve is wrong. There is 15% IPC gain, no question about that. AMD just wanted to secure themselves and put a power limit this time. Temps go only 60c under the heaviest load for 9700x. Can you imagine? It consumes only 90w or something. If you want to unleash the true power of this CPU you can simply enable PBO. Watch DERBAUER's video, where he does that. It's an awesome CPU and will save you lot's of money by not wasting energy.
They pulled a 6800 vs 7800 XT or a 3050 vs 4060. It should be illegal to use naming conventions to essentially “trick” uninformed consumers into buying clearly inferior products that do not compare generationally.
@@QueenMar1ka Nope. As long as Zen remains a chiplet based architecture there will never be a case where a dual CCD chip with 3D cache will be the better gaming CPU than a single CCD chip with 3d cache. As soon as the CCD's communicate with the 3D cache across the IF the latency benefits of the 3D cache is almost entirely negated. Even if you added 3D cache to both CCD's, that problem would still exist. Zen6 will be the first time a 16 core X3D CPU performs better in games than an 8 core X3D CPU, and only because Zen6 will have 16 core CCDs, or at least that's the plan.
@@Violet-uiIt's just the smoothness overall will benefit. Knowing that a system will be smoother with Zen 5 is more reassuring than saying otherwise. Not necessarily more FPS= car go brrr! 😅
No they're more like Zen 1. There are a lot of fundamental architecture changes, but the new architecture is not mature enough yet to yield good performance. They should have priced it competitively like Zen 1 for it to make sense.
It sounds like there were a lot of underlying changes that just didn't manifest in practical real world performance. I think it was appropriate to call it Zen 5 for that reason But they really should have had a muted launch. Just not have tried to hype up enthusiasts.
Disappointing. I have an i5-12600KF and the fact that this CPU can keep up with these newer chips does make me happy in a way, however the stagnation of the market is quite appalling while looking at the situation long term.
@@samuelyeung03that's what I don't understand about these chips. How can they suck so much if the architecture is considerably better? Can it just be the drivers aren't good enough yet and with time prices will go down and performance will improve thanks to better drivers like what is happening with Radeon graphics card?
@@lucazani2730 architecture isn't better on most fronts, especially gaming. seems more like they took zen 6's halfway design and just put it out because it would otherwise take too long. these chips with bios updates are likely 10%~ faster at stock so they don't suck, they just improve little in most tasks while costing too much right now.
@@lucazani2730 Few contributing factors here 1. n4c sounds like it's a new 4nm process, but it's a improved 5nm process. Therefore, Zen5's process is similar to n5 that Zen4 is using. 2. 9700x on default is taking way less power than 7700x, which can be solved with pbo or oc. 3. It's not a gaming cpu, x3d is way too good in terms of gaming performance 4. It's not a trash, just people on UA-cam love to see a review that calling a product a trash. It's offering more performance and a higher efficiency, with lower msrp compare to last gen. With the decreasing cost of the am5 perform, it's a great upgrade for user from zen3(excluding serious gamers)
You still can the 7700 and the 7800X3D are still right there. Honestly though, a 5700X3D and waiting for another generation starts looking real good if you're on AM4.
So this should be easy for Intel. Since they're now using TSMCs process. So they're gonna be faster and more efficient? Unless they mess up something else.
Zen 5 stuggling to beat 3 years old Alder Lake parts is a joke. Also Alder Lake seems to have aged like fine wine with the i5 12600K now matching the Ryzen 7 5800X3D when given good DDR5 RAM. At the time the 5800X3D was even beating the i9 12900K when they were tested with DDR4 3200.
well ur comparing ddr4 chips vs ddr5 chip, obviously the newer games will benefit from higher memory bandwidth Also ddr5 was insanely expensive during 12th gen lifetime, i doubt many i5 users are using 7200 kits like in this video
@@ThunderingRoar you could have bought a the cheapest DDR5 at the time and upgraded later, the 5800X3D was $150 more expensive than the 12600K which gets you a good RAM kit these days.
@lharsay Yeah i guess you could do that in theory, but it would be a waste of money. And consider that you ll need a hefty motherboard to run ddr5 7200 stable (can z690 even do that or you need z790, idk im not sure), not something you would pair with an i5
Yeah, 12900K has proven to be a good CPU, though a little power hungry. Mine is overclocked with minimal voltage increase, got somewhat good silicon. 30K on R23 without sweatting one bit. so not in a hurry to even look at new CPU's. Got it at launch. Maybe in a few years.
Can you include the ryzen 5 7600 performance data? Since it's also a 65w TDP CPU, the improvements will be a bit clear. I'm wanting to upgrade from a 5700x but i think I'll wait for the 9800x3d since I'll just be using the PC for gaming
So the new cpus lunched at a lower price then zen 4 and if you increase the watts they are allowed to have they are much better but take way more power
I'm pretty sure the artist is "LAKEY INSPIRED", I'm 90% sure he's the artist since he has a lot of songs with a similar vibe, a song called "Blue Boi" by him sounds pretty similar as well
I expected this, to be honest. The start of the new AM5 platform went also not very smooth. And you are right the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a better deal right now. Seems the memory issues still remains too?
Hi Steve 👋 I have watched several reviews and felt disappointed, but wondered if perhaps AMD's strategy for the 9000X series was not aimed at gamers or general consumers and we'd just have to wait for the X3D launch, this was after watching Wendel's L1T review. I just watched Coreteks review and that shows that this series is aimed at software developers & Datacenters etc., which AMD considers their primary clients. He shows the performance gains in workloads in this scenario are huge. And this is why AMD chose Power Efficiency (+22%) over Performance (+11%) on the TSMC N4P node, as you can't have both. Sad, but from a Commercial perspective, as Coreteks said, it makes perfect sense, for AMD. 🙄🤷♀ ua-cam.com/video/A11d0uBhP_o/v-deo.html
Makes you wonder if there actually is some kind of Software bug or problem in BIOS? Because why would I want to buy the "next Gen" Zen 5 for more money than Zen 4 if there aren't any tangible benefits at stock settings? I almost get the impression that Zen 5 architecture want designed to be mobile/laptops first and then slapped into the Desktop CCUs😮
People didn't wanna buy Zen4 because the platform cost was so much higher than Zen3. Suddenly everyones like "oohhh zen4 is good Imma buy that!" Everyones got 12 months of lag and the idea that prices decrease over time.. completely escapes them.
@@stennan It seems like it could be software. Phoronix has the 9700X matching or even beating the 7900 in a lot of tests on Linux. That suggests the hardware itself is fine and something has gone wrong in Windows.
Just limited the TDP and selected the better performing 7600s and 7700s as there is always those few +/-% in production difference. They are trying to exploit the current condition cold. I am glad most reviewers are not having it. Sure they lower the hat foe the 1-5% and the power efficency, but that's all there is to it.
Living in a warm climate without air conditioning, I consider the Ryzen 9000 series an excellent option for the future. Their low TDP will allow me to save on power supplies by opting for cheaper models with higher certifications. Additionally, if these processors can maintain temperatures below 80 degrees when under maximum load, it’s an undeniable win for me. And if I need more performance, a simple overclock should do the trick. As for prices, the Ryzen 7 is around 6,869.39 Mexican pesos ($363.76 plus $10 shipping), and the Ryzen 5 is 5,338.61 Mexican pesos ($282.70 plus $10 shipping), which seems quite reasonable to me. I plan to buy a new PC next year and equip it with a 5080 GPU, with the idea of not having to worry about upgrading for about 6 to 8 years. For now, I have a Ryzen 7 from the 5000G series, which performs well overall, though it falls short when I try to game and stream simultaneously. I considered upgrading to the 7000 or 8000 series, but the high temperatures of those processors made me reconsider.
