AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review - Zen 5 Sucks For Gaming!

[@Hardwareunboxed]

AMD has finally updated their review guide with the 7700X! - AMD's own internal testing found that the 9700X is just 5% faster than the 7700X for gaming. - AMD's selection of games is very odd, they benchmarked 23 games, just 3 of which were released in the last 2 years. - AMD sponsored games which are CPU limited such as Starfield were not included. - AMD almost exclusively tested older games using the built-in benchmark which generally aren't that CPU demanding. The point is, best case on average the 9700X is 5% faster than the 7700X for gaming. Some people are pointing me to reviews with 10% average gains or higher, claiming we got it wrong... well not according to AMD.

[@tsvetanbliznakov7694]

they just have bad(very power limited) stock settings, otherwise they are actually pretty good with a simple PBO ON you can see massive difference that is a lot bigger than PBO on on any zen 4 I would guess they are targeting the businesses who have a big amount of intel CPUs and experienced instabilities looking to switch to something else, I am pretty sure these power draw and temps numbers while pulling ahead on some software performance are super appealing. P.S. I am not in any way bashing or disagreeing with your data nor testing, this have always been a channel that presents stock/out of the box experience and the comments expecting you to change that cuz der8uer showed OC or whoever else the hell is just plain unrealistic and uncalled for imho. Intels used to have a ton of OC headroom in the past and that was never the main focus, so its fair to represent a product such as 9700x in the same stock/out of the box way now regardless of its huge OC headroom.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

PBO does little to nothing for gaming. It can boost multi-core workloads nicely, but it does so while killing power efficiency. At best you can get 20% more performance, at the cost of an 80% power increase.

[@tsvetanbliznakov7694]

@@Hardwareunboxed for these particular CPUs its not little to nothing as they gain 25-35% gaming performance from PBO and no power limit, thats how much they are shot in the foot with stock settings and that kind of gaming performance is not little to nothing, but yes the efficiency goes out the window 9700x without power limit with PBO enabled is close to 7800x3d in gaming performance, but under those circumstances it pulls same or more power than 7700x and 7800x3d

[@Hardwareunboxed]

You're either grossly misinformed or flat out lying here. PBO boosts gaming performance of the 9700X by a few percent.

[@tsvetanbliznakov7694]

@@Hardwareunboxed there is no need to accuse me of lying, I have no reason to lie, I'm just a fan of hardware and most of your videos, so am I grossly misinformed - well maybe, I own 7800x3d and I cannot afford to get 9700x just to test it and resell it at a loss, but anyway my claims are based on Tom's Hardware, which I find to be relatively correct usually, so I believed it P.S. if that data is wrong please explain why, I'm curious to know and I do not care to win the argument or anything like that

[@Atilolzz]

Steve standing = no good news

[@Souma_Ditya]

Foreshadowing

[@MisterKrakens]

Steve talking about anything AMD related = ...

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Depressing news in this instance :(

[@logirex]

This is straight up bad. Even when Intel had their tick-tock model we so hated they often provided 5-10% uplift. AMD really needed after 8 years of the same core count relegate the six cores to OEM systems only and have the 9700X as the entry level at $299 for it to be interesting. I know fully understand why we hear rumours they are desperate to push the X3D out already late next month and why the launch was delayed 🤦‍♂

[@johnpreston8621]

@@logirex People have short memories. AMD has already had cases when at the start there were, in fact, unsuccessful versions of drivers and AGESA. I have no doubt that this is the same case.

[@Collin_J]

EVERYONE GET IN HERE STEVE IS STANDING AGAIN

[@Trampoukosss]

you know things are serious when hes standing

[@Tainted79]

god help us

[@Drevniy_rus666]

Outstanding

[@Syraxal]

@@Drevniy_rus666 Upstanding...

[@Hjorth87]

Maybe he is dealing with hemorrhoids?

[@Lightkie]

Huh. I agree that the result in Cinebench is iffy. der8auer had a much higher reduction in power consumption compared to the Ryzen 7 7700X and it was 21% faster with PBO enabled compared to your 9%. Of course you tested R24 where he tested R23, so it can't be compared directly but something is seriously off. Same with the Puget Photoshop benchmark result. der8auer had a 10% uplift compared to your 3%. That's a significant difference. Also your Counter-Strike 2 test had it a rare 10% ahead of the Ryzen 7 7700X while in der8auer's review it was just 2.5%. Again, a significant difference.

[@W0ND3RB0Y1]

And we still don't have BIOS updates for current boards for these chips AFAIK either... I'd wait until actual release to judge the performance..

[@MytronixOfficial]

Yeah, came from Der8auer and something doesnt add up. I thought the Thumbnail was a Joke / Clickbait. Either the spread is really big with those CPUs (would look bad for AMD) or the BIOS-Versions are different or something.

[@W0ND3RB0Y1]

@@MytronixOfficial That's what happens when we test things with different motherboards and RAM configs, without knowing whether the actual BIOS updates have been applied.. Der8auer said he got a BIOS directly from AMD, he also used 16 GB RAM @ 6000 Mhz... Obviously this will change the results from (what I assume is) the 32 GB config used in this test.. Look at previous releases, how many updates did it take before we saw stability and reliable metrics on the chips? Generating performance metrics this early on doesn't seem logical to me.. It's fluff..

[@PrefoX]

AMD said its fine

[@W0ND3RB0Y1]

@@PrefoX they sort of have to, because hype and feedback are good for both sales and technical reasons... But not very useful for the general consumer at this point..

[@HeretixAevum]

It's hilarious to me that people think HUB is biased towards AMD with review titles like this.

[@BillCipher1337]

AmD uNbOxEd

[@gscurd75]

Exactly my thoughts. Oh they think Intel is messing up? They must be paid AMD shills. Ill just ignore all the times they have given bad reviews to AMD products that were actually bad.

[@bonevgm]

Don't forget that people were saying HUB was hiding the Intel CPU issue. The lengths fanboys will go to excuse their favorite brand and attack everyone who is not a fanboy is astonishing.

[@zxbc1]

I mean they were pretty pro AMD for the vast majority of its existence, to the extent that they ignored a lot of AMD blunders and missteps such as those in the GPU market for years, until recently admitting it in that infamous video.

[@IceNinja2007]

​​@@zxbc1 They're pro price to performance, which AMD tends to be better performance for the prices offered. In many cases they have recommended Intel and Nvidia over AMD for raw performance.

[@jonas_bento]

"A Waste of Sand" Oh sorry! Wrong Steve.

[@MonstaAU]

This is a waste of sand.

[@p00ner]

Thanks Steve

[@BlackJesus8463]

@@MonstaAU lol

[@AlumarsX]

e-waste

[@Daniel-ru8je]

That was the 11700k.

[@MenTal9R]

Wow... It makes the 5800X3D look even more amazing. The gift that has kept on giving, it's turning into the 1080 Ti of CPUs 😂

[@imrileth6618]

Yeah. It was a great choice. I'll probably stay on it for years to come.

