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
LarsBars - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
Are you still planning on including the core-to-core latency testing?Silver5urfer - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
I second that, it would be great to see a proper deep dive into Zen 5. Please do that with upcoming bigger core parts.Silver5urfer - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
Why did AT did not do a PBO2 run on these ? Also why not compare them to a 7700X.From what I was seeing across the board AMD's mistake was letting the 8C16T processor get a huge TDP power cap, from 105W to a mere 65W resulting in lack of IPC gains translation in IRL workloads from gaming to everything.
No idea why AMD make this stupid move. Zen 5 seems efficient but the lack of power envelope is bad. Esp when the x86 ISA always scales with power. This is a desktop socket not a cheap use and throw BGA garbage.
And now the OC part, with PBO2 this chip really excels it throws out that stupid 65W efficiency and performs like it should. Esp when we factor in Curve Shaper tool.
AT you should consider that new Curve Shaper in your next Zen 5 processor reviews like esp that 16C32T part, it will be a nice advantage for anyone who likes tinkering.
Ryan Smith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
"Why did AT did not do a PBO2 run on these ?"PBO is a form of overclocking. Given more time, it would have been nice to play with it as well, to see what the chip could do. But for our baseline testing, we do not run anything at overclocked settings.
"Also why not compare them to a 7700X"
We felt the 7700 was the more interesting and informative comparison, since it had the same TDP as the 9700X. This way we could get right down to business and see how the chips and architectures compared at what's essentially iso-power.
Golgatha777 - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
Anecdotal evidence, but in tweaking my personal 7700X, I found the sweet spot for full boost and highest all-core frequency to be around 100w PPT. I think AMD potentially missed an opportunity to do better in default benchmarks by not making the 9700X a 105w part, or at least a bit higher than 65w.OFelix - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Absolutely - it appears that AMD could have avoided the bad reviews if this processor had been either given more power or marketed as "9700" without the X to match the 65W 7700.The interesting question is why they didn't? Just a normal large company screw-up? Or have they found issues with the new process node that means they are not comfortable selling these processors in large number at higher power levels?
From a marketing perspective something has gone horribly wrong! :-)
Hopefully the 9800X and the 9950X will be able to maintain the single-thread performance advantage whilst trashing Intel in the multi-threaded benchmarks.
Targon - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
You could say that XMP is a form of overclocking, but no one has a problem turning THAT on when benchmarking.Zoolook13 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Except for Anandtech, they are consistent.James5mith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
Gavin: There is an inconsistency from page 1 to page 3.Page 1: "Also, it has a 65 W TDP. Still, both their predecessors, the Ryzen 7 7700X (8C/16T Zen 4) and the Ryzen 5 7600X (6C/12T Zen 4), have a higher 105 W TDP."
Page 3: "Given that both processors are nearly identical (8C/16T at 65 W TDP/88-90 W PPT), aside from the underlying core architecture"
So do they have identical TDP ratings? Or did the predecessors have a TDP rating 40w higher?
Ryan Smith - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
The comment on page 1 is in reference to the 7700X. That is a 105W TDP processor.The comment on page 3 is in reference to the vanilla (non-X) 7700. That is a 65W TDP processor.