AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review: Zen 5 Arrives

Today we're taking our first look at AMD's new Zen 5 processors, starting with the Ryzen 7 9700X, their latest 8-core / 16-thread CPU designed to replace the 7700X. Ahead of the launch, AMD was claiming a 16% average IPC uplift for the new generation – similar to AMD's previous Zen architecture upgrades – while other aspects of the design remain unchanged from Ryzen 7000, including the number of CPU cores (between 6 and 16 across the line-up) and peak frequencies that push up to 5.7 GHz.

The Ryzen 7 9700X will sell for $360, which is 10% less than the MSRP of the 7700X when it launched. However, it is also 24% more expensive than the current retail price, given that the 7700X can currently be bought for just $290.

That's a reasonable premium for the new Zen 5 model considering AMD's claimed performance boost, though most of the gains will have to be IPC related as the 9700X is clocked just 2% higher than the 7700X. That means the 9700X clocks as high as 5.5 GHz and with a 65W TDP can clock as low as 3.8 GHz.

In total, there's 8MB of L2 Cache, 1MB per core, with a shared 32MB L3 Cache. As with the 7700X, the maximum safe operating temperature, or TjMax, has been set at 95°C. The official maximum memory speed is DDR5-5600, though overclocking to higher speeds is possible.

AMD emphasizes that the TjMax is the maximum safe operating temperature, not the absolute maximum temperature. This means these processors are designed to run at TjMax 24/7 without risk of damage or deterioration. At 95 degrees, it is still operating within specifications.

There was some discussion that Zen 5 would support higher memory speeds, but AMD tells us that DDR5-6000 is still going to be the sweet spot, with all CPUs capable of an FCLK of 2,000 MHz. AMD notes that going above 2,000 MHz may compromise stability or decouple the fabric clock from the memory clock, resulting in suboptimal performance, depending on how high the memory frequency is.

AMD also clarified that for best performance, the memory and IMC should run at a 1:1 ratio. For this, DDR5-6000 is optimal. Memory support for Zen 5 is very similar to Zen 4. A good quality DDR5-6000 kit is recommended, and this is what we will be testing.

Benchmarks

Test Setup

Cinebench 2024

First let's check out how the 9700X behaves under an all-core workload in Cinebench. We saw a sustained 4.8 GHz operating frequency with all cores under load, resulting in a package power of 88 Watts and a peak operating temperature of 64°C. With just a single core active, the 9700X clocked as high as 5.5 GHz, which is the reported boost clock, so that checks out.

Now, here's a look at the Cinebench multi-core performance. The 9700X is a mere 2% faster than the 7700X in this test, which is not much of a performance uplift. It also means that for these multi-core workloads, AMD is still well behind Intel's 14600K.

Despite the almost identical multi-core performance to that of the 7700X, the 9700X is 10% faster in single-core performance, which is a reasonable improvement. This could mean good things for gaming, and we will get to that soon.

Power Consumption (Cinebench)

But before we do, here are the total system power consumption numbers when running the Cinebench all-core workload. The 9700X averaged 208 Watts, which is a 40 Watt saving compared to the 7700X, working out to an 16% saving.

Correction (Aug 7): There was an error in our original power graph showing how the 9700X behaves in CB (208 W is the correct figure, not 221 W), now been replaced below. Things don't change dramatically however. We've also added the Ryzen 7700 for comparison purposes since that's also a 65w part, while the 7700X was never an efficient chip.

7-Zip File Manager

Moving on to the 7-Zip File Manager testing, we start with the compression results. Here, the 9700X was actually 3% slower than the 7700X, which is an extremely disappointing result.

It was also slightly slower for the decompression workload, trailing by a 1.5% margin. While not much slower, the fact that it's not significantly faster here is a real problem.

Blender Open Data

The Blender Open Data results remain unchanged, with 129 samples per minute for both the 7700X and 9700X, making the new Zen 5 processor 11% slower than the 14600K.

Corona 10 Benchmark

Interestingly, when running the Corona 10 Benchmark, we find that the 9700X is 11% faster than the 7700X, indicating a decent uplift, and we were hoping to see more of this.

Adobe Photoshop 2024

In Photoshop, we see that the 9700X is 3% faster than the 7700X in this test, making it the fastest CPU tested. While this is a good result overall, it is still very disappointing when compared to the part it is meant to replace.

Adobe Premiere Pro 2024

The 9700X was also faster in Premiere Pro, this time by a 6% margin. While not amazing, it is better than 3%. Still, when compared to the 14600K, it was 2% slower.

Gaming Benchmarks

Baldur's Gate 3

Okay, time for the gaming benchmarks, and we'll start with Baldur's Gate 3. Unfortunately, the 9700X is a mere 2% faster than the 7700X, going from 113 to 115 fps, a modest 2 fps boost. Let's hope that's just an outlier as we move on…

The Last of Us Part 1

Sadly, the Baldur's Gate 3 results aren't an outlier. Testing with The Last of Us Part 1, we see that the 9700X is actually slower than the 7700X by a 3% margin. We re-ran this test multiple times, tried several different motherboards and memory kits, but one thing remained consistent: the 9700X's poor performance.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty

Moving on to Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, the 9700X is at least faster than the 7700X here by a few frames, showing a mere 2% improvement. This is a disappointing improvement, but at least it's faster in this example.

Hogwarts Legacy

Performance in Hogwarts Legacy is much the same using either the 7700X or 9700X, so no improvement here. It's also disappointing to see that we're only looking at Core i7-12700K-like performance.

Assetto Corsa Competizione

The ACC results are good, with the 9700X being significantly faster than the 7700X, which is obviously what we want to see. In this example, the average frame rate was improved by 18%, which is a significant uplift, bringing the 9700X close to the 14900K.

