Ryzen 5 7600: Raphael in AMD’s most popular series scores again

AMD Ryzen 5 7600 in detail

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

AMD Ryzen 5 7600 in detail

AMD’s Ryzen 5 7600 came just under three months after the R5 7600X. Compared to the last generation (Vermeer), this is a big contrast. During those days, it already seemed at times that the successor to the hugely popular Ryzen 5 3600 – the R5 5600 – wasn’t even coming after all. It finally came out at the end of the AM4 platform lifecycle, almost a year and a half after the Ryzen 5 5600X with a weaker price/performance ratio.

Now, AMD’s release schedule for individual processor models is closer to Ryzen 3000 (Matisse), with all models coming out in close succession. In addition to the Ryzen 5 7600, the Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 9 7900 models are also bound for a January date. All share a TDP of 65 W and PPT of 88 W, which marks a significantly lower power limit compared to the X models. The lower power draw and along with it lower temperature are probably what “forced” AMD to hurry up a bit with these processors. You know, temperatures of 95 °C with a powerful cooler are viewed with skepticism by many, even though they don’t degrade performance and AMD claims they’re fine for these processors. The temperatures of the latest Ryzen 7000 models (R5 7600, R7 7700 and R9 7900) are naturally significantly lower due to the PPT limit of 88W, especially in the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 class.

The tested Ryzen 5 7600, like the Ryzen 5 7600X, has six Zen 4 cores (with SMT support) that are all implemented in a single chipset. The difference is in the clock speeds achieved. The base clock speed is 900 MHz lower, but that doesn’t mean that the R5 7600 will be that much slower in practice.

Even at around 65 W, operating clock speeds are significantly higher, up to around 5 GHz in games. Sure, even at that, the R5 7600 is some 450 MHz slower compared to the R 7600X, which naturally comes with lower gaming performance. In terms of computing power and “hard” multithreaded workloads that squeeze the most out of the processor, clock speeds can also stick to 5 GHz as long as you don’t restrict the processor with a power limit. At that point, the R5 7600 is only 250 MHz behind the R5 7600X, but hand-in-hand with that, the difference in power draw shrinks.

However, Ryzen 5 7600 always achieves a better price/performance ratio as it is 20–25 % cheaper. But that’s the case with Intel’s Core i5-13400F as well, against which the R5 7600 has an iGPU to boot, but that won’t be of interest to most users who have their own graphics card. Anyway, you’ll have to wait a while for a comparison with the Ci5-13400F, for now we have measured only the older Alder Lake (Ci5-12400) without the E cores which Raptor Lake has to spare and makes AMD processors worry about them again.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Gaming tests

We test performance in games in four resolutions with different graphics settings. To warm up, there is more or less a theoretical resolution of 1280 × 720 px. We had been tweaking graphics settings for this resolution for a long time. We finally decided to go for the lowest possible (Low, Lowest, Ultra Low, …) settings that a game allows.

One could argue that a processor does not calculate how many objects are drawn in such settings (so-called draw calls). However, with high detail at this very low resolution, there was not much difference in performance compared to FHD (which we also test). On the contrary, the GPU load was clearly higher, and this impractical setting should demonstrate the performance of a processor with the lowest possible participation of a graphics card.

At higher resolutions, high settings (for FHD and QHD) and highest (for UHD) are used. In Full HD it’s usually with Anti-Aliasing turned off, but overall, these are relatively practical settings that are commonly used.

The selection of games was made considering the diversity of genres, player popularity and processor performance requirements. For a complete list, see Chapters 7–16. A built-in benchmark is used when a game has one, otherwise we have created our own scenes, which we always repeat with each processor in the same way. We use OCAT to record fps, or the times of individual frames, from which fps are then calculated, and FLAT to analyze CSV. Both were developed by the author of articles (and videos) from GPUreport.cz. For the highest possible accuracy, all runs are repeated three times and the average values of average and minimum fps are drawn in the graphs. These multiple repetitions also apply to non-gaming tests.

Computing tests

Let’s start lightly with PCMark 10, which tests more than sixty sub-tasks in various applications as part of a complete set of “benchmarks for a modern office”. It then sorts them into fewer thematic categories and for the best possible overview we include the gained points from them in the graphs. Lighter test tasks are also represented by tests in a web browser – Speedometer and Octane. Other tests usually represent higher load or are aimed at advanced users.