[@Skybleiz_Qc]

Same! I thought I was gonna regret it when upgrading from a ryzen 7 5700x to the 5800x3d I'll wait for the x3d ship of the 9*** series

[@aos32]

But it does not make any sense to upgrade to 5800X3D any longer for current AM4 owners. In my country at least I can get a 7500F and a really solid motherboard like a ASUS Tuf B650 Plus Wifi for a little less than a 5800X3D new. So it makes more sense to sell their AM4 motherboard, RAM and CPU to buy a new DDR5 RAM kit.

[@Anderson_Hwang]

Bought a 5700X3D a month ago, best decision ever

[@nottsoserious]

Yeah idgaf now. I'm just gonna buy a 5800X3D and upgrade from my 5600. I play at 4K anyway.

[@DeLawrence97]

AMD Ryzen 9000 series, or as I like to call it, ”The best reason to buy a 7800X3D”

[@Delerium04]

Biased Copium

[@Weeknd_Warrior]

@@Delerium04 biased or not he ain’t wrong

[@AmirHassan-nw2hk]

It is just how regular customers cant feel how hard it is to decrease power consumption greatly while nearly keeping same performance or getting a slight loss in performance

[@whoeverthisguyis]

vast majority don't care about power consumption that much minus the 4090 numbers​@@AmirHassan-nw2hk

[@madgodzilla12465]

Hopefully it just causes the pricing on the 7800x3d to drop further making it an even more compelling option

[@Hanclok]

Something doesn't add up you have the same score as other reviewers but double the Watt usage? What is going on?

[@stevet1799]

He really was having trouble with having to talk bad about intel, so a quick rush to bad AMD numbers as a pallet cleanser?

[@CassidyOG]

This review is definitely not right. Needs to be redone.

[@rednath7734]

​@@stevet1799maybe, don't trust his numbers either

[@4ikibrikivdamk3]

He running it with power limit unlocked, you can look for der8uer for more info on that one.

[@davidchardar835]

Gamer's nexus had a completely dysfunctional cpu, wouldn't surprise me if the chips HW unboxed were just as broken as well. Just AMD things. LTT had the same issue with a bad cpu last gen.

[@cajonesalt0191]

Not sure what your settings were, but GN got a 40% power efficiency increase between the 9700x and 7700x. With that big of a disparity, I think we can say the current benchmarks probably aren't reliable on at least power efficiency.

[@depress0coffee]

Yeah, every other reviewer has been saying its a super efficient chip albeit not as fast as the 7800X3D (which makes sense).

[@w7bUxhwRYUo8Lv]

Are we talking about the same power efficiency here? I wasn't paying attention to specific efficiency benchmarks, but expect completely different numbers between games and productivity. Gaming benchmarks are likely to show a much lesser increase in efficiency gen to gen than high power consumption multi-core productivity benchmarks. Did Steve do productivity and... the other Steve gaming?

[@PowellCat745]

I guess it’s the motherboard’s issue.

[@w7bUxhwRYUo8Lv]

So I just checked another comment about der8auer's CB MT benchmark and they're right, Steve's data here is significantly different. After I crudely converted d8's results to total system power consumption, Steve's Cinebench results show his 9700X using about 20% more power than d8's did, assuming identical power consumption of Steve's and d8's 7700x and unchanging non-CPU system component power consumption between 9700X and 7700X benchmarks. May be a difference in settings or something else. Total system vs CPU only power consumption may also have something to do with it. Confounding factors.

[@thunderboltlightning6010]

AMD fuck up their BIOS, that’s my theory.

[@jumpman1213]

Now we know why AMD lowered the prices this time...

[@rallyscoot]

I knew already Zen 5 wont be that great this time.. Zen6 will be te BIG BANG this time.. At least it should give you plenty more cores. But by the time iam maybe already on AM6.

[@auritro3903]

@@rallyscoot Let's hope. Stagnation is never good. People were saying Zen 5 will be Intel's doom when Zen 4 released(well, it kinda is, although its more so Intel destroying themselves than AMD destroying Intel this time), and in the end, the 9700X is like 3% faster tha the 7700X in gaming.

[@ranjitmandal1612]

😶

[@kyles8524]

im on a i5-11400 and it still does the job just fine lol.I play in 1080p and use a 60 hz monitor. I could probably get away with an 13-10100 paired with my rx 660 and get the same results. im not really sure why people flock around all the new processors unless you trying to game in 8k or something

[@marceldiezasch6192]

Yeah, but right now a 7700 is 220€ and a 9700X is 400€... for a 5% performance difference?

[@prdx8543]

Steve, I saw on other channels, that Zen5 is actually running in mostly limited to 4.5Ghz, and never went above 5Ghz. Can you look into this? Perhaps some bug in BIOS, or power limitation or something that made it run at much lower clock.

[@johnscaramis2515]

GN mentioned that the CPU is heavily limited by the 88W PPT and HUB's Steve says something about 140W or more? Sounds like something is completely off here.

[@MrDvneil]

@@johnscaramis2515 all my life i've seen the performance reviews with power limits off, i dont see any issue here

[@l0s78]

Yeah clearly something seems to be amiss with these results. If it has between 5-30% perf uplift depending on application… or 16% higher geomean ipc improvement and maintains the same average clocks…. ???

[@johnscaramis2515]

@@MrDvneil Problem is that AMD requires board manufacturers to follow power limits in stock settings. So either HUB has used a board which did not follow AMDs requirements (due to a bug maybe) or changed the settings. If they changed it, it should be mentioned, you always document the settings when testing. The main problem: other reviewers checked with power limits off and saw big improvments from 7700X to 9700X. Whereas HUB results with 140W (so open limits) are much in line with GN results with power limits on.

[@prdx8543]

@@johnscaramis2515 No no no.. that's different. GN use CPU measurement, while HUB measured the whole system. The total power in steve's measurement aligned with GN, below 7700X

[@Gadtkaz]

Zen +5%

[@archthearchvile]

Quite a charitable nickname compared to the results lmao

[@GewelReal]

Zen sometimes slower 5

[@rallyscoot]

If you wait to Zen 6 you still got 15 % ;-) It isnt worth to buy new serie processors.. Better go the cheap route and buy Zen 4 instead.

[@itr00ow93]

Zen ±5%

[@KrebsHD]

More like Zen +/- 5%

[@mariuspuiu9555]

The power draw numbers are a bit weird compared to other reviews. In CB MT, others like Derbauer see the 9700x sit at around 80-90W compared to 140+ of the 7700x. Is it a bios/mobo difference? showing just a 20W difference is a pretty big outlier.

[@jonmayer]

I think their settings are highly customized or something. I don't think these are stock settings and probably why their results vary wildly from game to game.

[@AK-Brian]

As soon as I saw the first Cinebench test showing 140W on HWInfo64, I paused the video to scroll down and check if I'd misunderstood the test setup. Stock TDP is 65W, which will result in a PPT of 88W - the system seems to have PBO enabled, whether intentionally or otherwise (BIOS bug). Not sure how this wasn't caught.