As someone who got the 7600x as a placeholder until that 9800x3d is actually available - for 190$US on cybermonday - that Cost Per Frame slide ( 9:40 ) makes me VERY happy lol. Wow. Performance is great, still running just about as good if not a little better than my 5800x3d on the AM4 I upgraded from - but I still feel like it could be doing better. For less than 200, these days, to out perform the 5800x3d, I'm very happy. ONLY thing that bothers me about it is the chip doesnt seem to "push itself" ... I have tried overclocking, undervolting, making sure the power plan is on ultimate, turning off core parking, anything I can think of, and it still running at a cool 62c when not hitting my 120fps frame cap (in cyberpunk), and not boosted all the way. (it hits max SOMETIMES, but backs off fast, and usually runs about 500mhz below full boost) They game is usually at 120fps for me, but when it does dip below, in high complexity areas and fights, it just doenst seem to work any harder to get back up to 120fps. Very confusing. Its like bro, why are you chillin? you're not even CLOSE to hot, I know its not thermal throttling because I am constantly watching temps even hotspot, and we aren't approaching 80c let alone 95. Chipset drivers are all up to date. Bios is up to date. It just seems shy about boosting and staying boosted for some damn reason. (gpu is not bottlenecking either, runs at around 60% usage and 60c as well. I do not like to push my hardware to the absolutely max, all the time, to extend its life.) But even for me, 62c seems lazy. The 5800x3d would push itself up to 80c when doing hard work, or when the game was pushing down frames, just not seeing the same behavior on this chip. You are literally the best channel on youtube. This channel is a freaking GOLDMINE of information. Thank you so much for all of your work.
@@blitzwing1 I honestly don't think it's all that complicated. All AMD had to do was 1. stress performance per watt (not overall performance) , 2. send a PBO profile/instructions to reviewers to prove 1., 3. Probably just increase the default TDP a bit on these specific parts.
@@cynanomite the problem with specific PBO values is can it be reproduced on all samples. If AMD can guarantee the end user will achieve the same results then I'm all for it.
So we all know that the limited power at 65 Watts are what limits the performance of the 9700X. If you override that as Debaur did, you get close to a 14900K performance from this 8 core part. I'm excited to see what the 9950X performance is without the power limitation.
Something is wrong here, maybe there's something wrong with AMD's microcode as these numbers aren't adding up. The BG3 has the 7600X at 365w vs 9600x @ 391w, there just no way this should be possible considering the energy usage of these processors and the 9600x being on a smaller process node. A comparison that makes sense is the 5800X3D @ 407w with a TDP of 105 W vs the 7800X3D @ 424w with a TDP of 120, the performance per watt uplift makes sense with the increase in TDP and process node shrink, the same with the 5950X vs the 7950X. The only processors on this list that doesn't make sense are the 9000 series CPU as they "should" demonstrate a lower wattage in comparison to their previous generation.
@@holley850-ij8dn what I'm saying should be obvious, it is clearly demonstrated that each benchmark has a clear difference in what its usage. The 9600X should be using less wattage than the 7600X considering it's a lower TDP and it's on a smaller process node. The fact that is using more wattage than a 7600X doesn't make any sense considering all the factors.
While these first 2 cpus aren't blowing me away I disagree that they are trash. How are they trash? They outperform last Gen by a little bit, they are cheaper than last Gen, and they are wildly more efficient than last Gen. How the hell are people saying they are trash?
See, they *aren't* cheaper than last gen. Last gen MSRP doesn't matter, bc that's not what they're selling for now... that, and much of the time they under-perform compared to Zen 4. To really get use out of it, you need to overclock, where you'll see about a 20% jump in performance in non-gaming tasks.. but, if that's important, likely best to get a 16-core (9950X) instead of the 8-core.. so, there really isn't a use case for the 9700X and 9600X, not when for gaming, the Zen 4 parts are much cheaper for the same performance, and the 7800X3D still blows those Zen 5 parts away for gaming. THAT is why people are saying that they're trash.
@greggmacdonald9644 thier has never been a newer cheaper faster more power efficent cpu vs thier old gen on the shelf. It's clear your new to tech but this is a warning g shot to intell that's about to lose the server market. In server loads 9700x beats 14900k by up to 80% at 1/4 the power. Amd could never sell another desktop chip and still shutter intell. 3xd should be the only ones bought for gaming it's not even close and I hope they price them right...I would say 700$ for a 9800x3d at a minimum what's the other option buy a 350w i9 15900ks that's 700% and 10% slower?
@@mddunlap03 I think you might want to rewatch this video, I think you missed some important details. The 9700X is much worse than the 14900K in performance, even though the 14900K uses way more power. While Zen 5 (the 6 and 8 core parts which are the only ones we have independent testing for as I write this) is more efficient, it also costs a lot more than the Zen 4 equivalent for equivalent or slightly worse performance UNLESS you feed it as much power as it wants, to get another 20% in performance but it's very inefficient then, the 9700X needing about 170W (see der8auer vid). I agree that 7800X3D is the CPU to go for for gaming on Zen 4, but Zen 5 X3D isn't out yet, and while performance may be good, we don't know that yet, and AMD marketing materials cannot be trusted. As to future gen Intel, again, we don't have parts to test, and until they are out, we can't say for sure what is better or how good the price-performance is. Lastly, let's not make assumptions about experience, hmm? What matters are the words said, the logic used, not how long someone has been doing this as a hobby or who they are etc.
It didn't even need more cores (long overdue though). Just having lower prices and higher TDP's would have made Zen 5 pretty good. These stupidly low TDP's are AMD massively overcompensating for all the thermal complaints with Zen 4.
unless this is a first day issue, if this is the real Ryzen 9000 performace, ill rather go for a Ryzen 7 7700 than the 9600X, i knew difference wasnt going to be much, but i was expecting at least around 10-15%.
The benefit is future proofing ... with the next gen x770e or x870e boards. They support 10gb ethernet, PCI express 5, and the new flat ram DDR module (I forgot what is called but you can google it as it is a credit card which is flat replacing dimms). The new memory format which doesnt' rely on soldier joints can clock over 8600 mts! Sure it is buggy now but you can argue the 9000 is more future proof if you upgrade your board later on.
@@timgibney5590 maybe, i guess it depends of the needs of everyone, some people could be fine with a x670/b650 and decent 6000mhz ddr5 or others want the best of the best, but still, prices atm doesnt make them appealing, we will see when they go down a bit.
Yeah I was about to comment the same thing. This is not the first time they've gotten weird results. Makes me think that they get their config wrong from time to time
The "trick" I think is to also let it go with as much power as it wants and for as long as it wants, der8auer showed that.. at least for non-gaming use cases, though in that case, probably the 9950X is the go-to there. We find out next week, I suppose.
You're testing both 7000X and 9000X in their default modes which means zen 5 is power limited by default. If you enable PBO (let's do that on both zen 5 and zen 4) then multicore benchmark results become much better for the new gen according to other reviews. Gaming perf is the same though
Been seeing so much inconsistency with this release. I wouldn’t be surprised if AMD puts out some fixes to reclaim a lot of ground missed in the benchmarks later on
What’s your thoughts on people saying the 9700x is great if you just manually boost PBO to achieve a ~160w TDP? Honestly I forgot exactly what the power draw was, hence my edit
Steve, you need to see SkatterBencher's 9700X video that comprehensively tests 9700X Undervolting + PBO2 + CURVE SHAPER. AMD left a ton of performance on the table, overclockers haven't had so much headroom to work with in a long time, this is like going back to the old days of overclocking. These CPUs are being fundamentally misunderstood by customers and at the same time mis-marketed by AMD. They're selling a 105W part as 65W and leaving all the extra performance there for you to OC. "Cool, efficient, low power, low cooling requirements by DEFAULT -- then you, the customer, OC the rest that you need" is a new concept for many people that may take some getting used to.
@@henryvaneyk3769 why should they cater to іmbесіles? It's not 2009 anymore, fellas, overclocking now demands finding the first random vid amongst hundreds on YT & pushing around 4-6 buttons in BIOS following the instructions - that's it, you're good to go.
Some reviewers such as der8auer, adjusted PBO and saw up to a 25 percent increase in performance. Why wasn't this done with your reviews of the 9600 and 9700? Perhaps you should adjust PBO like they did and share your thoughts?