We test the 3D rendering performance in Cinebench. In R20, where the results are more widespread, but mainly in R23. Rendering in this version takes longer with each processor, cycles of at least ten minutes. We also test 3D rendering in Blender, with the Cycles render in the BMW and Classroom projects. You can also compare the latter with the test results of graphics cards (contains the same number of tiles).

We test how processors perform in video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve Studio 17. We use a PugetBench plugin, which deals with all the tasks you may encounter when editing videos. We also use PugetBench services in Adobe After Effects, where the performance of creating graphic effects is tested. Some subtasks use GPU acceleration, but we never turn it off, as no one will do it in practice. Some things don’t even work without GPU acceleration, but on the contrary, it’s interesting to see that the performance in the tasks accelerated by the graphics card also varies as some operations are still serviced by the CPU.

We test video encoding under SVT-AV1, in HandBrake and benchmarks (x264 HD and HWBot x265). x264 HD benchmark works in 32-bit mode (we did not manage to run 64-bit consistently on W10 and in general on newer OS’s it may be unstable and show errors in video). In HandBrake we use the x264 processor encoder for AVC and x265 for HEVC. Detailed settings of individual profiles can be found in the corresponding chapter 25. In addition to video, we also encode audio, where all the details are also stated in the chapter of these tests. Gamers who record their gameplay on video can also have to do with the performance of processor encoders. Therefore, we also test the performance of “processor broadcasting” in two popular applications OBS Studio and Xsplit.

We also have two chapters dedicated to photo editing performance. Adobe has a separate one, where we test Photoshop via PugetBench. However, we do not use PugetBench in Lightroom, because it requires various OS modifications for stable operation, and overall we rather avoided it (due to the higher risk of complications) and create our own test scenes. Both are CPU intensive, whether it’s exporting RAW files to 16-bit TIFF with ProPhotoRGB color space or generating 1:1 thumbnails of 42 lossless CR2 photos.
However, we also have several alternative photo editing applications in which we test CPU performance. These include Affinity Photo, in which we use a built-in benchmark, or XnViewMP for batch photo editing or ZPS X. Of the truly modern ones, there are three Topaz Labz applications that use AI algorithms. DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. Topaz Labs often and happily compares its results with Adobe applications (Photoshop and Lightroom) and boasts of better results. So we’ll see, maybe we’ll get into it from the image point of view sometime. In processor tests, however, we are primarily focused on performance.

We test compression and decompression performance in WinRAR, 7-Zip and Aida64 (Zlib) benchmarks, decryption in TrueCrypt and Aida64, where in addition to AES there are also SHA3 tests. In Aida64, we also test FPU in the chapter of mathematical calculations. From this category you may also be interested in the results of Stockfish 13 and the number of chess combinations achieved per unit time. We perform many tests that can be included in the category of mathematics in SPECworkstation 3.1. It is a set of professional applications extending to various simulations, such as LAMMPS or NAMD, which are molecular simulators. A detailed description of the tests from SPECworkstation 3.1 can be found at spec.org. We do not test 7-zip, Blender and HandBrake from the list for redundancy, because we test performance in them separately in applications. A detailed listing of SPECWS results usually represents times or fps, but we graph “SPEC ratio”, which represents gained points—higher means better.

Processor settings…

We test processors in the default settings, without active PBO2 (AMD) or ABT (Intel) technologies, but naturally with active XMP 2.0.

… and app updates

The tests should also take into account that, over time, individual updates may affect performance comparisons. Some applications are used in portable versions, which are not updated or can be kept on a stable version, but this is not the case for some others. Typically, games update over time. On the other hand, even intentional obsolescence (and testing something out of date that already behaves differently) would not be entirely the way to go.
In short, just take into account that the accuracy of the results you are comparing decreases a bit over time. To make this analysis easier for you, we indicate when each processor was tested. You can find this in the dialog box, where there is information about the test date of each processor. This dialog box appears in interactive graphs, just hover the mouse cursor over any bar.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Methodology: how we measure power draw

Measuring CPU power consumption is relatively simple, much easier than with graphics cards. All power goes through one or two EPS cables. We also use two to increase the cross-section, which is suitable for high performance AMD processors up to sTR(X)4 or for Intel HEDT, and in fact almost for mainstream processors as well. We have Prova 15 current probes to measure current directly on the wires. This is a much more accurate and reliable way of measuring than relying on internal sensors.

The only limitation of our current probes may be when testing the most powerful processors. These already exceed the maximum range of 30 A, at which high accuracy is guaranteed. For most processors, the range is optimal (even for measuring a lower load, when the probes can be switched to a lower and more accurate range of 4 A), but we will test models with power consumption over 360 W on our own device, a prototype of which we have already built. Its measuring range will no longer be limiting, but for the time being we will be using the Prova probes in the near future.

The probes are properly set to zero and connected to a UNI-T UT71E multimeter before each measurement. It records samples of current values during the tests via the IR-USB interface and writes them in a table at one-second intervals. We can then create bar graphs with power consumption patterns. But we always write average values in bar graphs. Measurements take place in various load modes. The lowest represents an idle Windows 10 desktop. This measurement takes place on a system that had been idle for quite some time.

   

Audio encoding (FLAC) represents a higher load, but processors use only one core or one thread for this. Higher loads, where more cores are involved, are games. We test power consumption in F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy in 1920 × 1080 px. In this resolution, the power consumption is usually the highest or at least similar to that in lower or higher resolutions, where in most cases the CPU power draw rather decreases due to its lower utilization.

Like most motherboard manufacturers, we too ignore the time limit for “Tau”, after which the power consumption is to be reduced from the PL2 boost limit (when it exceeds the TDP) to the TDP/PL1 value, recommended by Intel, in our tests. This means that neither the power draw nor the clock speed after 56 seconds of higher load does not decrease and the performance is kept stable with just small fluctuations. We had been considering whether or not to respect the Tau. In the end, we decided not to because the vast majority of users won’t either, and therefore the results and comparisons would be relatively uninteresting. The solution would be to test with and without a power limit, but this is no longer possible due to time requirements. We will pay more attention to the behavior of PL2 in motherboard tests, where it makes more sense.

We always use motherboards with extremely robust, efficient VRM, so that the losses on MOSFETs distort the measured results as little as possible and the test setups are powered by a high-end 1200 W BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 power supply. It is strong enough to supply every processor, even with a fully loaded GeForce RTX 3080, and at the same time achieves above-standard efficiency even at lower load. For a complete overview of test setup components, see Chapter 5 of this article.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests

When choosing a cooler, we eventually opted for Noctua NH-U14S. It has a high performance and at the same time there is also the TR4-SP3 variant designed for Threadripper processors. It differs only by the base, the radiator is otherwise the same, so it will be possible to test and compare all processors under the same conditions. The fan on the NH-U14S cooler is set to a maximum speed of 1,535 rpm during all tests.

Measurements always take place on a bench-wall in a wind tunnel which simulates a computer case, with the difference that we have more control over it.
System cooling consists of four Noctua NF-S12A PWM fans, which are in an equilibrium ratio of two at the inlet and two at the outlet. Their speed is set at a fixed 535 rpm, which is a relatively practical speed that is not needed to be exceeded. In short, this should be the optimal configuration based on our tests of various system cooling settings.

It is also important to maintain the same air temperature around the processors. Of course, this also changes with regard to how much heat a particular processor produces, but at the inlet of the tunnel it must always be the same for accurate comparisons. In our air-conditioned test lab, it is currently in the range of 21–21.3 °C.

Maintaining a constant inlet temperature is necessary not only for a proper comparison of processor temperatures, but especially for unbiased performance comparisons. Trend of clock speed and especially single-core boost depends on the temperature. In the summer at higher temperatures, processors may be slower in living spaces than in the winter.

For Intel processors, we register the maximum core temperature for each test, usually of all cores. These maximum values are then averaged and the result is represented by the final value in the graph. From the outputs of single-threaded load, we only pick the registered values from active cores (these are usually two and alternate during the test). It’s a little different with AMD processors. They don’t have temperature sensors for every core. In order for the procedure to be as methodically as possible similar to that applied on Intel processors, the average temperature of all cores is defined by the highest value reported by the CPU Tdie sensor (average). For single-threaded load, however, we already use a CPU sensor (Tctl/Tdie), which usually reports a slightly higher value, which better corresponds to the hotspots of one or two cores. But these values as well as the values from all internal sensors must be taken with a grain of salt, the accuracy of the sensors varies across processors.

Clock speed evaluation is more accurate, each core has its own sensor even on AMD processors. Unlike temperatures, we plot average clock speed values during tests in graphs. We monitor the temperature and clock speed of the processor cores in the same tests, in which we also measure the power consumption. And thus, gradually from the lowest load level on the desktop of idle Windows 10, through audio encoding (single-threaded load), gaming load in three games (F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy), to a 10-minute load in Cinebench R23 and the most demanding video encoding with the x264 encoder in HandBrake.