[@haukionkannel]

There is always chip to chip variation. Lets see if HU did get uneffient chip or ir other did get very efficient ones. When there are more in the market, we get better picture what real efficiency numbers are, but as allways buy cpu is allways lottery! The speed results seems very similar across the board, efficiency numbers don`t.

[@mariuspuiu9555]

@@haukionkannel chip variance cannot account for such a big difference. something else is happening.

[@johnscaramis2515]

@@haukionkannel Agreed, chips are slgithly different. However AMD enforces the PPT limits when the MB is in stock settings. And GN Steve had 88W, which is exactly the PPT of a 65W CPU. That menas even with a better or worse chip, HUB also should see the 88W in MC applications, but they see 140W. I mean if we were talking something in the range of 83-93W, OK, but a factor of 1.6 in power consumption? Something weird is happening.

[@lithari1480]

i am not gonna watch it all, but is this dude taking into consideration the power this new cpu used to get slightly faster than the 7700x? cause if a cpu can do the same or close to it or faster for less power, i call that an improvement. Think of it like this, if a new cpu did the same or close performance to the 7800x3d, except 50% less heat, it would be considered an improvement in my book.

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

Weak tho

[@rollinghippo2940]

yeah, cpu benchmark nowadays needs to take into consideration of tpu because handheld gaming is a thing. industries are going toward efficiency more than just pure raw power

[@thetechnosaiyan]

LTT: Intel's already dead 😢 Gamers Nexus: atleast it's not as bad as intel😅 HUB: Zen 5 sucks!!😠

[@ItsDeeno69]

😂

[@oldmanian]

@@thetechnosaiyan the LTT content is problematic. It seems framed to show the 9700X in an undeservedly positive light. The 9700X is DOA and they should have waited to launch it for more of their existing 7700x inventory to sell. Even when they add the 3D Vcache I’m hard pressed as to what the differentiator will be that sells the 9000 vs the 7000.

[@Fractal_blip]

Problematic lol ​@@oldmanian

[@justusstern9125]

Me : Amd...great Value ! AND i have other metrics . Zen 5 is fine ! :)

[@angelaizen2231]

​@oldmanian the difference is power consumption and average temp.

[@Jomi91]

I'm just hoping this drives the price of the 7000 series down so I can get in on that platform, use it for 5 years and then upgrade to final series cpu supported by that socket.

[@MGsubbie]

I doubt it considering how it's barely faster.

[@thehunk1]

If anything this will make 9000 series prices to come down to 7000 series levels.

[@rallyscoot]

If zen 6 isnt great again (it depends) probably i used my Zen 4 for 4-5 years and jump over to AM6.

[@Angel7black]

Thats not how the market works, if older CPUs are still as good as newer ones they’ll hold their value better. Theres no benefit to AMD and Intel shitting the bed right now

[@defectiveclone8450]

If anything it will drive prices back up :) for the 7800X3D at least anyways

[@johnscaramis2515]

I just wondered, if it is really reasonable to check total power usage of a system in a CPU limited scenario. If the CPU is able to push more fps, the GPU will also render more fps. Rendering more fps means more power usage by the GPU. A few watts more on the GPU and a few watts less on the CPU leads to a similar total power usage compared to another system with a less strong, but more power hungry CPU. So instead of one variable you have a least two variables. Usually you try to avoid such issues and ahve only one variable to create a robust result of a test.

[@caffz]

I cant believe 3DFX unboxed strikes again

[@Dryloch]

If this was a 3DFX cpu it would be the best thing ever. Crazy that dead companies are still bribing for good reviews...😂

[@NJ-wb1cz]

​@@Dryloch 3dfx existed for like 3 years from the consumer point of view. Today all their products fit into the timeframe of a one marginal update

[@QuantumConundrum]

Seems like AMD' stagnation is here. Let's hope this doesn't last 8 years until Intel's Zen moment.

[@keyboard_g]

Zen5 is a completely new core. The beginning of the next design curve. Zen4 was maxing out what could be done on the old design.

[@Scholewes123]

AMD's skylake moment 😂😂😂

[@matteo964]

​@@keyboard_g that's not enough to make them good products tough.

[@Spartan9567]

I'm not sure I agree, wasn't *Zen + a bit of a flop? They seem to take a bit of a one step back 2 step forwards approach. Edit: confused Zen2 with Zen+

[@matteo964]

​@@Spartan9567 everything they've done since Zen1 with the exception of the X3D cpus has been quite unexciting. Slight single and multi corr uplift with each generation and that's it.

[@EasyGameEh]

linus: true generational step forward steve:

[@Hamborger-wd5jg]

yeah after that entire prototype drama i entirely stopped watching LTT, he aint getting a single view from me

[@professionalinsultant3206]

linus is a clown

[@Hamborger-wd5jg]

@@professionalinsultant3206 100%

[@bonaventuraxyz]

linus actually cared to try different power limits

[@prisai03]

Linus: A joke Steve: We stoked

[@mirceastan94]

"Sucks" - wow, that was fast. :) L.E. I found the Ryzen 5/7 pricing already pretty underwhelming compared to the discounted Zen 4 prices, but I thought, well, you got to pay for that 15% premium, right? Turns out, it's rather a 5% premium, at which point, those things are horrific, they should have been sold at 199$/299$ max considering they also don't include any coolers - for instance, 9700X would have been perfect with a Wraith Prism considering its efficiency.

[@Frozoken]

the 5 in zen 5 stands for the % uplift in performance 😂💀

[@theminec]

​@@Frozokenoh, it's you again! :)

[@Frozoken]

@@theminec yessir

[@ellsworth1956]

These CPU's run so cool you can just blow on the hard to keep them cool.

[@Rayer24]

I don't know why the 9600x even exists. 300$ for that in 2024 is an absolute joke. It was already bad with the 5600x in late 2020 but they're still doing it.

[@Dudi4PoLFr]

TLDW: Wait for the 9800X3D or get the 7800X3D now. Thanks Steve!

[@bartterp88]

Theres no single reason to not getting the 7800x3D now or in the near future... Even before these reviews were coming in.

[@mjc0961]

@@bartterp88 There is, and that single reason is if you're on AM4 already. Then get a 5700X3D or a 5800X3D if you can find one for a reasonable price. The cost of a new motherboard and RAM means the 7800X3D isn't worth it over just a new CPU for anyone on AM4. If you're building a brand new system anyway, then yes, go with 7800X3D for gaming.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

Wait couple of months for the situation with 9700 to clarify first because these results don't make much sense and aren't consistent between reviews. At the very least, it very well may be that the prices will go down Back to you, Steve!

[@bartterp88]

@@mjc0961 Yes of course. You are clearly right. But I'm referring to the people that are keeping an eye out for these new 9k series. These people are looking to build a totally new platform on itself already (they are due new gen).

[@Rayer24]

@@bartterp88 If you're looking at 8 cores I think I agree, although still a bit expensive for what it is. Personally I would go Ryzen 9 since the price is so low and I rather have more cores than a bit more speed.

