Ryzen 9 9900X review – yet another CPU held back by power-efficiency
Table of Contents
The Ryzen 9 9900X is the much-anticipated successor to the 7900X, which we have also extensively reviewed. With 12 cores and 24 threads, we expect it to bring back that strong multi-core performance AMD was once the king of. The new 9000 series CPU is built upon the Zen 5 architecture, promising a 16% IPC improvement over Zen4. We're here to see how that translates into performance.
The 9900X is on the cusp of being an enthusiast processor, and we have high expectations that it'll behave as such. However, we have seen both the 9700X and 9600X fall short, and have to be improved with some extra juice via a new BIOS update that is yet to be released. Even with that though, many fear it won’t be enough to save what is quickly becoming a colossal flop of a launch. Here’s hoping AMD is holding back in hopes of making X3D more attractive.
- Cores: 12
- Threads: 24
- Boost clock speed: 5.6 GHz
- Base clock speed: 4.4 GHz
- L3 Cache: 64 MB
- TDP: 120 W
- Platform: AMD Socket AM5
The 9900X could have been much better, but it seems that’s a running theme with the 9000 series in general. We don’t need this much power efficiency, AMD is already so much more efficient than Intel. it just seems like these CPUs were handicapped from the start.
- Power efficient
- Half-decent single-core uplift
- Yet another 9000 series CPU held back
- Mediocre multi-core performance
Why we gave the 9900X a 3.5
The 9900X does better than the other 9000 series CPUs when it comes to intergenerational performance, it does have decent uplifts in single-core performance, but the multi-core just isn’t there yet. It’s another CPU held back by AMD’s sudden need to be super power efficient.
To cut a long review short, the 9900X does far better than the other CPUs in the Ryzen 9000 series lineup, but not by a massive margin, the multi-core performance again, like other CPUs, leaves a lot to be desired. If I were to design this CPU, it’d have a higher TDP and a few more cores to help it along, and the price would be lowered by around $40.
Specifications
- Cores: 12
- Threads: 24
- Base clock speed: 4.4GHz
- Boost clock speed: 5.6GHz
- L2 Cache: 1MB (per core)
- L3 Cache: 64MB
- TDP: 120W
- Socket: AM5
As you can see, the 9900X has plenty of cores to work with. It's at this end of the Ryzen scale that we expect CPUs to really provide in the muti-core performance aspect, but with a TDP of just 120W, can it perform? Or will it fall victim to the same issues that plague the two 9000 series CPUs below it?
As we've explained in our 9600X review, Zen 5 offers a massive uplift in IPC, even more so than the uplift from Zen 3 to Zen 4, which was only around 14%. If we can see similar performance gains than we saw then, it'll make a lot of CPU enthusiasts very happy.
It is unclear as to whether the new BIOS update will up the TDP of the Ryzen 9 processors, but as we have not seen anything that suggests it will, we will assume that these Ryzen processors will stay the same. If not, we will come back and revise the review as needed. But for now, it seems like the 9900X has some pretty big shoes to fill, and not a lot of TDP to do it in.
Performance
Before we dive into the actual results of the benchmarks, we need to briefly examine the test bench we used to test the 9900X. It's worth noting that this is the same test bench we used to test all the 9000 series CPUs. We opted to emphasize productivity and workstation tasks rather than gaming, which the RTX 4070 Ti has little bearing on. But it has much more of an effect on the real-world benchmarks.
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 |
We spared no expense when it came to assembling a throne on which to sit the 9900X. These components all stay the same where they are able to, and even when we are dealing with CPUs of other brands or generations, we try to keep things as comparable as possible.
All of our components are tested by our in-house experts and follow our How we test CPUs guide, which you can check out too if you want to learn more about the process. This is part of our broader PC Guide Testing lab that encompasses how we test everything from CPUs to routers. You can have a nosey over there if you want to learn more about what goes on here behind the scenes.
