In a nutshell, what makes the Ryzen 5 9600X a bad product is the fact that it's often slower than its predecessor and yet somehow costs 40% more. There's no reason anyone should buy this CPU.
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X Review: Poor Value for Gamers
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Endymio
Posts: 3,251 +3,148
I admire your bravery in posting this Steve, and certainly your conclusions are difficult to argue with. Admittedly, the chip does slightly better on the application side than in gaming ... but its purported single-core performance boost doesn't seem to have helped it much, if at all. As for its much-touted AVX-512 support, there's a reason Intel is killing that off. Nowadays, that level of SIMD parallelism is generally better handled by the GPU; cpu real estate is better served by focusing on MIMD.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
It s not a bad product Steve , it's not "a disaster" as you call it in your video . It just diverges from your expectations.
In terms of game performance - it is a bit faster than Ryzen 7600X and the same power efficiency . In terms of application performance , Ryzen 9600X is tangibly faster and is 30% more power efficient . Yes , as of now , the price is high for its performance .
Steve , thanks for the review. But avoid too harsh words . This product is not bad , just we expected more.
In terms of game performance - it is a bit faster than Ryzen 7600X and the same power efficiency . In terms of application performance , Ryzen 9600X is tangibly faster and is 30% more power efficient . Yes , as of now , the price is high for its performance .
Steve , thanks for the review. But avoid too harsh words . This product is not bad , just we expected more.
Endymio
Posts: 3,251 +3,148
Why not be honest? If Intel released a new generation chip that was 2% faster but cost 40% more, you'd write a three-page novel trashing it, one with dollar signs and "greed" references sprinkled liberally through it.
No one who owns Zen 4 will consider upgrading to Zen5. And no gamer with a decent Zen 3 chip will either. For my own part, I'm considering upgrading my 5700x machine to 9700x --- but then, I don't game.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
Endymio , bro , it s faster than Ryzen 5800x3D and more power efficient . What s wrong ?
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,128 +1,959
Amazing how this review is diametrically opposite that of Tom's Hardware in gaming. They also found it good in productivity too. I'd like to know how TH found the stock 9600X 12% faster than the 14600K and 21% faster with PBO and you've found basically the opposite. You even found PBO to be basically useless again the exact opposite of TH's.
So stock these are the most efficient cpu's available and PBO let's them shine as they are stupidly power limited for multi-core to shine.
Also clearly your 9700X is faulty as your all core clocks are ~800MHz lower than nearly every else is getting, so no wonder you think it sucks.
The biggest mistake AMD made is these should be called 9600 and 9700 with $50 price cuts, and the X models should come with 105W TDP.
So stock these are the most efficient cpu's available and PBO let's them shine as they are stupidly power limited for multi-core to shine.
Also clearly your 9700X is faulty as your all core clocks are ~800MHz lower than nearly every else is getting, so no wonder you think it sucks.
The biggest mistake AMD made is these should be called 9600 and 9700 with $50 price cuts, and the X models should come with 105W TDP.
Endymio
Posts: 3,251 +3,148
Sure. But according to TPU, at 1400p gaming, the 5800X3D has 99.1% of the performance of this new chip. Would you upgrade -- considering that means not just a new CPU, but new motherboard and memory -- for an extra 0.9% performance?
As I said, on the application side, Zen 3 -> Zen 5 is a different picture.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
Endymio , dont put words in my mouth that I havent said .
erickmendes
Posts: 1,150 +637
Well.... Comparing with 5000/7000 performance it really don't make sense to go from a nice 5800x3D build to a 9000 build, at least focusing on games.
But I think that if you are building a new gaming PC from the ground I would go with AMD 9000 with the newer chipsets just to maximize platform longevity, since support for at least the next AMD gen CPU is expected.
I still happy with my 5800x3D maxed out build, future proof my GPU getting a 4080 (well not that cost effective still..), I'm going to wait for 2 more CPU gens before I upgrade.
But I think that if you are building a new gaming PC from the ground I would go with AMD 9000 with the newer chipsets just to maximize platform longevity, since support for at least the next AMD gen CPU is expected.
I still happy with my 5800x3D maxed out build, future proof my GPU getting a 4080 (well not that cost effective still..), I'm going to wait for 2 more CPU gens before I upgrade.
poshflamingos
Posts: 120 +292
That is a disastrous result. Ryzen 1600 > 3600 > 5600 > 7600 were all significant, 20%-ish (give or take) improvements in gaming performance, all while staying in the same 65W TDP. The 9600X being marginally faster than the 7600 in gaming is a big disappointment.
Zen 5 will probably be great for efficiency-sensitive markets like mobile and server, but the desktop chips so far (9600X and 9700X) have little reason to exist.
Nobina
Posts: 4,542 +5,579
Or what? Are you his editor? I don't think you are.