[@eXxSe]

Thanks Steve. Just a little note if it's okay with you, it would be awesome if you started using the AV1 Codec format for your videos

[@juan5h]

Amd as a company is always very considerate, every time Nvidia or Intel make a mistake they accompany them by doing the same so they don't feel bad

[@liesandy291]

well jensen is lisa's uncle dunno about intel tho.

[@fajaradi1223]

​@@liesandy291 Intel was their partner back then.

[@auritro3903]

​@@liesandy291 first cousins once removed actually, not exactly an uncle

[@aightm8]

It's actually incredible how they manage to fumble the bag every single time. They refuse the make the GPUs price competitive until 6 months after launch when no one cares. Three generations in a row they fumbled the chance to get momentum. Now this.

[@liesandy291]

@@aightm8 yea happen once i chalk it as nothing, twice maybe coincidence, thrice that is a pattern worth investigating.

[@The11devans]

What the hell is this? These CPUs are not showing the performance we were led to believe. Remember AMD claimed the 9700X would be just a bit behind the 7800X3D in gaming performance? What a load of BS that was! EDIT: This comment was inane and inflammatory, and I can't believe how many likes it got. I guess I was just shocked at the results compared to the IPC claim by AMD. From watching a bunch of reviews now, it seems like the majority of multi-core performance uplift was negated by the cut to power vs the 7700X. The fixed Cinebench power chart from HUB also makes more sense than before. As for gaming, I still don't know why there's only a few percent in it. Maybe microcode or mobo tuning? Hopefully we learn more in the future. The price points for the 9000 series are still pretty rough vs the existing CPUs, and the 7800X3D is still king. So still a meh launch but not as bad as I initially thought. EDIT 2: The first edit was copium, these CPUs really are that underwhelming. I doubt any performance improvements will materialize.

[@jarnovilen5259]

Well, AMD also claims that 5800XT will beat 13600K which is hilarious. The AMD marketing team is very "creative".

[@FcoEnriquePerez]

And those prices look even worse now lol

[@pauloazuela8488]

Well it's stupid to believe a company marketing in the first place.

[@Neil3D]

Go watch the LTT nonsense, they'll tell you something close to that

[@lordfunkatron9732]

Performance per watt is there, but they don't seem to be getting the same throughput

[@docbrody]

It is indeed a “meh” release for most of us (gamers and custom DIY builders) in terms of performance, but for enterprise/server customers, I would *assume* the same or slightly better performance, with a much lower power requirements would be very compelling. I don’t really know though. Anyway, let’s see what happens with high-end parts in the next week or 2. Also, has anyone looked at whether we get anymore overclocking headroom with this generation?

[@lord-fishv7355]

right i understrand that yours is total system power consumtion and LTTs is Average CPU package power and GN is probably the same as them but your wattage and there wattage dont add up. LTT You GN 9700X 88W 221W 87.6W 7700X 144W 248W 147.6W Der8auer say 30-40% lower wattage then the 7700X so on the low end using LTT / GN wattages then it would be around 100.8W / 103.32W on the high end and on the low end 86.4W / 88.56W. which is either a 43.2W / 44.28W at 30% or 57.6W / 59.04W at 40% LTT with a diffrence of 56, You with 27W, GN with 60W and Der8auer with 43.2W to 59.04W. you might want to either redo these tests with just the CPU as your System might be taking more power then it needs as they will be having spikes of power draw which you cant account for. Also you may just have PBO on as now your matching the same amount of watts the others were having with it on but wouldent allow me to understand why you are getting much worse performance. as there getting around 1187 at 88W and your getting 1201 at 140W and when they have PBO on they get around 1305 and you only get 1311 at 25% (175W) more power then what you were normaly getting and why more then what the others are getting. What i think has gone wrong here is that your CPU is either the worst of the worst or you have paired it with a motherboard that is sending way to much voltage to it causing it to have a high wattage, this would also give a reason why LTT GN and Der8auer are not reaching 5.2 to 5.3GHz untill they turn on PBO.

[@Hanclok]

Well said, I'm so confused by the methodology as well

[@rintic13]

different processors calculate power differently, the wattmeter shows the actual power consumption

[@Tuhar]

HUB should go over all their bios settings like GN did. Documented methodology is always a good thing.

[@MrDvneil]

you are totally wrong with the numbers, HU cinebench power unlocked, multicore, 5.250mhz is 140 watts. same as LTT and GN when unlocked, check the video again, you are wrong with the numbers, they get 88 watts because their motherboard is blocking the consumption

[@lord-fishv7355]

@@MrDvneil yes but 140W for the same performance when there getting 88W and then he goes and says he gets 25% more wattage when he uses PBO which is 175W and they only get 140W. this much of a wattage difference is confusing manly because of them getting the same performance. also HU clock speed without BPO on is 5.2GHz and LTT, GN and Der8auer are at 4.7, 4.4 and 4.5. Also if you think im wrong why dont you come with evidence as thats what im trying to do right now. prove myself wrong or HU.

[@MartijnterHaar]

Clearly a cpu developed with efficiency as the highest priority, to compete in the laptop market with Apple and the threat of ARM on Windows. Maybe server customers are calling mostly for efficiency over peak performance too.

[@Bob_Smith19]

Enterprise market has bern about efficiency as much as performer for a long time. And AMD has destroyed Intel in this regard ever since EPYC came out.

[@ellsworth1956]

AMD's server market has always been their number 1 concern, gamers have always been getting the leftovers.

[@MadClowdz]

Server customers are suffering from PTSD from running all those unstable I9's at high voltages and seeing their power bills grow exponentially and are probably like "Please...just work and stay cool..."

[@PowellCat745]

@@MartijnterHaar That’s not completely true though. Zen 5 scales with power and its efficiency uplift is the lower at lower TDPs. 9950X at 220W will be a noticeable upgrade.

[@choochoosole1454]

Micro center had a deal on the 7700x for $114 a few months ago. Couldn’t turn it down and I’m not upgrading for at least another generation 😆

[@randocrypto1678]

Wow. This is super disappointing. Maybe bios optimizations can improve things here, especially where it’s slower than previous gen.

[@にしん猫]

I want to believe it😢

[@AuDiGo6]

just look at Debauer's review. If you turn on PBO and unlock the power limits, there is +20% at minimum. But with the same power consumption as the 7700X. And in production tasks only.

[@menacehobby9570]

​@AuDiGo6 20% uplift not in game but multicore performance, atleast you need know that

[@emilianoruiz7681]

something is off on this review. Everyone else got massive 30-40% off in TDP compared to 7000 series ..am I missing something? And you can push the cpu with PBO and get performance increase. I dont think its a flop.

[@techmalone9326]

Agreed.

[@jarnovilen5259]

PBO does not do much here. It is a flop. You should NOT buy this, you will find much better choices (for the money especially) in The Zen 4 line up.