AMD never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
A saying doesn't get better if you repeat it over and over again...
@@TheTaurus104 imagine riding a giant corpo that could care less about you
😂😂😂
@@TheTaurus104 Doesn't have to. It's still true.
@@TheTaurus104It doesn't get any less true if it doesn't get any more false.
Oh man, he's standing up again! Please don't do this to us Steve.
This Cpu is so bad that he was near to even climb on the table... 🤣
Before you know it, he's going to say Advanced Micron Devices instead of AMD
Steve standing became a major sign of shit products 😂
😂 love this meme you guys have going here
This is the third video he's standing! Won't someone give him a chair!
AMD: he's just standing there menacingly D:
weewoo..wewoo…WEEWOOWEEWOOWEEWOO
Intel: “Thanks Steve” 😂
🔥
good one!
there is a new tax on using chairs. Standing is way more cheap
This is the 4060 Ti vs 3060 Ti situation all over again
radeon is no better with their rx 7600
Yeah. Except it applies to both the budget option and to the average one.
I'd say AMD is currently pulling a classic Intel (remember Intel before Ryzen).
RX 7700XT vs RX 6750XT
Honestly this is worse than the 4060 ti after the drivers update the 4060 ti was at least 12% faster and actually had newer tech like DLSS 3 and frame generation which are very impactful and actual much lower power consumption compared to the 3070 and a 16gb option that actually dropped quite a lot in price after no one bought it. It's still terrible it only landed at around 3070 power and AMD is still better value for money but I could see someone for the reasons above actually choosing the 4060 TI.
9700x or 9600x I literally don't see any reasons to buy this for gaming at all. Same fps only a few watts lower power consumption which wouldn't even save the extra money between buying the more expensive 9700x or just getting a 7600x/7700x or non x versions even if you live in Europe or another high energy consumption area. No new tech or benefits of Zen 5 like this is an actual pointless product.
even the 3060ti and 4060 ti had a 10% perf increase, when a product is one percent better than the previous product at a $80 price increase, it should NEVER be sold in general.
Ryzen 5 1600X = 100%
Ryzen 5 2600X = 110%
Ryzen 5 3600X = 131%
Ryzen 5 5600X = 157%
Ryzen 5 7600X = 193%
Ryzen 5 9600X = 194%
AMD's Skylake moment.
Actually, with an unbuggy bios/cpu batch along with the same power limits as last gen. Remember also that the 7600x has a higher power limit than 5600x so the difference is larger.
Ryzen 5 7600X = +93%
Ryzen 5 9600X = +105%
You mean:
Ryzen 5 1600X = 100%
Ryzen 5 2600X = 110%
Ryzen 5 3600X = 131%
Ryzen 5 5600X = 157%
Ryzen 5 7600X = 193%
Ryzen 5 9600X = 194%
or
Ryzen 5 1600X = 0%
Ryzen 5 2600X = +10%
Ryzen 5 3600X = +19%
Ryzen 5 5600X = +20%
Ryzen 5 7600X = +23%
Ryzen 5 9600X = +0.5%
Correction: Skylake refresh moment
@@magnusnilsson9792 Thanks, edited!
To quote Steve: "It depends".
With PBO enabled, the 9700X and 9600X are roughly 20% faster than the 7700X and 7600X.
AMD however made the rather strange choice to power limit these CPU's, essentially making them non-X or ECO mode stock CPU's and they should have marketed these as such and release the not power limited versions as the X variant.
So no, this isn't like Skylake at all, it's just AMD being AMD and marketing their products in a flawed way.
AMD just released their new architecture, ZEN 5%.
Zen4+.
Zen ±5%
More like 0%, this is unbelievable after 2 years.
😂😂 good one
Look at IPC gains, and how power limited the 9600X and 9700X are, they perform a bit better than previous gen while using 40% less power. In order to get the true performance, you have to enable PBO, where they perform 20% better than previous gen while using a similar amount of energy. The only mistake made by AMD was limiting the power too much. Also in pricing they get cheaper, the 9700X got released with $40 cheaper price than the 7700X launch price ($359 vs $399) and $30 cheaper price for the 9600X. HUB isnt considering PBO, he is just testing stock.
Now Steve is gonna be angry till Zen 6! What have you done AMD...
He isn't going to sit down for another 2 years
Especially the other Steve.
I think everyone named Steve will stand up for 2 years
His leeegs, NOOOO ... The humanity.
@@TheUnkow I think Steve will build another studio, shed or some big complex out of frustration 😀
They should have named these the 9600 and 9700 and used the X for a higher TDP.
And price them at 199$/299$, otherwise, they would have been just as useless.
Hey, they have room for XT and XTX! They can brand 45W parts as plain 9600 and 9700.
they did that back in Zen and Zen+, stopped it for Zen 2
@@mirceastan94 Why should these have a cheaper launch MSRP?
The 7600 msrp was $229 and 7700 msrp was $330 and nobody wanted to buy them, suddenly everyones got 12 months of lag saying "ooh Zen4 good, imma buy that!"
Their prices dropped now but is this review going to suddenly change on the youtube servers when they drop to $180 and $260 respectively?
Cant wait for everyone to be talking about how good these are in 6 months time when all the braindonors finally wake up.
should named these as 9500 & 9600 instead
Sitting Steve: General information, comparisons, neutral analysis.
Standing Steve: Menacing, bad news, bad product, critcism.
Hopefully some time in the future, when a killer high-quality product is released (highly unlikely): Steve sitting sideways with his feet on the desk.
For now we can only dream ... of a great tech coming to a store near us.
Feet-up-Steve: "This is it. There is no other game in town. The other brands are screwed. If you do not get this product I'm going to loudly speculate about the genetic contribution to your cognitive ability".
Me: * opens channel page *
Steve: * Lying in bed *
Me: OMFG this is going to be 1080 Ti 5800X3D GOAT material
Standing on the table Steve: world explodes.
XD
You may be forgetting that unlike last gen, this one is over 9000.
i laughed daniel
Ryzen 9000 series - it is the best advertisement AMD could ever made for Ryzen 7000 series.
So glad that I bought a Ryzen 7 7700 a couple of months ago rather than waiting for this new generation.
No the best ad for ryzen 7000 is still intel
The best thing about this generation is the price drop of the previous one. The 7500F (tray), the cheapest AM5 CPU currently being sold for 150€. I spent 240€ on a 7700 a couple of months ago and now it's sitting at 215€.
Yep. I was thinking: "oh AMD is competing with itself.. AND LOSING!"
@@robertopazsoldan9641 to be fair? no
because AMD is literaly doing it for themselves
they are claiming 9600X is better than i7-14700K -> while in real that i7 even with its flaws.. STILL gets better scores than 9700X
Also noticed how people love to ignore non-x chips of 7xxx series to praise efficiency of 9xxx series. Those should be called 9700 and 9600
The efficiency gains are almost unrelevant when you compare them to non-X variants.
That would be better naming.
For some reason here x models are more common and sometimes have nearly the same price. Could you eco them to match non x?
😖
@@vadnegru Probably. Might have to tweak settings. In some cases you can get full perf on lower power settings. The default power setting have to keep ALL of a sku working stable at listed specs, this includes the worst chip that met the bin requirements. So a 'golden sample' might run like an xt part with non-x power usage if tweaked to that.
I bought 7500f last month on discount. Turns out I was buying new generation.
То же самое, взял в России за 120 баксов r5 7500f. Ест как r5 9600x, по производительности на 5% хуже r5 9600x без упора в видеокарту. Боялся, что прогадаю с процессором, а попал в самую точку
same here 7500f value king
smart man
Bought 7500f 5months ago expecting buyers remorse at this point...
Go Home invader @@dizaftora5625
The retail 9600X on Newegg and Best Buy's listings as of launch day show a box that lists an included cooler now. It is updated photography showing a box with Zen 5 branding on it, not a mistaken/shopped photo from a 7600. I see Steve's photographed box with his 9600X is the slim CPU only one, and all of the early listings including what PcPartPicker still has showing no included cooler.
The retail 9700X however does not - which is interesting as it is spec'ed at the same TDP.
Was that a last second change they made when they pulled back all of the stock?
3:26 Where is the 7700 non-x in this or any of the other graphs?!
Intel: "There's still hope!"
@@krimzon7622 hey, arrow lake could be amazing. Certainly a new approach. Not even using Hyperthreading
Intel isn't thinking there is still hope, intel is thinking hm, maybe we can release another re spinn of the 12th gen since zen 5 has zero increase in performance.
Although it's probably too late now and arrow lake is already on their way to resellers probably.
Seriously though, it looks like the bar is really damn low for the Arrow Lake at this point. Especially since they claim the new CPUs should consume at least 100W less power (which of course we'll see how it turns out, but unless it's some AMD-level lie, the gains in power efficiency should be solid)
@@Aquaquake Yeah, AMD really presented Intel with a golden opportunity on a silver platter for Arrow Lake to come in and dominate everything except outright power efficiency. Hopefully they don't screw it up, Intel could use a W.
There isn't they aren't launching till later this or early next year
"the suck is strong with this one"
An applicable quote in so many scenerios
😏
Succ😋
They should be named 9700 and 9600 non-X with 300$ and 200$ MSRP at most
yup, thatd be the way to redeem this generation. Lowering the tiers, or at least the prices.
9600x-> 9400x, 9700x-> 9600x and so on.
And make a higher core count top card or just scrap it. Anyways names dont matter much, mostly about the price
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j yeah they don't lower the tiers because of the price!
That would have been amazing.
$180 for 6 cores and $250 for 8.
@@LTPottenger Intel almost did it with 12th gen and AMD lowers the Ryzen 5000s prices and made Ryzen 7000s as fast as possible with higher TDP and intel continues the price/performance war with 13th gen
But they didn't hit the top tier performance by 14th gen and I think that they couldn't with the new core ultra 200 desktop series too, because the lack of hyper threading
AMD knows that, and they won't have major problems at the top tier CPUs, but they would have challenges in the midrange probably
I'm on AM4 still with a 5800X3D, I see no reason to upgrade.
Correct, that would be pretty stupid.
I built an am4 build about a year ago due to budget constraints and was wondering if I was making a bad decision, thankfully I'm not missing out on much with AM5 lol.
@@Flyon86 the most you're missing out on is zen 4, which just had a poor value at launch + new socket=higher MB price
I'm using 5900x since release .still no reason to upgrade in 2-3 years.
Tim, I think you should repost the 9700x review but make sure to have the 7700 included on all of the charts. Also might be helpful including the PBO enabled version as well. Rewatching it, I just realized it is missing most of the time. That would be so much more helpful in understanding the data on a comparative basis
Aside from the fact the lineup is mediocre in terms of performance, AMD are yet again releasing products at too high an MSRP and will likely reduce it in the coming weeks or months. Every time they do this, they cause unfavourable day 1 reviews which will be seen by potential customers for the entire lifecycle of the part.
Yes, that's AMD weird sales strategy. They launch their products at very optimistic MSRP to be very aggressive later on price cuts. Next month these CPUs will probably be 20$ off and in BF they will probably be even more heavily discounted.
To be honest, many people don't watch the reviews and if they see the discount that might be what pushes over
Yep. It's dumb. They know they'll be competing against 7700's and 7800X3d's for ages to come yet.
Vs intell known bad chips at full price 😂
@@Kumoiwa And it's still going to be overpriced.
Hey Steve, could you run the games AMD showcased during the announcement. Would be interesting to see how "creative" they were with their marketing....
Who cares, they all lie, no one should trust them.
Different results on every channel. Whats going on?
Software have no clue how to work with them and strangely low TDP for X variant.
I've noticed this. There's something wrong going on for sure.
Different motherboards used I guess
Architecture overhaul, where none of the improvements matter for gaming. Datacenter-focused reviews love Zen 5, and AI ones have their jaws on the floor, but for gamers there's jack diddly.
bad bioses, bad settings depending on mobo, too low of power limits, etc. the reviewers with normal samples, they get a 10-15% gain at similar power to the previous parts. people seem to blind about the fact that these are heavily power limited nor good for gaming (because amd wants to go all out with x3d for gaming)
How in the world did Intel and AMD screw up? I don't remember ever seeing both at the same time.
Is it possible that AMD released the 9600X and 9700X at an artificially low (65 Watt) TDP so that they could release an "XT' variant later on at 105 Watts, which should show a substantial performance uplift? Should these parts have been released as non-X variants at their current TDP and the X versions released at 105 watts with prices adjusted accordingly?
It seems crazy to me that KitGuru are saying “Ryzen 9600X is great!” and HWUB are saying “total flop”. What’s happened to this launch to have such binary reviews from similar trusted reviewers?
Just skipped through the LTT (not a regular viewer) review and it seems like their results were great aswell. I guess time will tell if someone messed up with the testing or something.
You forget GN Steve got a 9600X so bad they couldn't benchmark it, and the 9700X was unstable enough they had to use different memory than they've used for every other AM5 review.
LTT ones were surprisingly detailed. They found out that something isn't right and PBO helped them to gain another 15% promised by using nearly 150w
@@Matty-rn5gt Phoronix, Tom's Hardware, Level1Techs, and AnandTech also had much more positive reviews. There must be some kind of issue to cause so much variance.
💀
Steve standing is like your dad calling you by your full name. You're definitely in trouble. 😅
I currently have a 5600x, and I thought of finally upgrading to AM5. It looks like it's much better for me to stay in AM4 with the 5800X3D instead of selling a kidney for a platform upgrade. Here in the Philippines by the way, where everything costs so much.
the 5700x3d from aliexpress is incredible good value for an am4 upgrade path...
Boi i bought a 5700x3d for 170€ in total. That thing SMOKES everything i throw at it. Perfect for my 4k160hz monitor
Yeah new hardware here in PH is crazy expensive
Don't bother with 5800x3d, get 5700x3d
"Stay in Zen4 with the 5800X3D"? 5000 series is Zen 3.
One has to wonder a little how much of the 7% efficiency at iso power comes down to the node shrink and what a 4nm (N4P) Zen 4 would have achieved, considering TSMC claims N4P is a 22% improvement in efficiency at iso power over N5.
So this is basically a Ryzen 5 9600 that costs 90$ more than it should have due to a decorative "X" on the box and IHS
Hey AMD, give me my sand back, you're not using it responsibly.
ahhaha nice one
7-Zip is so bizarre... Zen started was an monster in this task, but the lead from Intel was decreasing each generation. Now not only it stopped improving in this task, it actually regressed. Hard to understand.
it could be as simple as 7zip needing an update to leverage the new zen5 uarch redesign
we are still early in the game. we can expect software improvements to increase performance a couple percent (doesn't change them being underwhelming though)
@@ThunderingRoar when was the last time 7 zip had a meaningful update?
@@ThunderingRoar Honestly a lot of it just comes down to some tasks simply require brute force power and clocks to perform. When you choke off its ability to do that it's going to be slower.
Gamers Nexus mentioned these new parts being tuned too aggressively for lower power consumption which causes performance loss in certain tasks.
AMD just pulled an Nvidia with this CPU generation
Honestly so tired of these corporations. This isnt the first time. I was so excited for the 5000 Radeon graphic gpus only to realise over time it was buggy and hot mess. They had a golden opportunity to dunk on Nvidia but naaah got chase the mullah instead
pretty much spot on, even with the technical details, lower power comsumption but same performance as last gen, potentially bad pricing(?), sounds exactly like the 4000 series gpus
More like an Intel from sandyb to skylake
@@ChengsHardwareIntel with useless architecture, Nvidia for completely unjustified price increases. They've done a 2 in 1.
Pathetic that all 3 of the companies do this sh.
@@iamrobot396Interesting analogy, since that mess was sorted out in a few months. I wonder if this will be the same? Forget Radeon FineWine™ technology, we're getting Ryzen FineWine™ now!