It's dog sht CPU, barely faster, way more expensive. Price to performance confirms it.
i like foxes
Posts: 274 +198
Because , he s wrong in his conclusion . Claims which are just price related are temporary .
fadingfool
Posts: 356 +458
Phoronix has shown how much better these chips are when linux is run on them (so all you linux fans should head over there). Is this then a windows problem much like the high core threadrippers suffered originally?
unoficialoficial
Posts: 11 +9
It is indeed strange. A new generation processor with more transistors and 100 MHz more clock speed, and it's performing the same or worse than the previous generation processor. I think the only thing that could explain it is that the architecture includes structural safety measures to avoid incidents like Spectre and Meltdown. But since they affect performance so much, there should be an option in the bios that allows you to disable them while increasing performance. But that might not be possible because the processor structure is fixed. So let's be happy that at least we may not have increased performance, but at least we have security… Unfortunately I don’t think it will sell well.
I don't understand this article. Why are your numbers so different than the other reviewer's results for both the 9600X and the 9700X?
9600X:
TH's results at 1080p = 21%
Your results at 1080p = 1% (???)
Overall, TH has for the 9600X:
1080p = 21 %
1440p = 20%
single = 8%
multi = 24%
How can you explain why your results are so drastically different? Is there something wrong with your setup? Is it the other sites?
Summary review differences:
TS: "often slower than its predecessor and yet somehow costs 40% more"
TH: "Ryzen 5 9600X is 12% faster than the previous-gen Ryzen 5 7600X, a solid generational gain" and they have it only as 33% more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, even it is a 20% gain for 30% more cost, that is not a great deal.
It seems rather than try to reconcile that your results are significantly different than practically every other review; you instead write: "utterly disappointed", "hard to imagine", "so bad", "delusional", "dumpster fire", and "bad product". I have been a long time fan of this website, but this review and the 9700X review are not good tech reviews.
9600X:
TH's results at 1080p = 21%
Your results at 1080p = 1% (???)
Overall, TH has for the 9600X:
1080p = 21 %
1440p = 20%
single = 8%
multi = 24%
How can you explain why your results are so drastically different? Is there something wrong with your setup? Is it the other sites?
Summary review differences:
TS: "often slower than its predecessor and yet somehow costs 40% more"
TH: "Ryzen 5 9600X is 12% faster than the previous-gen Ryzen 5 7600X, a solid generational gain" and they have it only as 33% more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, even it is a 20% gain for 30% more cost, that is not a great deal.
It seems rather than try to reconcile that your results are significantly different than practically every other review; you instead write: "utterly disappointed", "hard to imagine", "so bad", "delusional", "dumpster fire", and "bad product". I have been a long time fan of this website, but this review and the 9700X review are not good tech reviews.
Nobina
Posts: 4,542 +5,579
And you are judging based on imaginary prices that don't exist.
MarcusNumb
Posts: 187 +344
I agree with you, this is really strange that there is such a huge difference, but I use TechPowerUp as the other reference. I don't know whether there is some error in BIOS settings of different brands or AMD marketing department is paying lobby to TH or TPU for good reviews. Hopefully in 1 month there will be normalization after some updates.
Dreadcthulhu
Posts: 82 +140
Looking around at assorted benchmarks, Zen 5 is indeed an incredibly meh upgrade for most desktop uses. The server benchmarks using Linux on the other hand, are showing substantial boosts in performance while using less power. It seems to me that AMD put almost all of their effort into making Zen 5 a killer datacenter CPU, and Zen 5 Epyc chips will probably be extremely successful & profitable for AMD. AMD of course also is benefiting from Intel shooting itself in the foot, and is confident that the x3D version of Zen 5 will be adequate to fend off whatever Intel has cooking with Arrow Lake.
Bwahahaha. Intel only ditched AVX512 because their panic solution has two different type of cores and crappier one does not support AVX512. So to avoid too much compatibility problems, they had to disable it.
Or are you really saying Intel put AVX-512 on CPU and then just decided not to use it because, oh, well
The 7800X3D seems like it will be a sufficient gaming CPU for many years to come. The V-Cache makes a huge difference. I'm sure it will be bested by other chips this year, but most of them will come in at $100+ more than you can currently get the 7800X3D.
Loadedaxe
Posts: 145 +174
12% for 33% cost is not great for sure. I think the reviews maybe pre-mature, we all know AMD does have a habit of getting better like fine wine. Not to mention bios updates.
I would wait another month or two before I decided, I do think they are priced high, $240 for the 9600X and $300 for the 9700X at least at this performance. We will see after the first bios updates happen.
"which is 100 MHz higher than the 7600X, but it still has a 32MB L3 cache." it shouldn't be a "but" in there, instead it should be a "and still", because those two positive qualities (100MHz and 32MB cache; one does not take from the other) are not in opposition, instead they add to the performance.
What is the context of "Poor Value"? If you already have a 7600X then yes - its not a good value, but if you jump from an older (and by implication a weak) AMD CPU, its pretty good.
What is the context of "Poor Value"? If you already have a 7600X then yes - its not a good value, but if you jump from an older (and by implication a weak) AMD CPU, its pretty good.
Whole article does not contain SINGLE mention about AVX512. You talk about architecture, you should analyse architecture too. Not just run some outdated benchmarks and say architecture is bad.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Elon Musk's Grok AI unleashes the wild west of image generation- RudyBob replied
-
Deep dive: MSI shows off CAMM2 desktop PC memory- hahahanoobs replied