To record the temperatures and clock speed of the processor cores, we use HWiNFO, in which sampling is set to two seconds. With the exception of audio encoding, the graphs always show the averages of all processor cores in terms of temperatures and clock speed. During audio encoding, the values from the loaded core are given.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Test setup

* We use the following BIOSes on motherboards. For MSI MEG X670E Ace v1.10NPRP, for MEG X570 Ace v1E, for MEG Z690 Unify v10, for MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 v11, for MEG Z590 Ace v1.14 and for MEG Z490 Ace v17.

Note: The graphics drivers we use are Nvidia GeForce 466.77 and the Windows 10 OS build is 19045 at the time of testing.

Intel processors are tested on MSI MEG Z690 Unify, MAG Z490 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4, Z590 Ace and Z490 Ace motherboards. Kingston Fury Beast DDR5 memory (2×16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40) is used with the MSI MEG Z690 Unify.

On platforms supporting DDR5 memory, we use two different sets of modules. For more powerful processors with “X” (AMD) or “K” (Intel) in the name, the faster G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (2×16 GB, 6000 MHz/CL30) memory. In the case of cheaper processors (without X or K at the end of the name), the slower Kingston Fury Beast (2×16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40) modules. But this is more or less just symbolism, the bandwidth is very high for both kits, it is not a bottleneck, and the difference in processor performance is very small, practically negligible, across the differently fast memory kits.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

3DMark

We use 3DMark Professional for the tests and the following tests: Night Raid (DirectX 12), Fire Strike (DirectX 11) and Time Spy (DirectX 12). In the graphs you will find partial CPU scores, combined scores, but also graphics scores. You can find out to what extent the given processor limits the graphics card.

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: low; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Borderlands 3

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Very Low; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: None; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Counter-Strike: GO

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; lowest graphics settings and w/o Anti-Aliasing, API DirectX 9; test platform script with Dust 2 map tour.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; high graphics settings and w/o Anti-Aliasing, API DirectX 9; test platform script with Dust 2 map tour.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; high graphics settings; 4× MSAA, API DirectX 9; test platform script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; very high graphics settings; 4× MSAA, API DirectX 9; test platform script with Dust 2 map tour.

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Cyberpunk 2077

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

DOOM Eternal

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API Vulkan; extra settings Present From Compute: off, Motion Blur: Low, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API Vulkan; extra settings Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API Vulkan; extra settings Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra Nightmare; API Vulkan; extra settings Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

F1 2020

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Ultra Low; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off, Anisotropic Filtering: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Metro Exodus

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 12; no extra settings test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Extreme; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Disclaimer: The performance of this game changes and improves frequently due to continuous updates. We verify the consistency of the results by re-testing the Ryzen 7 5900X processor before each measurement. In case of significant deviations, we discard the older results and start building the database from scratch. Due to the incompleteness of the MFS results, we do not use MFS to calculate the average gaming performance of the processors.

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

   

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Lowest; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

   

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Highest; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Overall gaming performance

To calculate average gaming performance, we normalized the Intel Core i7-11900K processor. The percentage differences of all other processors are based on this, with each of the games contributing an equal weight to the final result. To see exactly what the formula we use to arrive at each value looks like, see „New average CPU score measuring method“.

---

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Gaming performance per euro

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

PCMark

Geekbench

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Speedometer (2.0) and Octane (2.0)

Test environment: We’re using a portable version of Google Chrome (91.0.472.101) 64-bit so that real-time results are not affected by browser updates. GPU hardware acceleration is enabled as each user has in the default settings.

---

Note: The values in the graphs represent the average of the points obtained in the subtasks, which are grouped according to their nature into seven categories (Core language features, Memory and GC, Strings and arrays, Virtual machine and GC, Loading and Parsing, Bit and Math operations and Compiler and GC latency).

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R23

---

Blender@Cycles

Test environment: We use well-known projects BMW (510 tiles) and Classroom (2040 tiles) and renderer Cycles. Render settings are set to None, with which all the work falls on the CPU.

---

LuxRender (SPECworkstation 3.1)

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Premiere Pro is 15.2.

---

---

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

DaVinci Resolve Studio (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests, test type: standard. App version of DaVinci Resolve Studio is 17.2.1 (build 12).