Synthetic performance
Benchmark | Score |
CPU Z Single | 867 points |
CPU Z Multi | 12,773 points |
Cinebench R23 Single | 2,205 points |
Cinebench R23 Multi | 31,502 points |
Geekbench Single | 3,348 points |
Geekbench Multi | 20,524 points |
Puget Systems photoshop | N/A |
Blender render | Monster 200.72 SPM Junkshop 146.82 SPM Classroom 101.15 SPM |
7 Zip Compression 32MB (10 passes) | 47.64s |
Handbrake TOS 4K Fast 1080P encode | Average Speed 128.52FPS Encode Time 02:19 |
The benchmark results show a strong single-core performance, it is actually the best single-core we have seen out of an AMD CPU that we have tested, so that gives us hope that it’ll come in strong against its predecessors. One thing we were worried about is that this CPU would have suffered the same fate as the 9000 series CPUs before it.
Let’s now compare the 9900X to the 7900X and see what we have cookin’.
Benchmark | 9900X Score | 7900X Score |
---|---|---|
CPU Z Single | 867 points | 778 points |
CPU Z Multi | 12,773 points | 11,614 points |
Cinebench R23 Single | 2,205 points | 2,017 points |
Cinebench R23 Multi | 31,502 points | 28,006 points |
Geekbench Single | 3,348 points | 3,065 points |
Geekbench Multi | 20,524 points | 18,374 points |
Puget Systems photoshop | N/A | 9,033 points |
Blender render | Monster 200.72 SPM Junkshop 146.82 SPM Classroom 101.15 SPM | Monster 184.52 SPM Junkshop 131.31SPM Classroom 95.03 SPM |
7 Zip Compression 32MB (10 passes) | 47.64s | 49.687s |
Handbrake TOS 4K Fast 1080P encode | Average Speed 128.52FPS Encode Time 02:19 | Average Speed 111.28 FPS Encode Time 2:40 |
First of all, we can see somewhat respectable improvements in both single and multi-core performance. We might have been expecting a slight uplift, as we don’t feel this Is what an extra 16% uplift in IPC looks like, but there are certainly performance gains here. The Zen 5 cores in the 9900X are definitely doing something to de-tarnish the name of the 9000 series Ryzen CPUs.
As we explained in our previous reviews of the 9000 series CPUs, the nm process size and the core generation matter so much when comparing CPUs, because of metrics like IPC. The smaller the transistors are in one CPU, the more of them you can pack into the same footprint. This results in more transistors being present on the CPU die, and thus more processing power. Because we are observing a generational difference in core technology, this is where the 9000 series gets its uplifts from.
If you take single-core performance for example, the 9900X dominates in CPU-Z, Cinebench, and Geekbench, with scores of 867, 2,205, and 3,348 points respectively. When you compare that to the 7900X’s 778, 2017, and 3,065, it’s easy to see the appeal that Zen 5 brings. All of this is done with a 50W TDP no less, so it’s definitely leaps and bounds ahead of the other CPUs in the 9000 series. There’s hope for this generation after all.
Multi-core sees less of an Improvement, but an improvement nonetheless, it seems the new Ryzen CPUs were targeted toward single-core performance and outright efficiency. If they are competing this close to their predecessors, then there’s no way they are going to be able to compete with the likes of the 14900Km, which scores around 40k points in CB multi.
Real-world benchmarks
Here we took some games and threaded them through the 9900X, we chose Days Gone, and Cyberpunk 2077, both difficult to run in their time. Cyberpunk has the more repeatable in-built benchmark, whereas Days Gone is free-played and a little more varied – the results are interesting nonetheless.
Game | 9900X | 7900X | 5800X3D |
---|---|---|---|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 330 FPS 1% 231 FPS | 299 FPS 1% 128 FPS | 279 FPS 1% 157 FPS |
Day’s Gone | 245 FPS 1% 119 FPS | 276 FPS 1% 84 FPS | 283 FPS 1% 144 FPS |
It seems that an uptick in single-core performance has done wonders for the Cyberpunk benchmark, where it achieves an all-time high score for all of the AMD CPUs we have tested, even beating out the 7800X3D. In fact the results are very similar to the Ryzen 7 9700X and the 9600X, well, they are the same CPU core, just clocked slightly differently, so it’s expected they would score at least similarly.
Day’s gone was a bit of a disaster, it seems the 9900X had a bit of a hiccup in the performance department, at least the 1% lower were higher in the 9900X than they were in the 7900X. If you had to ask me why this was, I’d say it was the work of Core Parking, but that’s just me. Because we aim to give you the out-of-the-box experience, we opted to keep core parking off, because it’s not exactly intuitive to enable. Worse yet, AMD recommends a fresh install of Windows to disable it, so it’s not recommended you even enable this feature.
