Ryzen 7 9700X review – a CPU that feels a little too held back
Table of Contents
The wait is finally over, after almost a week, we finally have our hands on the Ryzen 7 9700X. AMD supposedly launched both the 9600X and the 9700X last week, and while the stock was plentiful in the states, in the UK, however, not so much. Regardless, we have a fair bit to explore, so let's not dwell on Zen 5's tardiness.
The 9700X is the successor to the Ryzen 7 7700X, which we have reviewed, this place is competitive in the market. It's not at the bottom of the pack, but it's not up there with the best either. It's here that price to performance matters. Will Zen 5 be able to offer ample performance over Zen 4? What's changed exactly? Glad you asked.
- Cores: 8
- Threads: 16
- Boost clock speed: 5.5 GHz
- Base clock speed: 3.8 GHz
- L3 Cache: 32 MB
- TDP: 65 W
- Platform: AMD Socket AM5
This CPU is very power efficient and it does hold up against it’s predecessor, but we expected it to do more. There is an improvement in single-core performance, but not too much on the multi-core front. For 40W less TDP it does very well, but we can’t help but feel like this CPU got held back a little.
- Efficient
- Strong Single-core performance
- Low power usage
- Just barely better than the 7700X
- More expensive than a 7800X3D
- No boxed cooler despite low TDP
Why we gave this CPU a 3.5
The 9700X is clearly meant for power efficiency, but we feel that efficiency holds the CPU back. Sure it has better single-core performance thanks to the upgraded Zen 5 cores, but it’s multi-core performance is lacking. This CPU could do with a little more juice, or a few more cores.
The CPU configuration itself remains widely the same, the 9700X has 8 cores, like the 7700X does, and 32MB of L3 cache, like the 7700X does. However, what differs is that the Zen 5 cores metaphorically whizz around under the IHS, with AMD promising a 16% uplift in IPC over the previous generation.
To cut a long review short, there is a large improvement to the single-core performance, and there's some uplift in multi-core workloads too. We like this CPU and think it's a fantastic offering if the price is right, more on that later.
Specifications
Before we dive into the nitty gritty, it's important to understand just what we're working with here and get a feel of what the chip brings to the table. This would be a fantastic time to highlight those improvements we keep mentioning.
- Cores: 8
- Threads: 16
- Base clock speed: 3.8GHz
- Boost clock speed: 5.5GHz
- L2 Cache: 1MB
- L3 Cache: 32MB
- TDP: 65W
- Socket: AM4
First and foremost, the power efficiency. The Ryzen 9700X manages to wipe the floor with the 7700X (spoiler alert) and does so while consuming much less power. How's that for an improvement? Most of this comes from the much improved Zen 5 CPU cores, with more transistors than ever allowing for greater performance all the while consuming less power.
Because of this power efficiency, you might observe that the base clock speeds are much lower than that of the 7700X, quite a lot lower actually. But the boost speeds do get a little boot, pardon the pun, over the 7700X.
The 9000 series is structurally similar to the 7700X with two CCDs and the same IHS. It's probably going to be a running theme with every CPU on AM5 having the same IHS, to retain the cooler compatibility AMD originally carried over from Zen 3.
AMD boasted an IPC uplift of 16% in the promotional materials for Zen5, that's an even larger uplift from Zen 3 to Zen 4 (14%) and that was like night and day. Once more, we'll have to see if AMD's claims are true.
Performance
Before we jump into the performance of the Ryzen 9000 CPU, we need to outline the components of the system on which it was tested. This will help us gauge and better understand the performance of the CPU if we look at the system as a whole.
Component | Name |
GPU | RTX 4070 Ti Super |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance DDR5 @ 6400MHz |
Motherboard | ASUS ROG Crosshair Extreme X670 |
CPU cooler | Corsair Elite LCD Capellix 360MM |
Power supply | ASUS ROG Thor 1000W |
Case | Cooler Master Masterframe |
As we can see we spared no expense when putting together a system to benchmark the new Zen 5 CPUs from AMD. We even opted to use an RTX 4070 Ti to do the frame rendering. However, our synthetic tests rely mostly on the CPU, the GPU has very little bearing here. During the gameplay portion of the testing, the GPU comes in.