Dec 2021 - bought a i5-12600K for $229 at Micro-Center.
July 2024 - bought a i9-12900KS for $250 at Amazon.
... why? A 7950X would have been much better for multi-core use cases, and a 7800X3D would have been much better for gaming. Otherwise, why not just continue to use your perfectly good 12600K?
@@greggmacdonald9644 Because he doesn't need a new motherboard?
@@greggmacdonald9644 that would require a platform swap, much more expensive lol
@@marjanp But then, why not just use the 12600K he's got? It's not much less performant.
@@radiglaz Somewhat, but a big jump in performance too. Else why not just use his existing 12600K, which is zero cost and while not quite as good as the 12900KS in multicore tasks, it's still no slouch.
Chipset drivers are bugged maybe. Phoronix showed that in Linux Zen5 demolishes Zen4 in gaming and apps.
Finally some reviewer acknowledged the "Zen 5 efficiency" debacle, congrats, who the hell cares about 7700X when 7700 was just as good 4 months later, had better efficiency and came with a Wraith Prism?
In fact, it was still better value at 329$ then 9700X Is today at 359$, let alone that it today costs 279$, which is crazy!
7000 performance, L3 cache and I/O + 8000G efficiency = 9000
What crazy is that you can a buy a 7700 tray version for 220€ tax included.
i,am bye 7700 note x for 195$
While TDP is not exact power draw, but 7600X/7700X is 105w and 9600X/9700X again is 65w like 5000 was (for 5800X3D 105w, 7800X3D is 120w )
And for games and some apps X3D is bis, so AMD screwed themself 😅
I buy new Ryzen 7 7700 - 175$ AliExpress 😮
Userbenchmark can’t believe their eyes.
they re probably having a field day lol
They are excited to hear these revelation apparently
Just watch when 9800X3D comes out Userbenchmark will be crying and seething.
30% IPC GAIN IS MINIMUM. Said by some leakers 😂
leaks are mostly bs imo
The same people that said RDNA 3 will kill Nvidia 😭
@@falcon3169 in fairness next rdna always kills nvidia according to leaks.
Leakers are always full of crap
full of cope
Edit: got to the point where you mentioned PBO didn't change much for you - which means that somehow different outlets achieved just completely different results than yours. Waiting to see for someone to figure out what's going on here, otherwise what you found is what you found and the conclusion you drew from your results would be valid. Hope fuckery is afoot and not a misrepresentation of other outlets that showed more favorable data.
I disagree with the notion of a like-for-like comparison with their previous gen namesakes. I understand what the reasoning in favor of doing so is, but I think the reasoning against it outweighs that. To use an exaggeration to make my point - you could just as well have compared a 28w mobile version of a 9600x or 9700x to the 105w 7600x and 7700x, and conclude that the zen 5 chips are a regression.
At 65w, the 9700x and 9600x should be compared to the 7700 and 7600, or the 7700x and 7600x in eco mode. Then, compare them to the 7700x and 7600x with PBO enabled on both sets of cpu's. The comparisons you draw are only a like for like comparison if considering the names of the products, something this channel has itself pointed out the flaws of.
What I'd expect to see, is testing of both cpu's on both stock and PBO modes, and drawing a conclusion considering both sets of results, drawing the appropriate comparisons. It's a poor choice of hill to die on showcasing low power performance as the maximum performance you're going to get when PBO exists and has led multiple outlets to draw much more favorable and, imo, representative conclusions.
Their power consuption results nearly always worng. So for that you should check other rewievs.
They posted 7700 vs 9700x in CB 2024. It is 7% faster at the same power
Just turning on PBO isn't enough. You need to do as der8auer did and set it to use as much power as it wants, for as long as it wants. Not difficult. You'll need a decent cooler, though, he showed around 170W on the 8-core.
@@readywer of course it is 😎 derbaurer got 20% higher perf with 10% higher power draw 🤣🤣🤣 so their measurement is within 3%.
@@panjak323 the problem that they said that the 9700x only consums 11% less power at stock compered to the 7700x which is not ture because the other rewievs like gamersnexus,der8bauer etc. had 40% less energy consuption.
I think there will be fix for this, like magical bios update or clever ram timings. Let us be of good cheer 😆
I notice AMD like to experimenting, when they have oportunity to do it, which sometimes is not well received by the recipients.
Amd wanted to move more 7600 and 7700 chips. I guess this is one way to do it.
Will there be a PBO-related benchmarks for the 9600X and 9700X? Interesting to see from your part
10:50
Just wait fore der8auer to make a proper video on this processor. These dudes don't know how to get proper performance out of chips.
@@Six_Gorillion These "guys" test the chips as they are sent to them and as 99% of the consumers will use them which is the proper way to test a product.
@@rooster1012 They're doing only the easy half of the work. Everyone here is an enthusiast and we want to know what these chips are actually capable of in our hands.
@@Six_Gorillionthen why are you here?
Clearly something is wrong some reviewers gets subpar performance and other get the 13to23% performance uplift
No one should be seeing a 13 - 23% average uplift for gaming. At most maybe 6% if you use a favorable selection of games.
@@Hardwareunboxed Sorry i was not necessarily talking only about gaming . For exemple toms hard got 12% uplift for the 9700x and 9600x (geomean) . But i agree with the conclusion the pricing is bad. I think those chip will get better with some bios updates .
@@HardwareunboxedPhoronix has the 9700X matching or beating the 7900 in a lot of tests on Linux. The fact your results are so low might point to an issue with Windows and not necessarily the chip itself.
@@TheFeelTrain It's to do with the types of benchmarks. Phoronix does server/workstation oriented which some include AVX512 tests.
@@TheFeelTrain AFAIK his tests used a lot of AVX512 heavy stuff which architecturally is a massive advantage for Zen 5. Most tests that don’t utilize that the 7900 smokes the 9700x
Another question is. Have we gotten to the point that some instructions just cannot be accelerated any more, so only clock speed and cache have an influence. The fact that a simple PBO and setting limits to max (as Debauer did), gives you a massive boost.
Hey, what about the value of the 9600X when it only costs €185,- ? Is it at that price good value?
Man AMD fumbled this launch big time. It would’ve been that spit in the face of intel. I’m keeping my 5800X3D for yeeaars to come.
It doesn't matter. Intel has nuked their reputation. Damn near everyone is gonna buy Ryzen now.
I would wait for the X3D Series.
I am curious why he went against AMD's testing guidelines though. They specifically state the 9600 and 9700x should be paired with 6000mhz RAM to maintain the 1:1 ratio. Anything higher breaks that ratio to 1:2, making worse performance across gaming by what percentage I don't know. They set the range for 6000mhz because they didn't want low-end parts to need high-end RAM speeds to get the best price for performance.
I would like to see testing inside the testing guidelines they provided and wonder if this won't be an issue in the higher-end parts.
As if you’re going to ‘upgrade’ from the x3d to 9600x.
AMD likes to shit the bed everytime they'r in front
5000 and 7000 was nt shitting the bed btw
I suppose it's a better option than shitting the bed when you're behind. Intel should take notes.
😐
The 9000 series represent a 20% uplift from last gen while having cheaper launch prices, the problem was that AMD limited the power too much, but its still impressive that they are able to beat the older gen in a lot of situation while using 40% less power on full load. To access the true performance, enable PBO, now you will see that CPUs performing as they should on the same energy usage.
AMD: Once again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
They'll bounce back....hopefully.
@9:32 basically wait for the 9600X to reach a price
Ancient Gameplays found some decent extra performance by tweaking his 9700X - almost 20% in some games. I think "disaster" is a bit strong, give it time to drop in price like Zen 4 did and for new BIOS/chipset drivers to mature and I think it'll be ok. You are right that at the current price it's hard to recommend though. Remember how it was impossible to recommend Zen 4 at launch price + platform costs yet now it's seen as a no brainer.