All in all, the 9900X does okay, better than the 97 or 96 did against their older counterparts. it remains to be seen if the 9900X is getting a boost via the BIOS update, but it would make this a hell of a lot more attractive option if it was the case. Regardless, it’s a step in the right direction, but only time will tell whether or not it’s enough to keep Team Red users from defecting to Team Blue.
What do these benchmarks mean?
Our strategy is to encompass as many CPU scenarios as possible, especially with the 9900X at the core of our testing. These scenarios range from video editing and compression to encoding tasks and beyond. We believe it's essential to cast a wide net since users leverage their CPUs in various ways
Synthetic benchmarks, which are highly predictable and conducted in controlled environments, are perfect for gauging performance in simulation workloads. These tests are particularly effective for data-driven tasks, such as video encoding, compression, and similar processes where consistency is key.
On the other hand, real-world benchmarks are designed to challenge a CPU like the 9900X in unpredictable, dynamic situations. Gaming serves as a prime example, where workloads are unscripted and develop in real-time, offering a contrast to the controlled nature of synthetic benchmarks. This unpredictability makes real-world benchmarks invaluable for revealing a CPU's true stability under pressure, which is crucial when looking at general system stability or identifying bottlenecks.
In summary, if the 9900X excels in synthetic benchmarks, it's a strong contender for productivity tasks. However, its performance in real-world scenarios offers a deeper insight into how it will handle workloads such as gaming.
Price
The Ryzen 9 9900X is available for $499, which is a darn sight more than you can pick up a lit of the 7000 series CPUs for. If you're a gamer, for example, the 7800X3D is available for around $350, or the flat-out 7950X can be found for just $20 more. The 9900X will have to perform miracles to be worth the price over the tried and tested 7000 series CPUs.
You can also opt for some Intel CPUs, but bear in mind you will have to get a separate motherboard for those. The motherboard we have outlined in this review will not work.
Alternatives to the 9900X
We have opted to provide some alternative CPUs in case you aren't sold on the 9900X. The best way to find out if a CPU is right for you is to assess your own workload, do you have a need for all the power you are purchasing? Or will it be wasted? Do you value efficiency over power? And so on.
Here are some CPUs that we feel would make a great alternative to the Ryzen 9 9900X, we even sprinkled in a pick for Team Blue, in case you are leaning the other way.
-
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X
- Cores: 6
- Threads : 12
- Boost clock speed: 5.3 GHz
- Base clock speed: 4.7 GHz
- L3 Cache: 32 MB
- TDP: 105W
-
Intel Core i5 14600K
- Cores: 14 (6P-8E)
- Threads: 20
- Boost clock speed: P-Core 5.3GHz / E-Core 4.0GHz
- Base clock speed: P-Core 2.6GHz / E-Core 3.5GHz
- L3 Cache : 24 MB
- TDP : 125W
-
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
If you need a CPU that is incredible value for money, one that rules over its predecessors is cost-efficient, and is an all-round good choice, then this CPU might not be the best one for you. It’s nothing against the 9900X specifically, it just seems like the whole 9000 series was held back by AMD being a little too focused on efficiency over power.
- Cores: 12
- Threads: 24
- Boost clock speed: 5.6 GHz
- Base clock speed: 4.4 GHz
- L3 Cache: 64 MB
- TDP: 120 W
- Platform: AMD Socket AM5
The 9900X could have been much better, but it seems that’s a running theme with the 9000 series in general. We don’t need this much power efficiency, AMD is already so much more efficient than Intel. it just seems like these CPUs were handicapped from the start.
- Power efficient
- Half-decent single-core uplift
- Yet another 9000 series CPU held back
- Mediocre multi-core performance
Don’t get me wrong, they’ve managed to design a core architecture that can do a fair chunk better than the previous generation, all the while consuming way less power. That’s an impressive feat. But with Intel having a 253W PL1, AMD already has CPUs that are way more efficient than that, we don’t need performance limited by efficiency. If these CPUs had a few more cores or were able to consume more power, then these would do fantastically.
Can we recommend the 9900X? not at this price point. It’s looking like we can’t really recommend any of the 9000 series just yet. it’s been a bit of a strange launch with AMD. It’s got us wondering whether the recalls really had to do with a typo, or did AMD see the problems these chips are facing much sooner?