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

Extra tests, Processors | | Ľubomír Samák

Conclusion

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.

Conclusion

This is not a processor that is supposed to address the “underperformance” of the R7 7700X, that of the R7 9700X is comparable. But that’s with significantly lower consumption. That is, until you apply the increased TDP mode (to 105 W). At default settings, the Ryzen 7 9700X is about 40W less power-hungry than the Ryzen 7 7700X.

At the same computing performance or a hair higher/lower (than the R7 7700X), the Ryzen 7 9700X thus has 40–50% higher power efficiency. That is, if we are talking about a very high load. In games, the benefit of higher efficiency doesn’t really come through, as the power consumption is quite low under such a load, and considerably so with the Ryzen 7 7700X (as opposed to under high load). The lower power consumption is then related to lower temperatures – under 65 °C with a cooler like the Noctua NH-U14S is a very good result. Thus, even a cheaper cooler will suffice and still achieve high single-core boost, which depends on the temperature of the CPU core.

It seems that the (unofficial) single-core boost cap is otherwise the same as for the Ryzen 7 7700 – that is, 5515 MHz (also for the Ryzen 7 9700X). The difference, then, is that the R7 9700X reports lower temperatures, although the power consumption is higher. This can also be largely due to a different test motherboard or different microcode.

We also saw a difference in power consumption when idle, although slightly smaller (than in a single-threaded load). An increase in speed of single-threaded applications at the level of 10–25% between generations. Where is this useful? In addition to encoding audio recordings (not all of you do that…), for example in a web environment or for simpler office work. In these tasks, the Ryzen 7 9700X is more agile than its predecessor.

Gaming performance is stagnant or, when the newer Ryzen 7 is throttled by power consumption, even lower. But don’t worry too much, the differences will never be big and especially in higher resolutions they will be quite small. And if you insist, there’s that 105-watt mode (covered, by the way, by warranty). But don’t count on it to increase the gaming performance too much, it will loosen the reigns mainly in heavy multi-threaded loads, where it will usually be at the expense of lower efficiency. To maintain high efficiency for such tasks, it makes more sense to reach for a Ryzen 9 (9950X/9900X) or a Core i7 from Raptor Lake Refresh (14700K) or Raptor Lake (13700K), if multi-threaded performance is what matters to you. Actually, what’s enough to match the Ryzen 7 9700X in this direction is the Core i5-14600K/13600K, which, multi-threaded-wise, is also a slightly faster processor and cheaper at the same time. The presence of a larger number of cores (albeit only the small, E-cores) is noticeable, but the higher speed here comes at the expense of lower efficiency.

The Ryzen 7 9700X is a processor more suited to “mainstream”, general-purpose builds, though yes, for mostly gaming purposes it’s cannibalized by the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Primarily for games, the latter is both faster and more efficient at a comparable price and its only drawback is higher cooling requirements, as the 3D V-cache impairs heat transfer to a cooler. The R7 9700X does not “suffer” from this.

The new Ryzen 7 (9700X) may also be a good choice for Ryzen 7 5700X owners who are still happy with their processor, but would like to upgrade the platform as a whole (with an eye towards later upgrades or longer-term DDR5 memory relevance). The speed increase in this way over two generations is already, in all usage scenarios, quite significant.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

We would like to thank the 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)


  •  
  •  
  •  
Back to: AMD Ryzen 7 9700X in detail
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 *