What memory configuration are you using here? Wendel over at Lvl 1 Tech has a video detailing how memory profiles affect the Zen 5 CPUs, and the difference can be... significant. He had the 9700X beating the 7950X in many benchmarks, which is very different than what we're seeing here.
Most other reviews also demonstrate a much better result with PBO enabled, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Perhaps that comes down to memory timing shenanigans, too.
I want the products to be fairly represented, so look into the memory bit! It seems to make quite a difference!
So why do WccTech, Forbes, LTT, Hot Hardware, Kitguru, and many others get great results with performance at the top of the charts and 15% higher than the 7700x just like AMD said?
Tbh seems like a "launch issue". Hardware or software.... Can't tell. But it is inconsistent.
They don't. They're just running different application tests, and when they test games, they don't do it as scientifically as HUB does.
Because Steve is wrong. There is 15% IPC gain, no question about that. AMD just wanted to secure themselves and put a power limit this time. Temps go only 60c under the heaviest load for 9700x. Can you imagine? It consumes only 90w or something. If you want to unleash the true power of this CPU you can simply enable PBO.
Watch DERBAUER's video, where he does that. It's an awesome CPU and will save you lot's of money by not wasting energy.
@@BleepBlop-rh9lm The 3700X was also limited to 88 watts.
@@BleepBlop-rh9lm What exactly does it do the non-x 7700 or the 7800x3d don't already do then?
So you are saying that amd made a 9700 and just called it a 9700X? Did they pull an nvidia with the 4080 12GB?
They pulled a 6800 vs 7800 XT or a 3050 vs 4060. It should be illegal to use naming conventions to essentially “trick” uninformed consumers into buying clearly inferior products that do not compare generationally.
With this i wonder if 9800X3D only more power efficient than 7800X3D with 5% performance improve.
7800x3d was an accident due to having 1 ccd. 9800x3d won't be the top tier. AMD will make sure the 9950x3d is. At a much higher price.
@@QueenMar1kawrong
7800X3D is already very efficient.
@@QueenMar1ka Nope. As long as Zen remains a chiplet based architecture there will never be a case where a dual CCD chip with 3D cache will be the better gaming CPU than a single CCD chip with 3d cache. As soon as the CCD's communicate with the 3D cache across the IF the latency benefits of the 3D cache is almost entirely negated. Even if you added 3D cache to both CCD's, that problem would still exist.
Zen6 will be the first time a 16 core X3D CPU performs better in games than an 8 core X3D CPU, and only because Zen6 will have 16 core CCDs, or at least that's the plan.
@@QueenMar1ka Wrong.
Odd how when normalizing power envelopes, the CB23 shows huge differences between zen 4 and zen 5, but almost nothing in CB24.
The saving grace Zen 5 has is that sim racers will love it. 20% jump in ACC means that the succeeding X3D part(s) will be even quicker.
yes but honestly sim racing doesn't really benefit from more than like 120fps
sim racing does not need high fps as much as first person games do
@@Violet-uiIt's just the smoothness overall will benefit. Knowing that a system will be smoother with Zen 5 is more reassuring than saying otherwise. Not necessarily more FPS= car go brrr! 😅
Marketing screwed the pooch on these two CPUs. Reviews are all over the place.
These CPUs are Ryzen 4+. Not Ryzen 5
No they're more like Zen 1. There are a lot of fundamental architecture changes, but the new architecture is not mature enough yet to yield good performance. They should have priced it competitively like Zen 1 for it to make sense.
Zen, not Ryzen. Zen is the architecture, Ryzen is the CPU, and Ryzen 5 is the 6 core SKU.
It sounds like there were a lot of underlying changes that just didn't manifest in practical real world performance.
I think it was appropriate to call it Zen 5 for that reason
But they really should have had a muted launch. Just not have tried to hype up enthusiasts.
@@seeibecompetitively with what lol? Intel is out of consideration and amd is not gonna cry much if you buy zen 4 over zen 5.
they aren't zen4+ with such better ST performance but ok
Disappointing. I have an i5-12600KF and the fact that this CPU can keep up with these newer chips does make me happy in a way, however the stagnation of the market is quite appalling while looking at the situation long term.
AMD pulling a hell of an intel 14nm with this launch
Amd completely changed the architecture
@@samuelyeung03that's what I don't understand about these chips. How can they suck so much if the architecture is considerably better? Can it just be the drivers aren't good enough yet and with time prices will go down and performance will improve thanks to better drivers like what is happening with Radeon graphics card?
@@lucazani2730 architecture isn't better on most fronts, especially gaming. seems more like they took zen 6's halfway design and just put it out because it would otherwise take too long. these chips with bios updates are likely 10%~ faster at stock so they don't suck, they just improve little in most tasks while costing too much right now.
it's also on a newer node
@@lucazani2730
Few contributing factors here
1. n4c sounds like it's a new 4nm process, but it's a improved 5nm process. Therefore, Zen5's process is similar to n5 that Zen4 is using.
2. 9700x on default is taking way less power than 7700x, which can be solved with pbo or oc.
3. It's not a gaming cpu, x3d is way too good in terms of gaming performance
4. It's not a trash, just people on UA-cam love to see a review that calling a product a trash. It's offering more performance and a higher efficiency, with lower msrp compare to last gen. With the decreasing cost of the am5 perform, it's a great upgrade for user from zen3(excluding serious gamers)
I was finally ready to upgrade my r5 3600.
Fuck me.
Upgrade to a 5800X3D and be happy
You still can the 7700 and the 7800X3D are still right there.
Honestly though, a 5700X3D and waiting for another generation starts looking real good if you're on AM4.
@@AndyViant Prices are completely fucked in Baltics ever since Covid happened. Gotta buy something used.
same. these metrics cant be real though. bios must need a patch. amd cant be this silly
keep using it, i ill do the same
So this should be easy for Intel. Since they're now using TSMCs process. So they're gonna be faster and more efficient?
Unless they mess up something else.
This is why we need competition. Amd is doing a skylake on us now that they're the intel
Except they're not the Intel. They have less than 30% market share and they know that.
Intel has no competition. All amd ship are shit for gaming. Not just fps wise but so many issues. Example the sturring issue in Cyberpunk or Wircher 3
@juveboy01033 bro what are you talking about 💀
@@juveboy01033Dawg as much as Zen 5 sucks rn at least AMD's chips don't self-destruct (well unless you put it in an ASUS mobo)
This guy don't understand what he is talking
amd completely changed the architecture
How it is compared to skylake
Zen 5 stuggling to beat 3 years old Alder Lake parts is a joke.
Also Alder Lake seems to have aged like fine wine with the i5 12600K now matching the Ryzen 7 5800X3D when given good DDR5 RAM. At the time the 5800X3D was even beating the i9 12900K when they were tested with DDR4 3200.
@@lharsay I’m still loving my 12700k with only 5600cl36 ddr5. Real snappy and no stability issues whatsoever obviously.
well ur comparing ddr4 chips vs ddr5 chip, obviously the newer games will benefit from higher memory bandwidth
Also ddr5 was insanely expensive during 12th gen lifetime, i doubt many i5 users are using 7200 kits like in this video
@@ThunderingRoar you could have bought a the cheapest DDR5 at the time and upgraded later, the 5800X3D was $150 more expensive than the 12600K which gets you a good RAM kit these days.
@lharsay Yeah i guess you could do that in theory, but it would be a waste of money. And consider that you ll need a hefty motherboard to run ddr5 7200 stable (can z690 even do that or you need z790, idk im not sure), not something you would pair with an i5
Yeah, 12900K has proven to be a good CPU, though a little power hungry. Mine is overclocked with minimal voltage increase, got somewhat good silicon. 30K on R23 without sweatting one bit. so not in a hurry to even look at new CPU's. Got it at launch. Maybe in a few years.
Can you include the ryzen 5 7600 performance data? Since it's also a 65w TDP CPU, the improvements will be a bit clear. I'm wanting to upgrade from a 5700x but i think I'll wait for the 9800x3d since I'll just be using the PC for gaming
7600 is just a clock difference like the 5600. they are fundamentally the same as their X versions. expect at most 5% difference
You were right to wait.
