AMD Ryzen 7 9700X: One chiplet (Zen 5) to the max

Extra tests, Processors | | Ľubomír Samák

AMD Ryzen 7 9700X in detail

Not only maximum speed, but also maximum efficiency among AMD’s single-chiplet CPUs. That’s the essential characteristic of the Ryzen 7 9700X. While the speed difference from the last generation (and the Ryzen 7 7700X processor) is negligible, zero, or even negative in places, it comes with significantly lower power consumption. And for those who don’t appreciate it, BIOSes with higher TDP are available less than a month from release.

AMD Ryzen 7 9700X in detail

Eight cores within a single silicon chip (CCD). Thus, the complete package, everything is enabled. Compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X, there are two extra cores (four threads – SMT) of Zen 5 and the specifications state a 100 MHz lower base clock speed (3.8 GHz), which is natural given the more extensive hardware equipment.

With more cores (compared to the R5 9600X), there must be a lower clock speed per core if the processor is to have the same power consumption. Here again, the specs state a TDP of 65 W (i.e. PPT at 88 W). This is actually the same as the Ryzen 7 5700X for the AM4 platform. You’ll recall how this generation launched a rather large wave of resentment towards the also 8-core Ryzen 7 5800X (with a TDP of 105 W) for its high temperature and the need for more powerful coolers. That won’t be the case with the R7 9700X, at least not in a “base” situation.

TDP: 65 or 105 W?

It’s possible that AMD wasn’t quite sure from the start what official specs the Ryzen 7 9700X (and also the Ryzen 5 9600X) would feature. In the end, the choice fell on a TDP of 65W, with 105W being only optional, which results in a more significant power consumption capping compared to the Ryzen 7 7700X. For this reason, a significant increase in speed cannot be expected, but significantly higher efficiency is already there.

However, this approach may not suit everyone and therefore, after some time, the option of a higher TDP (to 105 W) is being added. This will accommodate everyone. Users craving high efficiency and low cooler noise (or interested in a cheaper cooler) as well as those for whom the highest possible performance is important. However, this comes at the cost of a rather significant increase in power consumption up to somewhere towards 142 W. However, the higher TDP (105 W) remains as an option at least for now, and implicitly the Ryzen 7 9700X is still an “88-watt” processor.

Anyway, the latest BIOSes (by the way, still with AGESA 1.2.0.0.0a Patch A microcode) are only available on selected motherboards for now. In addition to MSI, there are also some from Asus and Gigabyte. However, this is not a matter of course, and even in the AMD parameters, the TDP is listed as 65 W. And we will respect that in our tests.

The single-core boost is officially 100 MHz higher between generations. That’s regardless of 65 or 105 W TDP, because in a single-threaded load it won’t hit the power limit in either case. What will be stricter is the temperature limit, on which the height of the achieved SC boost clock speed can (and will) already depend. Cooling the “maximum potential” is easier than with the Ryzen 7 7700X, though. We wrote about the improved cooling or at least lower reported temperatures at comparable power consumption already last time. This applies to Ryzen 9000 in general.

Please note: The article continues in the following chapters.

* We have no certainty on this parameter. AMD does not specify the maximum resolution and maximum refresh rate in publicly available materials. However, it is possible that it will be the same as for Ryzen 7000, i.e. 3840 × 2160 px (60 Hz).


  •  
  •  
  •  
Continue:
Flattr this!

Related articles

Comments (9) Add comment

  1. Article hint: AMD ryzen cpus have taken power also from atx24pin for some non-core rails. iirc memory controller. This is basicly ignored by all reviewers, by hwinfo, by amd ryzen master, by cpu’s own power tracking. I do not know if this is still a case in am5 socket. This has made amd look much more efficient than it has been. Could you do investigating test?

    Reply

    1. We had measurements of the ATX connector in the in-depth tests of motherboards, but we eventually removed it from them. From my point of view, it didn’t provide all that useful information that would have been helpful for the evaluation. What materials say that the processors are partially powered from the 24-pin connector? Personally, it doesn’t make much sense to me (for something in modern CPUs to be powered by such weak wires), even from the EMC point of view. Rather, I’m worried that it could lead to possibly unnecessary instability. But that’s just a feeling, a layman’s view.

      Then there is the other thing, namely that there are other devices on each rail of the ATX connector. For example, PCIe slots (and typically a graphics card) on 12 V, DDR5 memory on 5 V, and 3.3 V should be used to power M.2 SSDs? Well, it probably doesn’t have to be on all motherboards (some may use VRM to change higher voltage from another rail?), but even if we have information about the current drawn through the 24-pin ATX connector, it will be quite difficult to separate which part of it belongs to which device/component within the motherboard. Or? How would you design a methodology for such a test?

      Reply

    1. Thanks for the very nice diagram. When there’s space, we’ll try to study it. In any case, I’m worried about how this would be handled, since the power supply from the 24-pin wires is shared for multiple devices on each rail… I can’t think of a way to separate the devices. Then, with the help of a tool, you can also measure the current directly on the pins of the socket, but this can probably distort the characteristics of the processor as such to a certain extent.

      Reply

      1. Many reviewers publish “power-at-wall” figures instead of cpu power. In some sense, it is a more relevant measure. What I can remember, Ryzens tend to be more efficient than intels when measured at the outlet too.

        Maybe take a closer look one day and compare the power efficiency according to the different measures? Do those mostly agree or not?

        Reply

        1. Intel is more efficient at idle and low load use **if** a system (firmware/bios) has powersavings configured correctly. AMD is more efficient at full load use – and by a lot.

          Reply

          1. ” **if** a system (firmware/bios) has powersavings configured correctly. AMD is more efficient at full load use”

            you can apply the same logic here too: if you powerlimit an intel down to the level of amd it will also be more efficient, for example the apparently most efficient 7800X3D got 17492 points in CB R23 at 83.78W@EPS. My 14700K when limited to 40W got 19266 points, so even if the VRMs wasted 50% it would be still more efficient at that level

            Reply

        2. Yes, we’ll definitely be looking at the relationship of isolated measurements (only CPU and motherboard VRMs on EPS cables) and system power consumption at some point. It’s a very complex issue. Most reviewers probably measure system power consumption mainly because it’s technically easier to use, but it doesn’t take into account, for example, that different equipped boards have different power consumption of components not related to the CPU per se. When judging the measured values based on system power consumption, it is also important to note that with different CPUs the power consumption of the same graphics card may be different, which is also one of the factors that distort the results. Personally, I find it useful to eliminate these factors. However, it may be interesting to investigate the dependency of system power consumption and isolated power consumption (purely CPU), if in both cases a larger number of model situations with different motherboards and different graphics cards are created.

          — „What I can remember, Ryzens tend to be more efficient than intels when measured at the outlet too.“

          They are arguably more effective in our tests as well, aren’t they? 🙂

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *