AMD Ryzen 5 9600X: Slightly improved hexa-core once again

AMD Ryzen 5 9600X in detail

In the first wave of new AMD processors with Zen 5 architecture, we took a closer look at a Ryzen 5. The results show many improvements (in speed, in efficiency, in cooling, …) led by unprecedented single-threaded performance. But in terms of the multi-threaded one, it’s still well behind the rival Intel Core i5-14600K CPU, albeit with much better power consumption. Gaming performance? Sometimes strange.

Conclusion

AMD managed the CPU modernization in the Ryzen 5 class well. The compute performance for 3D rendering is +11–13% for the new R5 9600X compared to the R5 7600X. This is achieved with approximately 10% lower power consumption. Thus, the efficiency in such tasks is some 25% higher. When transcoding X264 video in Hanbrake it is then about 22%. The difference in power consumption here is still a bit bigger (about 15%), but at a smaller speed increase, about 4%. With AVX-512 instructions, which the Ryzen 5 9600X processor supports, it’s more (also compared to the R5 7600X), but we will deal with this later, in a separate article, because those tests are not part of the standard methodology (and so we do not have them in the charts).

But of the applications we have in the comparison that also support AVX-512 instructions, Y-cruncher is an example. And in its single-threaded workload, the R5 9600X is over 40% faster compared to the R5 7600X. While AVX-512 is also supported by older Zen 4 (Ryzen 7000) processors, the Zen 5 (Ryzen 9000) implementation of these instructions is significantly more efficient, as we also discuss in detail in the architectural analysis (of Zen 5). However, such high increases in compute performance will be very rare, it will depend on the application, and yes, Y-cruncher is just a synthetic test outside of the real world. Still, it’s a good indicator of what can be wrung out of the Ryzen 9000 processors. Of the more practical applications, the AVX-512/VNNI instructions are also used by Topaz AI applications, where not only does the Ryzen 5 9600X significantly (by 23%) outperform the Ryzen 5 7600X, but more importantly, it’s nearly twice as fast as the Intel Core i5-14600K processor here. But that one (the competing Intel processor) gathers advantages elsewhere.

In many multi-threaded tests, the Core i5-14600K has a significant edge in compute performance due to the mobilization of up to 14 cores, and it’s not uncommon for it to be more than 40% faster (than the R5 9600X). Of course, at the cost of significantly higher power consumption, which also results in around 20% poorer power efficiency. The Ryzen 5 9600X is more efficient compared to the Core i5 Raptor Lake Resfresh even at comparable power consumption. And compared to the Ci5-14400(F), it’s usually a bit faster.

But there’s already a question mark hanging over when it comes to the gaming performance of the Ryzen 5 9600X. On average, it comes out even lower than the Ryzen 5 7600X. This may be due to several factors. The first is, of course, the composition of the testing games. If the average was based on ten titles with similar results to Borderlands 3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (where the R5 9600X does quite well), the ranking in the charts would look a bit different than if it was ten times “Counter Strike: GO”, where this processor sinks suspiciously deep. Of course, this may be due to the yet unfinished optimizations of the game(s) for the new architecture, and the higher memory latency (its settings are the same as in Zen 4, including the Uncore throughput) or the slightly lower CPU core clock speeds in gaming workloads will also have an impact. The power consumption is also unusually high under gaming load. Not that it’s generally high, but it’s above the power consumption of the R5 7600X, which is usually (in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads) the other way around, and the Ryzen 5 9600X is the lower-power processor of the pair.

Conversely, what’s top-notch is the single-threaded performance. It is often the highest we have ever measured, above the Core i9-14900K. And that’s with still low power consumption, which hasn’t increased much over the R5 7600X, and very high efficiency. Working in a web interface or office environment and single-threaded applications are extremely snappy even on such a mid-range processor. Then what about the situation on the Ryzen 9 9950X? With the Ryzen 7000 processors, the potential for single-threaded performance was also extremely high, but in practice it was hampered by cooling possibilities. Higher-end models didn’t reach their clock speed maxima because they couldn’t be cooled down to low enough temperatures with conventional coolers. But now it’s significantly better. Apparently, mainly due to the reasons we discussed in the introductory chapter, there are substantially lower temperatures, or at least within the monitoring there are. While the Ryzen 5 7600X was attacking 90°C under a very high multi-threaded load with the same cooler, the Ryzen 5 9600X’s reported temperatures topped out at 70°C. While the new Ryzen 5 is lower-power, it’s only by 10% (about 107W vs. 119W in Cinebench R23).

The Ryzen 5 9600X’s idle power consumption is around 14 W, similar to its predecessor. The I/O chiplet, making up a significant portion of the power consumption, hasn’t changed, so it’s basically nothing surprising. The power consumption of the Core i5-14600K is also comparable here (idle).

In conclusion, the Ryzen 5 9600X processor brings a lot of improvements, but “gaming” ones are not among them. That is, at least the passage through our test methodology rather refers to degradations in this regard. It’s nothing terrible, within a gaming PC this processor will perform well, but we would be cautious with any upgrades. We’ll be looking at things around gaming performance in more detail in our tests of other models. So we’ll see. Outside of gaming, however, there has been an increase in attractiveness between generations (with the R5 9600X) in just about everything you can think of.

It is also worth mentioning the reduction of the suggested retail price by approximately 20 EUR. We will see how this will be reflected in stores and how much the processors will cost after they are included in the offer. Although, of course, the Ryzen 5 9600X will be more expensive than the discontinued Ryzen 5 7600X. The latter has already gone through some phases of cheapening since its release, the new Ryzen 5 (9600X) is yet to do so. But thus it will start from about a 7% lower base (around 280 EUR).

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

We would like to thank Datacomp e-shop for their cooperation in providing the tested hardware

Special thanks also to Blackmagic Design (for DaVinci Resolve Studio license), Topaz Labs (for licenses to DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for Photo Studio X license)

• Contents
• AMD Ryzen 5 9600X in detail
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Borderlands 3
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Overall gaming performance
• Gaming performance per euro
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
• Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
• Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI Apps, ZPS X, ...
• (De)compression
• (De)encryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• Processor power draw curve
• Average processor power draw
• Performance per watt
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperature
• Conclusion