Steve can you add Ryzen 5 7500F to the testing?
So the new cpus lunched at a lower price then zen 4 and if you increase the watts they are allowed to have they are much better but take way more power
Steve needs to do a standing, Mike drop, walk off episode
Funny how Techpowerup calls the 9600X the best sub $300 CPU. And HU calls it terrible value.
Smaller UA-camrs need to think more about how negative they can be or the won't get things to review
Day 3 of asking what is the exact name of the outro song? I've searched it online and nothing comes up with the names in the description.
This will take at least 9600 days
also in this struggle lmao, kind of gave up on it
been asking this for more than a year
probaly a custom soundpiece made specifically for the outro, good chance that it's not part of a longer song
I'm pretty sure the artist is "LAKEY INSPIRED", I'm 90% sure he's the artist since he has a lot of songs with a similar vibe, a song called "Blue Boi" by him sounds pretty similar as well
I expected this, to be honest. The start of the new AM5 platform went also not very smooth. And you are right the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a better deal right now. Seems the memory issues still remains too?
Hi Steve 👋 I have watched several reviews and felt disappointed, but wondered if perhaps AMD's strategy for the 9000X series was not aimed at gamers or general consumers and we'd just have to wait for the X3D launch, this was after watching Wendel's L1T review. I just watched Coreteks review and that shows that this series is aimed at software developers & Datacenters etc., which AMD considers their primary clients. He shows the performance gains in workloads in this scenario are huge. And this is why AMD chose Power Efficiency (+22%) over Performance (+11%) on the TSMC N4P node, as you can't have both.
Sad, but from a Commercial perspective, as Coreteks said, it makes perfect sense, for AMD. 🙄🤷♀
ua-cam.com/video/A11d0uBhP_o/v-deo.html
Buying my 5800X3D a year ago was the best electrical goods purchase I ever made, hands down.
same here and i upgraded from a i7 4790k to a Ryzen 7 5800X3D and wow i'm glad i did last year since DDR4 RAM is so cheap now days
I'm about to upgrade from a 3700x to a 7800x3D. I'm hoping for a huge uplift.
The 5800X3D feels like the CPU equivalent of the 1080 Ti 💪
@@joshuastedford1670 funny thing my 5800X3D is paired with a GTX 1080Ti lol
@@blakedmc1989RaveHD I respect that lol - cpu'll still be happy with a 2nd hand 40 series or 30 series in the future as well ✨
Makes you wonder if there actually is some kind of Software bug or problem in BIOS? Because why would I want to buy the "next Gen" Zen 5 for more money than Zen 4 if there aren't any tangible benefits at stock settings?
I almost get the impression that Zen 5 architecture want designed to be mobile/laptops first and then slapped into the Desktop CCUs😮
People didn't wanna buy Zen4 because the platform cost was so much higher than Zen3.
Suddenly everyones like "oohhh zen4 is good Imma buy that!"
Everyones got 12 months of lag and the idea that prices decrease over time.. completely escapes them.
@@stennan It seems like it could be software. Phoronix has the 9700X matching or even beating the 7900 in a lot of tests on Linux. That suggests the hardware itself is fine and something has gone wrong in Windows.
@@TheFeelTrain Not on tests that don't leverage AVX512 or other specific advantages Zen 5 has.
@@kaitoux8413 So it's not better if you ignore the parts that are better? 🤣
I think they just stamped new numbers on the packaging and increased the price 😂
Just limited the TDP and selected the better performing 7600s and 7700s as there is always those few +/-% in production difference.
They are trying to exploit the current condition cold.
I am glad most reviewers are not having it.
Sure they lower the hat foe the 1-5% and the power efficency, but that's all there is to it.
Living in a warm climate without air conditioning, I consider the Ryzen 9000 series an excellent option for the future. Their low TDP will allow me to save on power supplies by opting for cheaper models with higher certifications. Additionally, if these processors can maintain temperatures below 80 degrees when under maximum load, it’s an undeniable win for me. And if I need more performance, a simple overclock should do the trick.
As for prices, the Ryzen 7 is around 6,869.39 Mexican pesos ($363.76 plus $10 shipping), and the Ryzen 5 is 5,338.61 Mexican pesos ($282.70 plus $10 shipping), which seems quite reasonable to me. I plan to buy a new PC next year and equip it with a 5080 GPU, with the idea of not having to worry about upgrading for about 6 to 8 years.
For now, I have a Ryzen 7 from the 5000G series, which performs well overall, though it falls short when I try to game and stream simultaneously. I considered upgrading to the 7000 or 8000 series, but the high temperatures of those processors made me reconsider.
As someone who got the 7600x as a placeholder until that 9800x3d is actually available - for 190$US on cybermonday - that Cost Per Frame slide ( 9:40 ) makes me VERY happy lol. Wow.
Performance is great, still running just about as good if not a little better than my 5800x3d on the AM4 I upgraded from - but I still feel like it could be doing better. For less than 200, these days, to out perform the 5800x3d, I'm very happy.
ONLY thing that bothers me about it is the chip doesnt seem to "push itself" ... I have tried overclocking, undervolting, making sure the power plan is on ultimate, turning off core parking, anything I can think of, and it still running at a cool 62c when not hitting my 120fps frame cap (in cyberpunk), and not boosted all the way. (it hits max SOMETIMES, but backs off fast, and usually runs about 500mhz below full boost) They game is usually at 120fps for me, but when it does dip below, in high complexity areas and fights, it just doenst seem to work any harder to get back up to 120fps. Very confusing. Its like bro, why are you chillin? you're not even CLOSE to hot, I know its not thermal throttling because I am constantly watching temps even hotspot, and we aren't approaching 80c let alone 95. Chipset drivers are all up to date. Bios is up to date. It just seems shy about boosting and staying boosted for some damn reason. (gpu is not bottlenecking either, runs at around 60% usage and 60c as well. I do not like to push my hardware to the absolutely max, all the time, to extend its life.) But even for me, 62c seems lazy. The 5800x3d would push itself up to 80c when doing hard work, or when the game was pushing down frames, just not seeing the same behavior on this chip.
You are literally the best channel on youtube. This channel is a freaking GOLDMINE of information. Thank you so much for all of your work.
Thanks Steve
American Steve or Australian Steve?
@@offspringfan89 yes
"AMD is sandbagging" -a youtuber probably
Yeah, MooresLawIsDead suggested that. And now he's coming up with cope about how these new CPUs are actually good! The marketing was just bad! 😒
@@blitzwing1 I honestly don't think it's all that complicated. All AMD had to do was 1. stress performance per watt (not overall performance) , 2. send a PBO profile/instructions to reviewers to prove 1., 3. Probably just increase the default TDP a bit on these specific parts.
@@cynanomite the problem with specific PBO values is can it be reproduced on all samples. If AMD can guarantee the end user will achieve the same results then I'm all for it.
Userbenchmark might write some accurate analysis for once
They praise Zen 5 as honest value that wasnt shilled and Ill keel over.
So we all know that the limited power at 65 Watts are what limits the performance of the 9700X. If you override that as Debaur did, you get close to a 14900K performance from this 8 core part. I'm excited to see what the 9950X performance is without the power limitation.
Something is wrong here, maybe there's something wrong with AMD's microcode as these numbers aren't adding up. The BG3 has the 7600X at 365w vs 9600x @ 391w, there just no way this should be possible considering the energy usage of these processors and the 9600x being on a smaller process node. A comparison that makes sense is the 5800X3D @ 407w with a TDP of 105 W vs the 7800X3D @ 424w with a TDP of 120, the performance per watt uplift makes sense with the increase in TDP and process node shrink, the same with the 5950X vs the 7950X. The only processors on this list that doesn't make sense are the 9000 series CPU as they "should" demonstrate a lower wattage in comparison to their previous generation.
@@holley850-ij8dn what?
@@holley850-ij8dn what are you asking?