We here at PC Guide conduct all of our tests using in-house experts, if you'd like to know more about how we test CPUs, you can read our page on it. This page is part of the broader PC Guide testing lab scope, and it encompasses how we perform all of our benchmarks.
Synthetic benchmarks
We perform many popular synthetic benchmarks to give our CPUs comparable results. We do this so you can go off and compare them to a CPU that you might own, or another one you’re thinking of purchasing. Our synthetics cover everything from photo editing to zip file compression. So how did the 9700X faire in our benchmarks?
Benchmark | Score |
CPU Z Single | 856 points |
CPU Z Multi | 8,199 points |
Cinebench R23 Single | 2,207 points |
Cinebench R23 Multi | 20,184 points |
Geekbench Single | 3,376 points |
Geekbench Multi | 17,290 points |
Puget Systems photoshop | N/A |
Blender render | Monster 128.15 SPM Junkshop 93.95 SPM Classroom 64.54 SPM |
7 Zip Compression 32MB (10 passes) | 44.547s |
Handbrake TOS 4K Fast 1080P encode | Average Speed 86.2 FPS Encode Time 3:26 |
It’s worth noting that the Puget Systems benchmark that we usually run on Photoshop was not working correctly, and due to time constraints, we couldn’t implement a proper fix.
As you can see, the 9700X looks like it did fairly well when stood alone, the consensus is that it performs a fair bit better in single-core workloads, and marginally better in multi-core workloads. Let’s have a look at the 9700X and the 7700X side-by-side.
Benchmark | 9700X Score | 7700X Score |
---|---|---|
CPU Z Single | 856 points | 772 points |
CPU Z Multi | 8,199 points | 7,983 points |
Cinebench R23 Single | 2,207 points | 1,995 points |
Cinebench R23 Multi | 20,184 points | 19,650 points |
Geekbench Single | 3,376 points | 3,043 points |
Geekbench Multi | 17,290 points | 15,989 points |
Puget Systems photoshop | N/A | 9,033 points |
Blender render | Monster 128.15 SPM Junkshop 93.95 SPM Classroom 64.54 SPM | Monster 126.01 SPM Junkshop 87.84 SPM Classroom 65.30 SPM |
7 Zip Compression 32MB (10 passes) | 44.54s | 44.657s |
Handbrake TOS 4K Fast 1080P encode | Average Speed 86.2 FPS Encode Time 3:26 | Average Speed 87.37 FPS Encode Time 3:26 |
The results are different enough in the 9700X’s favor when you take a glance, however, you’ll notice that the CPUs are similar when you take a closer look. Some results back up AMD’s claims of higher IPC, which will be a pretty decent increase in performance during single-core workloads. However, the multi-core workloads do not reflect the level of increase we thought they would.
Take all the single-core benchmarks from the 9000 series for example, we have CPU-Z at 856 points, CB R32 at 2,207 points, and Geekbench at 3,376 points. If you then compare those with the results of the 7700X, 772 points, 1,995 points, and 3,043 points. The performance increase is apparent but isn’t as present in multi-core workloads. The 7700X managed to beat the 9700X by a hair in a couple of benchmarks, those will be the Blender Classroom and the Handbrake test.
If we take into account the fact that the Zen 5 CPU consumes 40W less power than its predecessor, it all starts to make a little more sense. Power efficiency seems to be a high priority at AMD HQ, and it’s another way to keep its chips relevant over Intel’s performance prowess. Intel may have snatched the multi-core performance crown over the last few generations, but it’s at the cost of some serious power.
Real-world benchmarks
Thankfully, the 9000 series CPU did a lot better in gaming workloads. AMD did actually advertise the 9700X as being able to beat the 5800X3D in gaming workloads, so let’s see if that’s true.
Game | 9700X | 7700X | 5800X3D |
---|---|---|---|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 325 FPS 1% 237 FPS | 296 FPS 1% 132 FPS | 279 FPS 1% 157 FPS |
Day’s Gone | 240 FPS 1% 130 FPS | 255 FPS 1% 84 FPS | 283 FPS 1% 144 FPS |
It seems as though the 9700X does pull ahead in the Cyberpunk 2077 benchmark. This is the benchmark built into the settings because we wanted a real-world task that was very repeatable. Day’s Gone will involve more fluctuation, we try to do the same thing every time, but there’s always going to be some variance.