[@test_account939]

@@jarnovilen5259 pbo did a lot more in other reviews like derbauer

[@emilianoruiz7681]

@@jarnovilen5259 it did on a few reviews..watch Linus Tech Tips and Level1Techs review.

[@rashidal-suwaidi]

To everyone commenting on the different power number from different reviewers, that's always happened. Off the top of my head, Linus uses power reporting through hardware monitor, GN uses an amp clamp on the eps cables, and HUB uses total power draw from the wall. They all have their pros and cons

[@otozinclus3593]

It happened not because they measured it wrong, but games don't suck that much power from the CPU in the first place. Therefore if you measure the power draw of the entire device, the CPU savings don't make a big difference

[@EkiToji]

@@otozinclus3593 Cinebench isn't gaming and should definitely hit that CPU as hard as it can. You would therefore expect a 50+ W difference between the 7700X and 9700X but Steve is only seeing 27W.

[@INTJ791]

​@@otozinclus3593well for pure gaming, total power draw more relevant, but calling zen 5 absolute flop because it perform worse than 7800X3D is gross simplification, by that logic,all amd product (including ryzen 3) should use maximum 3D cache starting from now

[@Loundsify]

From the wall is most accurate

[@zagortenay33]

No, you can not miss the power efficiency of these chips, whichever power monitor you use.

[@NovusDundus]

But I was told by "Leakers" that AMD was sandbagging Zen5 performance and that it'd be 20-30% more powerful! /s

[@Walkop]

I haven't watched the whole video, was PBO enabled? The chips are kind of designed to be used with PBO. Apparently there's a pretty big jump in performance versus last gen with it enabled, especially because of the lower TDP.

[@eliadbu]

​@@Walkop in short PBO was tested but it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, PBO added 9% more performance to Cinebench MT score at 25% increased system power, and at best 4% better gaming performance, most were 2% improvement. That 16% IPC according to the tests here are non existent, many of the cases this cpu was maybe 3-6% better than 7700x, and in some cases there was performance regression. I hope Zen 5 X3D brings more improvement, since there are extremely underwhelming results.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@eliadbu I definitely think it has a lot to do with the 4nm and massive efficiency gains. Maybe it's just me but I don't think these CPUs are all bad news considering the efficiency gains. Even though we are not seeing a big performance uplift, the efficiency gains pave the way for perf uplifts in the future and provide AMD more headroom to juice up future CPUs. I don't know why people are acting so disappointed anyway when there are _very few_ games out there that even stress a 7700X (which I have). Of course the big one will be the 9800X3D and that's the one we're really waiting for. But everybody is acting like Zen 4 is unusable and they were waiting for Zen 5 to make their games playable lol. Also I should add that people are really behaving like drama queens, people trashed Intel for having to use 2x the power to keep up with Zen 4, but now efficiency doesn't matter when AMD has managed to maintain the same performance but slashing consumption by half? Just skip Zen 5 if efficiency doesn't matter to you, it's that simple.

[@eliadbu]

@@JohnDoeWasntTaken Could be also the architectural changes and the fact that out of the box it set to lower TDP, if you get the 7700 non X those efficiency numbers quite diminish (but you get higher performance ofc). The disappointment comes from the AMD IPC and performance claims they are far from reality, also at that price and considering prior gens performance improvements, after 2 years expectation were higher. I don't think anyone believe zen 4 is not usable, people expect performance improvement more in line of prior gens. About efficiency : 1. it depends on your use case, and what system you are building and what are your goals 2. at 250W Intel CPUs are nigh impossible to cool, heat density is too high. 3. efficiency in desktop is important to a point, people will prefer faster CPU if power consumption isn't sky high. And for me I definitely skip Zen 5 for now, my 12900K OCed to 5.2 won't be far off 9700X performance, probably (and hopefully) Zen 6 X3D will be when I'll upgrade (unless Intel will somehow leapfrog AMD by then while as I said not consuming more than around 200 watts).

[@runninginthe90s75]

MLID after got caught lying : Don't worry guys, Amd is sandbagging with early firmware, zen 5 will be 40% faster after bios update !

[@Toasty_88]

They did what people were crying for when zen 4 came out. People were complaining that "chips get too hot", "why dont they ship it in eco mode as stock and we can overclock for more performance if we want", "all we care about is efficiency, electricity is too expensive", "we dont care about 5-10% performance I would rather it use half as much power". Well they listened and now everyone is complaining about them leaving performance on the table. AMD literally cannot win no matter what they do.

[@djlim4612]

exactly

[@shaunhodges8794]

I think what that tells us is that people will complain no matter what anyone does. Its super impressive to do slightly more with quite a lot less power, it just doesn't make an overly exciting headline for most people.

[@theholt2ic219]

Yes, so far you are the one of the only reasonable comments here. I absolutely 100% remember people saying the power consumption for Zen 4 was too high. Now it’s lower and some are still complaining lol. Turn on PBO if you want good gains.

[@minbcraft]

It makes me interested in how these parts will do against the reasonable Zen 4 parts like the 7900 or the 7700

[@TheArakan94]

Phoronix has a great review with much different conclusion.. "The Ryzen 7 9700X delivered 1.195x the performance of the Core i5 14600K competition or 1.15x the performance of the prior generation Ryzen 7 7700X. The raw performance of these Ryzen 9000 series processors was extremely impressive. These new Zen 5 desktop processors showed significant uplift in areas such as gaming and single-threaded workloads commonly led by Intel like Python, NumPy, Cryptsetup, audio encoding, and web browser performance." But they do take 400 tests and are very broadly focused. Gaming is also sometimes tested, but in this review, only two open-source games are tested (and the expected performance uplift is there).. For me, this highlights rigidity of Windows ecosystem - most software is compiled with old compilers and lack specific optimizations and code paths for new architecture resulting in disappointing results. Also, it IMHO shows a bit of weakness in Hardware Unboxed application test suite, which is very narrowly focused on pretty much just graphical content creators and gamers..

[@NJ-wb1cz]

They tested on a regular Ubuntu LTS and specifically mentioned how the Zen5 compiler optimizations aren't widely avaliable yet. So we can expect performance to improve further

[@jordanb722]

That sounds like most of the performance improvements came from the ST uplift, right? The i5 still appears to handily beat the 8 core ryzens in multicore if its a multicore benchmark/application.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@jordanb722 that's the thing - in hardware unboxed review it struggles with multicore in random scenarios, which doesn't make sense. Single core is pretty consistently improved. Which kinda hints that these results might change when whatever problems and slowdowns get solved on some level, BIOS or OS or compiler

[@davidlt]

PCWorld decided not to publish their review because something is off with the numbers. GamerNexus didn't publish one because CPU was basically broken IIRC. Something is off here, but not sure what. Phoronix benchmarks (Linux) suggest it's a nice improvement even without a PBO. Especially in the workloads that use AVX512 (NumPy, simdjson, video encoding [software], etc.).

[@cfillion]

@@NJ-wb1cz Nah, generic Linux distributions are never compiled with modern CPU-specific optimizations enabled (because it would requiring building and distributing an entirely different set of packages depending on each user's CPU, and swapping CPUs would require re-installing the entire system...). Unless using a distro like Gentoo where everything is compiled locally and CPU-specific optimizations can be enabled. A few mainstream distributions are considering creating repositories optimized for newer CPUs (eg. x86_64-v4 for AVX512), but at least for the being most of them are still stuck shipping packages optimized for x86_64-v1 for maximum compatibility.

[@Jacketz123]

Glad I’m not regretting my 7800X3D purchase from 3 months ago!

[@semtexxl4023]

Imagine my surprise waiting with 5900X and then see this title....I was about to buy new Ryzen 9xxx series due alleged ipc gains over last gen to improve my 4090 in 4k and then be ready for 5090 but now I am beyond confused. Looks like 7800X3D will be my choice anyway. What a bummer. You made a great choice for sure.

[@Jacketz123]

@@semtexxl4023 definitely stick with your CPU! And that upgrade likely wouldn’t improve your gaming experience at all at 4K even if it was better, it’s pretty much putting everything on the 4090 at that resolution, plus the 3D V-Cache benefits in some games. Definitely better holding onto it!

[@rallyscoot]

@@semtexxl4023 R7 7700 tray with PBO enabled is a great deal too

[@deathb1ossom]

Yeah I was talking to a colleague at work last week about gaming, and I was telling him about my setup (7800X3D combo'd with 7800 XT), and how I don't see a need to uprade for a few years down the line, absolutely zero need. Does it what it needs to and more. It's a perfect setup.

[@Jacketz123]

@@deathb1ossom yeah absolutely man, 7800X3D is a beast for gaming. I play at 1440p competitive settings for most games, so it’s a decent workload on both the CPU and GPU, I got a 4070 Super FE for £580 in the UK and it smashes everything. If you’re gaming at 4K then you probably wouldn’t even need to upgrade your CPU next time, just slap another GPU in there and you’d be good to go!

[@hMint]

My 7700x is blushing right now

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

I have one paired with a 4080 Super and still have not once found a game where it was the 7700X holding me back.

[@technologicalelite8076]

​@@JohnDoeWasntTakenSame here! Cyberpunk and VRChat can push it, but tbf not much else can handle it, meaning it's the game not the CPU. A very great CPU indeed!

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@technologicalelite8076 Yup, Cyberpunk also puts some load on mine. The fact hardly any games use even a 7700X is why I think people are very spoiled complaining about the 9700X small performance increase. Not like gamers would notice when we are GPU bottlenecked even with current gen cards. Can't wait for the 9800X3D though, some games I play really benefit from the v-cache.

[@z_wulf]

The difference in benchmarks between reviewers, using the same software/games is a bit too big to just be "different place/settings." I think these chips are just not functioning correctly. There's just massive discrepancies, both in performance and power consumption across reviewers. LTT has 1 set of numbers, GN another, der8auer another and HU another. Something doesn't add up.

[@F1stzz]

First and foremost - in relation to what you've said, I think the lack of a proper optimization for current batches of motherboards & poor RAM compatibility is responsible for all this mess, which indicates this release was kinda rushed. These inconveniences should be sorted out soon. Second - keep in mind that new chipsets tuned specifically for 9000-series are soon to be available, would love to see what these new processors are gonna be capable of while operating on those. Third, imo - the most important: people didn't quite catch the trend started with the 4000-series Nvidia GPUs, therefore can't understand these new Ryzen chips - it's an SFF/ITX trend. PCs of a console size being able to do all the same work as previous gens & more while being twice as efficient & twice as easy to cool. We're entering the new era of hardware with these releases (7950/00X3D were also in that category, btw) - the era of power-efficient lunchboxes carrying the power of an ATX custom liquid cooled builds. That's quite exciting, if you ask me 😁

[@DrKriegsgrave]

Between Intel and AMD, the customer looses today

[@azurelas1]

*loses*

[@MaggotCZ]

You win by buying Arrow Lake later this year by default.

[@GewelReal]

Speak for yourself. AVX-512 enjoyers are gonna sweep the shelves clean

[@Gamecapturevideo]

We've loost another battle.

[@asdassdgfdf7509]

A hero is needed, a hero named RISC-V maybe?

[@good4nothing392]

Some leaker said, Zen 5 IPC will blow your mind 😂

[@Stirlingsays]

Maybe Red Gaming Tech is spending too much time in the gym!

[@scsidan]

MLID? That guy cant to taken seriously. His "leaks" are always off

[@christophermullins7163]

IPC is not performance. The IPC uplift was exactly what AMD claimed. FYI. Leakers are usually wrong of course.

[@ZackSNetwork]

@@christophermullins7163No this is disappointing stop damage controlling for AMD. 2 years passed and they give us a chip that is slightly slower or on par majority of the time. It cost more as well.

[@vx4nc]

@@ZackSNetwork I think you mean within margin of error of the equivalent part while greatly improving on power usage and at the same suggested release price not counting inflation in USA.

[@anghDescartes]

the gains are rather great on linux as tested by phoronix, so the issues are probably on the Windows lack of update.

[@yuvanraj2271]

This is why intel needs to be alive.

[@4epa1012]

Indeed!

[@sdrubaa]

They did the same thing since 10th gen.

[@rallyscoot]

Or just wait some years longer, and see on future products are any better. But i really dont care, because Zen4 is still going strong.

[@Skylancer727]

Well it looks like AMD just threw them a lifeline by sandbagging their newest product. Whether that be intentional or not, most likely not.

[@Fractal_blip]

​@@Skylancer727intel calls up amd "Bro I'm in a bind, can you do me a solid?" "I gotchu dawg" 🤜🤛

[@oldmanian]

Wow. That’s a thumbnail. This makes me think that even the 9800x3d might aspire to be a (relative) dud as well.

[@davidepannone6021]

200%. It will probably 10%ish AT best faster than the 7800x3d imo.

[@LiveType]

​@@davidepannone6021Yeah Zen 5 so far looking like a dud. Looks very promising for hyper scalers though. Probably the focus of the design. I also remember hearing that Zen 5 had issues but this was 3 years ago. Wonder if those issues got resolved in this revision or were pushed back to Zen 6+.

[@TheDarksideFNothing]

I could see where maybe it's bandwidth limited or something and perhaps would benefit more from extra cache than last gen but I'm not optimistic about it. Bummer... Maybe we will see C core skus later on that make this gen more interesting.

[@zsideswapper6718]

There were leaks of the 9800X3D that said it would be overclockable, which would be a massive win.

[@Amp_Edition]

It should be awesome for gaming laptop, but for desktop it's not great

[@Nintenboy01]

Looks like AVX-512 for the limited apps that can benefit and slightly better efficiency are the main draws over getting Zen 4. Curious to see how a future 9800X3D will do versus the 7800X3D

[@ok-70707]

5700x3d is the best option for me as a 5600 and b450 owner who earlier went from the 2600 to the 5600 while maintaining the same motherboard by updating the bios.

