The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X Review: Zen 5 is Alive
by Gavin Bonshor on August 7, 2024 9:00 AM ESTPower Consumption
Our previous sets of ‘office’ benchmarks have often been a mix of science and synthetics, so this time, we wanted to keep our office and productivity section purely based on real-world performance. We've also incorporated our power testing into this section.
The biggest update to our Office-focused tests for 2024 and beyond includes UL's Procyon software, the successor to PCMark. Procyon benchmarks office performance using Microsoft Office applications, with other web-based benchmarks such as Jetstream and timed runs of compilers, including Linux, PHP, and Node.js.
Below are the settings we have used for each platform:
- DDR5-5600B CL46 - Ryzen 9000
- DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 14th & 13th Gen
- DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
Power
The nature of reporting processor power consumption has become, in part, a bit of a nightmare. Historically the peak power consumption of a processor, as purchased, is given by its Thermal Design Power (TDP, or PL1). For many markets, such as embedded processors, that value of TDP still signifies the peak power consumption. For the processors we test at AnandTech, either desktop, notebook, or enterprise, this is not always the case.
Modern high-performance processors implement a feature called Turbo. This allows, usually for a limited time, a processor to go beyond its rated frequency. Exactly how far the processor goes depends on a few factors, such as the Turbo Power Limit (PL2), whether the peak frequency is hard coded, the thermals, and the power delivery. Turbo can sometimes be very aggressive for TDP that are, broadly speaking, applied the same. The difference comes from turbo modes, turbo limits, turbo budgets, and how the processors manage that power balance. These topics are 10000-12000 word articles in their own right, and we’ve got a few articles worth reading on the topic.
- Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected: TDP and Turbo Explained
- Talking TDP, Turbo and Overclocking: An Interview with Intel Fellow Guy Therien
- Reaching for Turbo: Aligning Perception with AMD’s Frequency Metrics
- Intel’s TDP Shenanigans Hurts Everyone
Regarding peak power consumption, all of AMD's 65 W TDP designated chips fall between 87 and 88 W due to AMD's Package Power Tracking from the CPU socket itself (PPT), which boosts power for more performance. It is misleading regarding what the CPU is pulling power-wise compared to what the TDP states, but there are very few examples of any processor in the modern age following TDP.
Looking at how the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X compares to the previous Ryzen 7 7700, we can see both perform similarly regarding power consumption. Both chips, when loaded up with the Cinebench 2024 multi-threaded test, consistently tread between 88 W (9700X) and 90 W (7700). Power variation within the workload itself is very consistent, with very little differential as the workload progresses through the loop. Between the tests loading, we can see a consistent drop in power to just under 70 W briefly for the Ryzen 7 9700X and around 67 W for the Ryzen 7 7700. Given that both processors are nearly identical (8C/16T at 65 W TDP/88-90 W PPT), aside from the underlying core architecture, we can see striking similarities in power consumption and behavior under an intensive workload, too.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
This is an area where technical specifications and casual nomenclature have drifted apart.DDR5 channels are 32-bits each. A DIMM offers two 32-bit channels, for 64-bits altogether.
So AM5 takes two DIMMs. But it's technically four independent DDR5 channels.
Kevin G - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
This is going to be more divergent with DDR6 as the draft specs have four 16 bit sub channels for a 64 bit DIMM. However the DIMM format might only bee seen in servers with consumer products likely moving to a version CAMM which would ultimately have eight 16 bit sub channels for a 128 bit wide CAMM product.phoenix_rizzen - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
If CAMM is ever going to take off in desktops they're going to have to come up with a vertical-oriented version (similar to how DIMMs are inserted vertically into a motherboard). There's just not enough horizontal space on ATX motherboards for multiple CAMM boards to be attached.Would also be nice if someone came up with a vertical M.2 slot for NVMe drives.
Either that or extended ATX (or larger) motherboards are going to have to make a comeback. :)
'nar - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Get off my lawn! Geez I feel old now. These are "Dual Inline Memory Modules," but otherwise just as Ryan already explained. What threw me was that they've been called dual channel for so long calling them quad channel now is misleading.The DIMMs started back in the x486 days I think, maybe the Pentium? From 8086, 286, 386, 486, Intel increased the channel width(or the word length that the CPU can process), 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, then 32-bit x2. Processors calculated smaller chunks back then, but have mostly stayed at 32-bit, which are four 8-bit bytes, so it is a 4-byte word that equals 32-bit. The Processor is much faster than the memory, so they decided to double up on the data, hence, Dual inline memory modules. Before this they were SIMMs. But I don't believe we got "dual channel" (where we got A and B channels) until 64-bit CPU's, which use twice the data, And Quad channel is mostly found in servers and HEDT systems. So, in the end this seems to be a marketing decision meant to confuse people. Sales guys don't need us to understand, just buy, and we all like MOWAR Power eh? Even if we just think it is.
Terry_Craig - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
This architecture has some very serious bottlenecks. It performs slightly better than Zen4 or the same in almost everything, except where AVX512 is used (DL/AI software) there the performance shoots ahead.Disappointed to see such a wide design not deliver what it promised.
yeeeeman - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
yes, exactlyBulat Ziganshin - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
It was my first thought, but just look at Zen1-4 history. It kept the same width, but increased IPC 1.5x by going deeper (i.e. larger ROB and so on). It's the way AMD reduces their expenses - they increase width once and then slowly make CPU deeper to get small gains every year. So, I expect that Zen8 or so will be 1.5x faster that Zen4 by finally making it as wide as Apple M1.Bulat Ziganshin - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
sorry, I meant "Zen8 will be 1.5x faster than Zen4 by making it as DEEP as M1 while keeping the same width as Zen5"Khanan - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
Did we read the same article? Maybe you shouldn’t comment if you didn’t read or understand the article.And if you’re only about games, 5 games are nothing, go for the reviews where 20 games are tested (at least).
Bulat Ziganshin - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
Zen5 has 6 ALUs - 1.5x more than Zen4. e.g. Apple M1 also had 6 ALUs, but Zen5 is nowhere near M1 IPC or 1.5x Zen4 IPC. even in the official benchmarks IPC improved only by 16% on average