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.
70 Comments
View All Comments
NextGen_Gamer - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
"The Zen 5 architecture doubles the L2 cache size to 1 MB per core over Zen 4..." Uh, I am pretty sure it did NOT do this. Zen 4 already was at 1MB L2 cache per core.nightbird321 - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Gaming benchmarks without a single X3D in the comparison, how AT has fallen.haukionkannel - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Gamers will buy 9800xwd or 7800x3d… not those,so these test are valid!When 9800x3d comes to market, i am sure that 7800x3d and even 5800x3d are in bigger role!
Now this 7700 65w vs 9700x 65w makes a lot of sense. Ofcourse when 9700 will be released somewhere next year, it will be the direct successor of 7700, but in current cpus available, 7700 is the closest, even if it is second tier cpu and so, not directly comparable to 9700x. But it still is the closest. Based on what has been released. I expect to see 8 core 9800x with 105w to be released in the spring. Little bit more speed, much worse efficiency. So this release is a lot like 3000 series release was!
nightbird321 - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
These benchmarks are meant to make Intel to look to be the best CPUs for gaming, which is a laughable conclusion.Hrel - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 - link
This is a pathetic power consumption page. Peak power? That's it? That's all you're showing? You don't even have the 13500 or 14500 in the chart! WHAT IS THIS!?You guys have always had a strong AMD bias but this is ridiculous.
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
'You guys have always had a strong AMD bias'Poppycock.
Heavensrevenge - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Bad or unimpressive results are a result of running Windows as the test operating system, Linux systems give universally better results.Don't blame AMD, blame Microsoft Windows for being unable to utilize the hardware effectively!
https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-9950x-99... for a REAL review.
PProchnow - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
-----2699 single -----> 7600--------11588 multi ---> 7600
------- 3228 single-----> 9600
-------13379 multi ------> 9600
Sivar - Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - link
"Zen 5 is alive!"I see what you did there, Johnny 5.
Bonez0r - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 - link
Finally a reviewer who tests 65W versus 65W, unlike all the others who test the new 65W CPUs against the 105W CPUs of the previous generation and then are disappointed when the new ones seemingly underperform.That said, I would have liked to see them dig into the reasons as to why in a few benchmarks the new CPU's really do underperform compared to the 7000 series. I remember articles in the past where they really made an effort to investigate such results. Nothing like that now.
Also, I didn't see a reason for excluding the X3D CPUs from the gaming benchmarks. Weren't they made specifically for gaming? Strange to leave them out. Maybe the reason was buried in the other pages somewhere and I missed it.