[@MrDgt66]

solid choice

[@anon1963]

7800x3d better

[@Rydiak]

@@anon1963 On an AM4 platform? Come on, man.

[@ok-70707]

@@anon1963 am5 fyi

[@anon1963]

@@Rydiak ah my bad, just got overexcited

[@The_Noticer.]

I think i see the issue. Because you can see clear IPC performance gains when its only a few threads being loaded (ST cinebench, counters trike, AC). So in all-core its likely hitting a TDP limit. Did you check what voltages its running? Seems strange that this part uses that much power, given the nodeshrink and 65W TDP. I would say you can signficantly boost performance when undervolting. Maybe the boardpartners f'ed up the voltage tables. Because all PBO does, much like removing the limits on the 14900K is just throw voltage at it. You need to use curve optimizer/shaper to actually get it to clock higher. EDIT: my theory being confirmed in GN's video, MT/ST boost behaviour. So yeah, why did none of you reviewers whip out curve optimizer? You're supposed to be the tech press.

[@MrSherhi]

It's like 20-25W difference which seems fine, in percentages it's more visible CPU Vs CPU but if you count the whole system power with 4090 then yea it looks small

[@The_Noticer.]

@@MrSherhi Still, would love to see the boost behaviour in games. Could be an absolute dud as Steve says, but the fact that in lightly threaded scenario's it is better, tells me that there is some stuff to be gained with curve shaper.

[@KPTKleist]

TDP rating has nothing to do with the package power under full load here. At 2:43 you can see that the package power hit 140W.

[@ivanbrasla]

Power draw in games is typically low and cpus are often able to hit their max boost constantly. Performance in some areas is more likely related to the cpu arch

[@The_Noticer.]

@@ivanbrasla Check GN's video, the power draw is significantly lower. And that results in significantly lower all-core clocks. Mark my words, with curve shaper and setting TPP limits higher, this thing will be all-core 10% faster too.

[@mattmcc7930]

I've been waiting on this review to upgrade my 2700x. Guess I'm going with the 7700x. Thanks for the work, Steve.

[@dcarpenter85]

Wasn't expecting it to be a great gaming CPU since it's not an X3D model, but man.

[@alrizo1115]

it should be better content creation cpu at least beats the i5 of intel. Hoping it's just fixable by updates 🤞

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@alrizo1115 Yeah, I wonder if there will be any large improvements with BIOS updates and X870 boards. People have to relearn over and over that buying hardware on launch is equivalent to being a beta tester. And each new generation they are surprised all over again that there are issues needing to be worked out. It's just the nature of these things, at this point.

[@runninginthe90s75]

Incoming zen 5 x3d with another 5% uplift compared to previous gen.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@runninginthe90s75 If it manages to do so with half the power consumption (which = much less heat) then it will still be much better than the 7800X3D. The v-cache really doesn't like heat and the 7800X3D lags behind the 7700X in some games and applications because of its lower thermal limit to protect the v-cache. And really, why even complain when there isn't even a game out there where the 7800X3D bottlenecks the GPU above 1080p? It's already an overkill gaming CPU for years to come. It just stinks of whininess when people are complaining so much over the small perf uplift, when the CPUs we already have aren't even the limiting factor in gaming, maybe people should consider that fact instead of forgetting that FPS is a balance between CPU _and_ GPU.

[@antiwokehuman]

Pbo seems to work wonders for these chips if der8auer’s testing is repeatable. Kind of strange that amd would leave 15%+ performance on the table

[@DeciVonW]

PBO doesnt seem to do barely anything for gaming. and thats what most of us care about.

[@bmanrockwell2174]

@@DeciVonW for me, this.

[@concinnus]

@@DeciVonW It doesn't hurt gaming either, tho. So why not enable it, or at least maintain the same 105W spec of the 7700X, unless you want to keep temps down in all-core, or want the 9900X/9950X to look better?

[@PowellCat745]

@@concinnus yeah the 9700x should be shipped with a 105W or 120W TDP.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@DeciVonW Probably because most games already don't even come close to utilizing even a 7700X bro. Even with a 7800X3D only games that are coded in a way that benefits from the v-cache see an FPS gain over the 7700X. You have no clue what you're talking about. I use a 4080 Super with a 7700X and I'm limited by the 4080 not the 7700X. Anyone who plays above 1080p does not care much about CPU uplifts, Zen 4 was already more than enough for gaming for years to come. So people throwing a tantrum over Zen 5 being a small perf improvement are just ignorant. Especially you guys saying gaming is your #1 priority while caring about the 9700X performance, you should already know the 9800X3D will trash it in gaming.

[@Pebb2024]

The clickbait title is very misleading. First time PC builders or people that are new to the space are going to actually think Zen 5 CPUs suck for gaming and they absolutely do not. If the 9700X sucks and you say it has the same performance as the 7700X then that means the 7700X sucks too. If you are new PC building, the 7700X and all the Zen 5 CPUs do not suck for gaming. Don't feel bad about choosing any of these options.

[@Tainted79]

Wasn't expecting a Meh generation CPU. But at least it won't burst into flames.

[@Underground.Rabbit]

People have a memory of a fish. AMD literally exploded. Intel is just degrading itself to death.

[@alrizo1115]

Mine hasn't yet. please pray it won't

[@Celatra]

Every manufacturer has had exploding components at some point​@@Underground.Rabbit

[@tablettablete186]

Maybe, we don't know that yet

[@jarnovilen5259]

Are you sure? And most of the reviewers did not get the 9600X to run some tests at all. This is a disaster and it suites Intel very well considering their problems. That does not seem to be that common anyways. I have not encountered even one unstable 13/14th gen Intel CPU. And I have worked with hundreds. So not that common, at least yet.

[@johngalactus4014]

What happened? I mean this is baffling. I mean, Steve is standing!

[@mariuspuiu9555]

i don't know. performance seems to ok-ish, but his power draw numbers are generally much higher than other reviews.

[@blackbirdpctech]

When you test CPU’s why do you test at ultra graphics settings? It makes way more sense to test CPU’s at low graphics settings so you can make sure you heavily load the cpu.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

I would also like to know. We are at a point in gaming where the CPUs have outpaced the GPUs by quite a lot. The 7700X from last gen won't even bottleneck a 4080 Super, that's the combo I am using. At 1440p, the 4080 is always the bottleneck. Seeing people freaking out that the 9700X isn't delivering 30+FPS improvements is like looking at a circus. Suddenly everyone forgot that Zen 4 was so good that the GPU has become the main bottleneck in gaming. How is AMD supposed to demonstrate a perf uplift when the limiting factor (the GPU) has remained the same? Maybe RTX 5000 will allow us to see where these CPUs really stand.