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe After Effects is 18.2.1.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

HandBrake

   

Test environment: For video conversion we’re using a 4K video LG Demo Snowboard with a 43,9 Mb/s bitrate. AVC (x264) and HEVC (x265) profiles are set for high quality and encoder profiles are “slow”. HandBrake version is 1.3.3 (2020061300).

x264 and x265 benchmarks

---

SVT-AV1

Test environment: We are encoding a short, publicly available sample park_joy_2160p50.y4m: uncompressed video 4096 × 2160 px, 8bit, 50 fps. Length is 500 frames with encoding quality set to 6 which makes the encoding still relatively slow. This test can make use of the AVX2 i AVX-512 instructions.

Version: SVT-AV1 Encoder Lib v0.8.7-61-g685afb2d via FFMpeg N-104429-g069f7831a2-20211026 (64bit)
Build from: https://github.com/BtbN/FFmpeg-Builds/releases
Command line: ffmpeg.exe -i “park_joy_2160p50.y4m” -c:v libsvtav1 -rc 0 -qp 55 -preset 6 -f null output.webm

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Audio encoding

Test environment: Audio encoding is done using command line encoders, we measure the time it takes for the conversion to finish. The same 42-minute long 16-bit WAV file (stereo) with 44.1 kHz is always used (Love Over Gold by Dire Straits album rip in a single audio file).

Encoder settings are selected to achieve maximum or near maximum compression. The bitrate is relatively high, with the exception of lossless FLAC of about 200 kb/s.

Note: These tests measure single-thread performance.

FLAC: reference encoder 1.3.2, 64-bit build. Launch options: flac.exe -s -8 -m -e -p -f

MP3: encoder lame3.100.1, 64-bit build (Intel 19 Compiler) from RareWares. Launch options: lame.exe -S -V 0 -q 0

AAC: uses Apple QuickTime libraries, invoked through the application from the command line, QAAC 2.72, 64-bit build, Intel 19 Compiler (does not require installation of the whole Apple package). Launch options: qaac64.exe -V 100 -s -q 2

Opus: reference encoder 1.3.1, Launch options: opusenc.exe –comp 10 –quiet –vbr –bitrate 192

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Broadcasting

Test environment: Applications OBS Studio and Xsplit. We’re using the built-in benchmark (scene Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle) in F1 2020, in a resolution of 2560 × 1440 px and the same graphics settings, as with standard game performance tests. Thanks to this, we can measure the performance decrease if you record your gameplay with the x264 software encoder while playing. The output is 2560 × 1440 px at 60 fps.

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Photoshop is 22.4.2.

---

---

---

Adobe Lightroom Classic

Test environment: With the settings above, we export 42 uncompressed .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos with a size of 20 Mpx. Then we create 1:1 previews from them, which also represent one of the most processor intensive tasks in Lightroom. The version of Adobe Lightroom Classic is 10.3

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Affinity Photo (benchmark)

Test environment: built-in benchmark.

---

Topaz Labs AI apps

Topaz DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. These single-purpose applications are used for restoration of low-quality photos. Whether it is high noise (caused by higher ISO), raster level (typically after cropping) or when something needs extra focus. The AI performance is always used.

Test environment: As part of batch editing, 42 photos with a lower resolution of 1920 × 1280 px are processed, with the settings from the images above. DeNoise AI is in version 3.1.2, Gigapixel in 5.5.2 and Sharpen AI in 3.1.2.

XnViewMP

Test environment: XnViewMP is finally a photo-editor for which you don’t have to pay. At the same time, it uses hardware very efficiently. In order to achieve more reasonable comparison times, we had to create an archive of up to 1024 photos, where we reduce the original resolution of 5472 × 3648 px to 1980 × 1280 px and filters with automatic contrast enhancement and noise reduction are also being applied during this process. We use 64-bit portable version 0.98.4.

Zoner Photo Studio X

Test environment: In Zoner Photo Studio X we convert 42 .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos to JPEG while keeping the original resolution (5472 × 3648 px) at the lowest possible compression, with the ZPS X profile ”high quality for archival”.<

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Y-cruncher

---

Stockfish 13

Test environment: Host for the Stockfish 13 engine is a chess app Arena 2.0.1, build 2399.

Aida64, FPU tests

---

FSI (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Kirchhoff migration (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Python36 (SPECworkstation 3.1)

SRMP (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Octave (SPECworkstation 3.1)

FFTW (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Convolution (SPECworkstation 3.1)

CalculiX (SPECworkstation 3.1)

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Memory tests…

… and cache (L1, L2, L3)

---

---

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Processor power draw curve

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Average processor power draw

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Performance per watt

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Achieved CPU clock speed

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

CPU temperature

This time, it wasn’t as long a wait as for the Ryzen 5 5600. On the contrary, the Ryzen 5 7600 came out very shortly after the faster model with the “X” in the name. AMD apparently hurried with this lower-power model also because of dissatisfied reactions that 7600X criticize the worse cooling. With the significantly more efficient R5 7600, the situation with silicon is brighter. Plus it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose all that much in performance.