The 9000 series CPU takes the crown in Cyberpunk, and by a pretty wide margin over the 7700X, even more so over the 7800X3D. Even the 1% lows are 100 FPS more than its predecessor. Where it didn’t fair as well as Day’s gone, where the 9700X is in last place. But it does manage to come in second in the 1% lows category. If we were to get the exact same situation in days gone, we think that it would beat the 7700X slightly. Our results don’t reflect that so it’s hard to say for sure, just leaning on personal experience here.
All in all, the 9700X does well for the power that AMD has allowed it to consume, that’s the efficiency of the Zen 5 CPU core for you. We just feel like if it was allowed to consume a little more power, it’d be a far better value and be able to stomp on its predecessor more properly. At the moment, the 7700X is far cheaper and doesn’t do too badly against the new 9000 series CPU.
What do these benchmarks mean?
Our benchmarks are divided into synthetic and real-world tests. Synthetic tests are a very wide array of benchmarks that are designed to encompass as many CPU use cases as we can think of. These tasks can be anything from video editing to compression, to encoding. It's important to us that we cast as wide of a net as possible because not everyone uses their CPU in the same way. It's very important to see how the CPU responds to non-gaming workloads.
The real-world benchmarks test the CPUs ability to react to situations on the fly. The best example of these is gaming workloads. When gaming, nothing is scripted in the sense that the tests are completely repeatable, unlike synthetic benchmarks. Real-world tests happen in real scenarios and are harder to control, but it does give you a better sense of tangible stability. Real-world tests are a must if you are testing system stability or bottlenecks.
In short, if the CPU in question does well in the synthetics, then it'll be great for productivity and workstation tasks. If it excels in the gaming department, then the CPU will likely be good at, well, gaming. Simple as that. Our audience is probably an even split between gamers and non-gamers, so we divide our testing as such.
Price
The Ryzen 7 9700X is available for $359, which is a lot of money to part with considering you can get a 7800X3D for the same price. With the 7800X3D, you don't get the Zen 5 cores, but you do get better gaming performance if that's what you're into. Both the 7800X3D and the 9700X belong to the same socket and will work wonders on an X670E motherboard. At least until the X870E chipset launches, anyway.
Alternatives to the 9700X
Here we have some alternative options to the 9700X, in case it doesn’t quite tickle your fancy. The 7800X3D is a great way to go if you want fantastic gaming performance for the same price. You could always opt to save money and go for the 7700X too, if you want to stay on Team Red and the same platform.
-
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
- Cores: 8
- Threads: 16
- Boost speed : up to 5 GHz
- Base speed: 4.2 GHz
- L3 Cache: 96 MB
- TDP: 120 W
-
-
Conclusion
Unfortunately, we feel the Ryzen 7 9700X has been held back way too much to be viable at the price it’s currently available for. You could do much better with a 7800X3D which costs the same but delivers delicious results. This CPU is very good at being efficient, especially when stacked up against Intel’s latest offerings, so if you want a low-power PC with a decent amount of punch, then this CPU could be for you.
- Cores: 8
- Threads: 16
- Boost clock speed: 5.5 GHz
- Base clock speed: 3.8 GHz
- L3 Cache: 32 MB
- TDP: 65 W
- Platform: AMD Socket AM5
This CPU is very power efficient and it does hold up against it’s predecessor, but we expected it to do more. There is an improvement in single-core performance, but not too much on the multi-core front. For 40W less TDP it does very well, but we can’t help but feel like this CPU got held back a little.
- Efficient
- Strong Single-core performance
- Low power usage
- Just barely better than the 7700X
- More expensive than a 7800X3D
- No boxed cooler despite low TDP
We wanted to see more of an uplift on the multi-core performance side of things, if we were to design this CPU, we’d have bunked it up to a 12-core design. The power efficiency definitely allows for it to have more cores, and that way it would shred its predecessor in multithreaded workloads.