@@holley850-ij8dn what I'm saying should be obvious, it is clearly demonstrated that each benchmark has a clear difference in what its usage. The 9600X should be using less wattage than the 7600X considering it's a lower TDP and it's on a smaller process node. The fact that is using more wattage than a 7600X doesn't make any sense considering all the factors.
@@juno1597 node does not tell the whole story about power usage
@@f-22raptor25 I guess you missed that part about TDP.
Given what Intel and AMD are doing recently, the i7 12700K 12 and the i9 12900K start to look better and better.
Stay away from Intel's chiplet designs. The monolithic die of the 11th, 10th and older gen cpu's are basically bullet proof.
@@GameArmorGameplay amd yes amd yes amd yes
amd yes amd yes amd yes
amd yes amd yes amd yes
AMD:
"Better be safe than sorry..."
*Goes too safe*
"Well damn and blast!"
everything is extremely bad value while 7800x3d still exists
please do these reviews with pbo as well, seems to really make a difference on this gen compared to previous
I was under the impression that the 9k series would cost about the same the 7k series. What happened? Or was I mistaken to begin with?
While these first 2 cpus aren't blowing me away I disagree that they are trash. How are they trash? They outperform last Gen by a little bit, they are cheaper than last Gen, and they are wildly more efficient than last Gen. How the hell are people saying they are trash?
See, they *aren't* cheaper than last gen. Last gen MSRP doesn't matter, bc that's not what they're selling for now... that, and much of the time they under-perform compared to Zen 4. To really get use out of it, you need to overclock, where you'll see about a 20% jump in performance in non-gaming tasks.. but, if that's important, likely best to get a 16-core (9950X) instead of the 8-core.. so, there really isn't a use case for the 9700X and 9600X, not when for gaming, the Zen 4 parts are much cheaper for the same performance, and the 7800X3D still blows those Zen 5 parts away for gaming. THAT is why people are saying that they're trash.
@greggmacdonald9644 thier has never been a newer cheaper faster more power efficent cpu vs thier old gen on the shelf. It's clear your new to tech but this is a warning g shot to intell that's about to lose the server market. In server loads 9700x beats 14900k by up to 80% at 1/4 the power. Amd could never sell another desktop chip and still shutter intell. 3xd should be the only ones bought for gaming it's not even close and I hope they price them right...I would say 700$ for a 9800x3d at a minimum what's the other option buy a 350w i9 15900ks that's 700% and 10% slower?
@@mddunlap03 I think you might want to rewatch this video, I think you missed some important details. The 9700X is much worse than the 14900K in performance, even though the 14900K uses way more power. While Zen 5 (the 6 and 8 core parts which are the only ones we have independent testing for as I write this) is more efficient, it also costs a lot more than the Zen 4 equivalent for equivalent or slightly worse performance UNLESS you feed it as much power as it wants, to get another 20% in performance but it's very inefficient then, the 9700X needing about 170W (see der8auer vid). I agree that 7800X3D is the CPU to go for for gaming on Zen 4, but Zen 5 X3D isn't out yet, and while performance may be good, we don't know that yet, and AMD marketing materials cannot be trusted. As to future gen Intel, again, we don't have parts to test, and until they are out, we can't say for sure what is better or how good the price-performance is. Lastly, let's not make assumptions about experience, hmm? What matters are the words said, the logic used, not how long someone has been doing this as a hobby or who they are etc.
@@greggmacdonald9644 By your logic people should just buy Zen 3, as it's cheaper relative to it's performance..
@@juno1597 No, that's not what my argument says or even implies. If you think it did, then you misunderstood.
AMD just matched Intel's 10th to 11th Gen...... "The suck is strong with this one" killed me 😂😂😂.
6th to 7th Gen from Intel
I am %100 sure that they crippled these cpus on purpose.
It didn't even need more cores (long overdue though). Just having lower prices and higher TDP's would have made Zen 5 pretty good. These stupidly low TDP's are AMD massively overcompensating for all the thermal complaints with Zen 4.
unless this is a first day issue, if this is the real Ryzen 9000 performace, ill rather go for a Ryzen 7 7700 than the 9600X, i knew difference wasnt going to be much, but i was expecting at least around 10-15%.
The benefit is future proofing ... with the next gen x770e or x870e boards. They support 10gb ethernet, PCI express 5, and the new flat ram DDR module (I forgot what is called but you can google it as it is a credit card which is flat replacing dimms). The new memory format which doesnt' rely on soldier joints can clock over 8600 mts!
Sure it is buggy now but you can argue the 9000 is more future proof if you upgrade your board later on.
@@timgibney5590 maybe, i guess it depends of the needs of everyone, some people could be fine with a x670/b650 and decent 6000mhz ddr5 or others want the best of the best, but still, prices atm doesnt make them appealing, we will see when they go down a bit.
Steve- "PBO isn't doing anything"
Literally everyone else- "Up to 20% with PBO"
looking forward to the walkback video tomorrow
Yeah I was about to comment the same thing. This is not the first time they've gotten weird results. Makes me think that they get their config wrong from time to time
@@ChristopherYeeMon I don't think it's HWUB's fault specifically, but there should have been a pause to question here
What ppl don't seem to understand is that you can run pbo on the other CPUs aswell...
The "trick" I think is to also let it go with as much power as it wants and for as long as it wants, der8auer showed that.. at least for non-gaming use cases, though in that case, probably the 9950X is the go-to there. We find out next week, I suppose.
It's very very confusing, KitGuruTech did like the 9600X showing better results,
You're testing both 7000X and 9000X in their default modes which means zen 5 is power limited by default. If you enable PBO (let's do that on both zen 5 and zen 4) then multicore benchmark results become much better for the new gen according to other reviews. Gaming perf is the same though
exactly!
Steve didn't mention that.
@@BleepBlop-rh9lm10:50
@@vadnegru 1-3% doesn't agree with other reviews (again, not speaking about gaming but only productivity)
@@andreyyankovsky1090 maybe his sample is faulty or something or AMD did those limits purely because they kept getting unstable samples.
Been seeing so much inconsistency with this release. I wouldn’t be surprised if AMD puts out some fixes to reclaim a lot of ground missed in the benchmarks later on
If this is AM5 longevity, I don't need it, thanks!
What’s your thoughts on people saying the 9700x is great if you just manually boost PBO to achieve a ~160w TDP? Honestly I forgot exactly what the power draw was, hence my edit
Steve, you need to see SkatterBencher's 9700X video that comprehensively tests 9700X Undervolting + PBO2 + CURVE SHAPER. AMD left a ton of performance on the table, overclockers haven't had so much headroom to work with in a long time, this is like going back to the old days of overclocking. These CPUs are being fundamentally misunderstood by customers and at the same time mis-marketed by AMD. They're selling a 105W part as 65W and leaving all the extra performance there for you to OC. "Cool, efficient, low power, low cooling requirements by DEFAULT -- then you, the customer, OC the rest that you need" is a new concept for many people that may take some getting used to.
99% of people will never OC.
@DrakonR These are enthusiast parts. Normal folks are going to be using some crapppy pre-built with an i3
The average consumer is not an over clocker. They need to test for average consumer use cases.
@@henryvaneyk3769 why should they cater to іmbесіles? It's not 2009 anymore, fellas, overclocking now demands finding the first random vid amongst hundreds on YT & pushing around 4-6 buttons in BIOS following the instructions - that's it, you're good to go.
@@lunawense6288 also not true.
Some reviewers such as der8auer, adjusted PBO and saw up to a 25 percent increase in performance. Why wasn't this done with your reviews of the 9600 and 9700? Perhaps you should adjust PBO like they did and share your thoughts?
First Benchmarks should always be done with out of the box.
Then you go see how you tune, fine tune
Because they're sleazy
@@AtifSheikhnah mate. Everyone do review with pbo as well.
PBO voids your warranty since it's basically just overclocking no?
I hope you guys do a review with PBO enabled for all of these tests. The performance uplift, as I understand is performance per watt, isn't it?
I feel like with the lower temps you could get more out of OCing these chips, right? I remember seeing someone get 5.8GHz