Spider-Man Remastered

The Spider-Man Remastered results are less impressive, but at least we see a 5% boost here, averaging 153 fps. However, this is still 12700K-like performance, which is not amazing for a next-gen product.

Homeworld 3

The 9700X also looks strong in Homeworld 3, despite being just 3% faster than the 7700X. It matched the average frame rate of the 14900K with much better 1% lows. For some reason, the Intel CPUs tank the 1% lows in this test.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

The 9700X also looked strong in A Plague Tale: Requiem, but again it was just 3% faster than the 7700X, so only a few frames better than the 14900K but much slower than the 7800X3D.

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 provides us with a rare example where the 9700X is double digits faster than the 7700X, averaging 536 fps, meaning it was slower than only the 7800X3D.

Starfield

Now, I'm sure you'll see some reviews of the 9700X where it's faster than the 7700X in Starfield, but those reviews will probably be testing with different quality settings or a different section of the game. After many re-tests, the best we saw from the 9700X was a 4% loss to the 7700X.

Horizon Forbidden West

Next up, we have Horizon Forbidden West, another example where the 9700X and 7700X are very similar in terms of gaming performance, with the older 7700X offering a few extra frames. This is super disappointing stuff from AMD, especially after 2 years.

Hitman 3

The 9700X was a whole percent faster in Hitman 3, taking us from 238 fps to 241 fps, so that's pretty riveting stuff.

Watch Dogs: Legion

Finally, we have Watch Dogs: Legion, and with it, another example where the 7700X is slightly faster than the 9700X. It's worth noting that we based our data on an average of six runs for this test, as the first few runs are heavily inflated for some reason. At the end of the day, both CPUs delivered similar performance in this test.

13 Game Average

Across the 13 games we tested, the 9700X was a grand total of 3% faster than the 7700X. So, it basically caught up to the Core i5-14600K. AMD claimed in their review guide that the 9700X is 9% faster than the 14700K across the games they tested, but we've found it to be 5% slower.

We discussed our results at length with AMD, and they didn't think our data was off for the sample of games we tested. Maybe 1-2% lower than what they were seeing internally, though they were unwilling to share that data.

However, the point is that we expect reviewers to report the 9700X to be 3-6% faster than the 7700X, depending on the games and quality settings used for testing, which is a disappointing result.

Power Consumption (Gaming)

Here's a quick look at total system power consumption when gaming. Please note we didn't have time to add all CPUs tested to this data set, but we do have the important ones, like the 9700X and 7700X.

As you can see, the 9700X only reduced total system usage by 16 watts, a 3% reduction. Of course, that is a 26% saving compared to the 14900K, which was limited to 253 watts, but relative to Zen 4, the gains aren't that impressive.

We saw a 23-watt reduction in total system usage when testing with The Last of Us Part 1, as the 9700X dropped to 491 watts from 514 watts with the 7700X. In this example, that's a 4% reduction in power usage. It's not insignificant, but also not exciting.

Cost per Frame

Here's a look at the cost per frame of just the CPU. At this point, we should mention that AMD's asking $360 for the 9700X, making it 24% more costly than the 7700X, which isn't great given it was only 3% faster on average.

When factoring in the cost of the CPU, the 9700X wound up costing 21% more per frame than the 7700X and 11% more than the 7800X3D, so you'd obviously just buy the X3D chip.

Cost per Frame (Entire Build)

Now, if we factor in the cost of a decent motherboard and a 32GB memory kit, the 9700X still ends up costing 11% more per frame than the 7700X. It's also 13% more costly than the 7800X3D, so again, if you're interested in gaming, you'd still just get the 7800X3D.

What We Learned: It's a Flop

Zen 5 appears to be a bit of a flop in our opinion. In fact, it's giving us Intel 11th-gen vibes. Sure, it's a little faster while using a little less power, but overall, after 2 years, it's much the same. Making matters worse is the price premium. If the 9700X was slotting in at the same $290 asking price as the 7700X, then I guess sure, that's fine – a small upgrade, nothing to get excited about, but it's not bad. But at a 24% premium, AMD can keep it; we have no interest in the 9700X at this point in time.

AMD seems a bit lost with this release. They made a big deal out of Zen 5 during the Computex launch, despite having very little to show for it. We had hoped for more, given the IPC claims. But when it came to gaming, very little was revealed, and now we know why.

This past week has been very frustrating for us, trying to determine if what we were seeing from the 9700X was accurate. Did we have a defective chip, or was there something wrong with our test system? AMD gave no guidance on how the 9700X should compare relative to the 7700X, and despite asking them directly several times, we only received vague answers. As best as we can tell after speaking with AMD, our results relative to the 7700X are accurate, maybe 1-2% down on what AMD was seeing, but thereabouts.

As we noted earlier, we're sure you'll come across reviews with larger margins favoring the 9700X over the 7700X compared to what we've shown you, but again, that will largely come down to the games used for testing and how the games are tested, such as test location and quality settings used. But based on what AMD tells us, you shouldn't see significantly larger margins. The 9700X just isn't that much faster than the 7700X, at least not across a good sample of games.

We're a bit miffed by the 9700X's overall performance. It seems rather pointless, and we can't imagine those X3D chips expected later in the year are going to be much different given what we've seen here. It was also shocking to find the 9700X slower than the 7700X in some games, and it's this inconsistent performance that makes the 9700X particularly bad in our opinion. It's underwhelming at best.

If you were holding off for your new build, this part changes nothing. You'd be better off buying the 7700X or 7800X3D, as both parts offer far better value, and in the case of the 7800X3D, it's significantly faster while costing just $20 more. Let us know what you think.

Shopping Shortcuts:

• AMD Ryzen 7 9700X on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 7 7700 on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 5 9600X on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 5 7600X on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D on Amazon