Conclusion

We’ll start our evaluation with the chapter that tends to be the most popular in processor tests – overall gaming performance. The latter is only just below the Core i5-13600K on the Ryzen 5 7600. More attractive, of course, will be the forthcoming comparison with the Ci5-13400(F). The lead of the R5 7600 over the Ci5-12400(F) is quite significant. This is especially so for the more conservative clock speeds (Ci5-12400). The more aggressively clocked Ryzen 5 7600X naturally performs better, albeit at the cost of higher power draw, even during gaming, roughly by 10–15 W. The gaming performance per unit of power draw of Ryzen 5 7600 (i.e. the lower-power variant without the X in the designation) is the highest of the tested processors so far, and it narrowly, but nevertheless, outperforms the extremely efficient Comet Lake Core i5-10400F.

Of the specific games, only Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla (where the Ryzens don’t “do” very well overall) has weaker performance. In the other titles tested, the results are average (Cyberpunk 2077, DOOM Eternal) to above average (Borderlands 3, CS:GO, F1 2020, Metro Exodus, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Total War Saga: Troy). The price to gaming performance ratio is about 5% weaker, but with the Ryzen 5 7600 being the significantly more powerful processor for a gaming PC of the pair.

On raw, computing power: the R5 7600 is 6 % below the R5 7600X, but 25 % above the Core i5-12400. You will find out how it stands up in the most relevant comparison with the Ci5-13400(F) in one of the following tests. In any case, the efficiency of the R5 7600 is very high, higher than that of the Ci5-12400, it is the most efficient 6-core processor we have tested so far.

By maintaining high clock speeds in a single-threaded workload, the R5 7600 delivers true peak performance (Also seen in PCMark office tasks or in application tests in a web interface). It’s approximately on par with the Core i9-12900K, and at significantly higher efficiency. The power draw of the R5 7600 is about half. The Ryzen 5 7600X is a hair faster in single-threaded workloads due to higher clock speeds, and it also has a bit higher power draw.

Remarkably, while idle, the R5 7600 is a relatively high 5W (27%) more power efficient compared to the R5 7600X. This can be due to a number of reasons. One is higher manufacturing tolerances with lower quality requirements (for the R5 7600) and the other is the higher Uncore clock speeds that boards with slower memories set. Here’s a reminder to part of the methodology – we’re testing the more lower-power processors (without the X/K in the designation) with the cheaper DDR5 modules (5200 MHz/CL40), and the more powerful ones with the more expensive ones at 6000 MHz and CL30. This way it is closer to real practice, but the toll is the eventual distortions that sometimes have to be perceived when directly comparing X and non-X processors. If you are comparing only X and only non-X processor models with each other, the playing field is completely level.

When studying and assessing the minimal differences, beware of other people’s tests, where different memory configurations (across platforms with support for different standards, for sure) also occur. We try to optimize everything to make the most sense. Hence slower (and cheaper) memory to cheaper processors and faster memory to more expensive ones.
It should also be pointed out that we have tested the Core i5-12400, for example, with 3600 MHz DDR4 memory (Gear 1) and, naturally, also older AMD Ryzen 5000 and 3000 processors, whose memory controller does not support DDR5 modules. All these details are also listed in the pop-up window that appears when the cursor hits the corresponding processor bar. However, the differences in performance across these modules are often minimal and sometimes don’t even show up, so there is no need to give them more weight than they really have.

Lastly, temperatures. These are proportional to the lower power draw compared to the R5 7600X, but temperatures climb quite high even with a powerful cooler. All the performance is still on a small area of a single chiplet, and unless you limit the processor to the TDP level, clock speeds above 5 GHz are achieved even under high load. The important thing is that you can keep the processor below 95°C under almost any circumstances, even with a cheaper or very quiet cooler. Power draw in games is significantly lower compared to the maximum load, by 35–40 W, and with a medium-performance cooler you can comfortably fit even below 60 °C, and the included Wraith Stealth top-flow cooler is also usable, albeit at higher noise levels.

AMD has balanced all aspects well with Ryzen 5 7600 (performance, power draw, temperatures) so as to build on the good name of this series (represented in particular by the 3600 model, which is still owned by many users). Now just… what does Intel (Ci5-13400) have to say about it?

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 7600 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)cryption
• 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