[@blackbirdpctech]

@@JohnDoeWasntTaken I think there is something wrong with the bios (not HUB’s fault, every review is the same) … my guess is that these results will become invalid very rapidly with a bios update from AMD. That said, when you test the performance of CPU’s in games you basically want to eliminate the gpu from contributing while maximizing the load on the cpu. So selecting “ultra” graphics game settings makes absolutely no sense. You should select the minimum graphics settings. It may be industry standard but it’s wrong.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@blackbirdpctech Exactly. Even with a 4090 some of those games were struggling to hit 100FPS, at 1080p that's just insane. Clearly there is poor optimization as well leading to the GPU holding the CPU back. I know he tested at 1080p so the CPU would come into play more, but cranking everything to ultra just invalidates that decision given the optimization of current generation titles. I am looking forward to future results, seeing the feedback once people actually get these CPUs in their rigs and not just in the hands of reviewers. BIOS updates could be big, I think it just comes down to teething pains at launch. Zen 5 is drastically different from 4 in how its cores are designed. Halving power while maintaining performance is already a huge win imo.

[@joonas4427]

​@@JohnDoeWasntTakeni agree i think its impressive to gain perf and consume way less power. I value a good efficiency and quiet and cool pc.

[@clifflenoir4323]

Ultra settings when including raytracing can put more of a load on the CPU, although you are right that higher frames per second from lower quality settings also strains a CPU. The question of which one helps more will no doubt be discussed by Steve and Tim on an upcoming HUB Podcast

[@tapioorankiaalto2457]

I built a R5 7600 desktop last year and I'm going to wait for 9800X3D to come down before upgrading.

[@warlordwossman5722]

hopefully it's more than 3% faster than the 7800X3D lol

[@benedict9016]

I'll wait for 10700X3D, it should still be on AM5.

[@bandita2068]

which games are unplayable on 7600? do you have a 4090 RTX? you need strong gpu for gaming not much cpu

[@1Grainer1]

the most positive thing i can find about those is that they are most probably very SFF friendly thanks to power efficiency, hence lower power draw/temps

[@Daxwax101]

There's some really nice uplift in certain productivity workloads. Can't kill my positivity, steve! Not running out to get one though, zen 4 does everything I need. Will probably upgrade to the last CPU on AM5

[@garytrawinski1843]

Steve, 6% is 100% faster than 3%. I've got my AMD marketing hat on. It's made of tin foil...LOL

[@runninginthe90s75]

Amd be like : Guys didn't you see our ryzen 5900XT is as fast as i9-13900K in GPU bound scenario !

[@Flaming1100]

Well then....... guess my 9900k is going to be sticking around for another year.

[@dademr]

Was realy waiting for this to upgrade from 9600K, and now im just wtf

[@alrizo1115]

upgrade when Amazon already creates consumer CPU

[@rallyscoot]

@@alrizo1115 And then drop the ball on their products, like their game studios.

[@jarnovilen5259]

Well, LGA1851 sounds much more interesting launch now than I anticipated.

[@TheCth777]

A 7800x3D doesn’t do it for you? What are you looking for specifically

[@tuckerhiggins4336]

Efficiency is worth it, just not for more money. If you push them, they do well. But this all gives credence to MLIDs leak that Zen5 was ported to 4nm from 3nm to make room for MI accelerators and 3nm laptop stuff

[@jakacresnar5855]

god dammit, Zen 4 is gonna go up in price now isn't it

[@rallyscoot]

Probably.

[@Omashiito]

No

[@aidentheorc2124]

Yup

[@silvernia1713]

In my country about month ago 7800x3d went from 600 to 730 once 9000 was announced and I bet it won't come back down any time soon

[@dudao4163]

AMD capped TDP too low at 65W. Remove the cap with PBO make it gains ~ 15% vs 7700x while still use less power.

[@Peter.H.A.Petersen]

10:40 - No, not according to HUB ...

[@jarnovilen5259]

Nope, it does not.

[@blackeagle041]

@@jarnovilen5259 according to derbauer yes

[@Hanclok]

@@Peter.H.A.Petersen Well HUB has VASTLY different results than any other tech YT

[@madguitarist]

I think that the efficiency gains are probably going to be the story of the 9000 series. I'm definitely feeling better about picking up a 7800X3D on a flash sale last month...not that I wasn't confident that it would be just fine.

[@francescobove6208]

-30 C° 9700x vs 7700X in cinebench, wow

[@GnilCH]

What? Timestamp? The only temperatures I could see were 90C at 9700X multicore vs 66C on 9700X single. Pretty comparable to my 7700X

[@griffin1366]

Because it's power limited.

[@mokahless]

@@griffin1366 That's not why. There are fundamental changes to HOW AMD is measuring temperature this generation. Being in the 7700 envelope doesn't account for a full 30 C.

[@cheese186]

@@mokahless 95% of that is because of the lower power limit (142 down to 88W)

[@AliYassinToma]

Why is linus' video showing half the power consumption compared to the 7700x?

[@AxleLotl]

And GN. And Derbauer

[@tappy8741]

@@AxleLotl And Phoronix

[@raulitrump460]

He is using console level power limits use pbo and 9700x consumes 160w.

[@MatheusFerreira-si4ju]

Sponsorship

[@mariuspuiu9555]

@@raulitrump460 pbo uses about 140W (about the same as the 7700x with a 15-20% increase in MT perf). if you max everything it goes up to 160W.

[@JaySmith-i3z]

For those of us lucky enough to live near a Micro Center. If you put a 7800x3d, motherboard, and memory to your MC cart. This price of the 7800x3d drops to $224. You don't have to get the MC recommended ATX bundle. I needed a matx board.

[@vespa7961]

These results are extremely interesting. Did AMD mess something up? Does PBO change this?

[@Acid_Burn9]

7700x has 105w TDP and 9700x has 65w TDP, so that might have something to do with this.

[@Feuer-ks3rr]

AMD thinking we PC users care about power efficiency. They left their heads in the laptop/mobile market :)

[@vespa7961]

@@Feuer-ks3rr the tdp isn't what fries them. Same even goes for intel chips.

[@Acid_Burn9]

@@Feuer-ks3rr That was clearly not the reason.

[@GewelReal]

It does use less power than 7700X But also it's sometimes slower, so... huh?

[@AssassinIsAfk]

A driver update will probably fix this issue Edit: it still doesn't really matter since it won't be anywhere near as good as the 7800x3d but I gotta give props to AMD for making the 7800x3d an excellent argument

[@arkeynserhayn8370]

Yeah, results dont make sense at all. Probably a firmware issue.

[@iamprogressivenpc6559]

🤣

[@nostrum6410]

Seems like amd is doing intel a solid

[@AssassinIsAfk]

@@nostrum6410 intel has their own issues to worry about, all this has done is increase sales of the 7800x3d

[@Elc22]

Sitting pretty with my 5800X3D. Nice to see some efficiency improvements, but there is nothing else worth noting. AMD seems to be launching thier new generations before they are really ready, just look at the launch of the 7000 series CPUs and the 7000 series GPUs...

[@tylerharris4568]

Having my 13900kf cooked after 8 months wanted to go back to amd with the 9 series should I just stick with a 7800x3d to pair with my radeon 7800xt?

[@Sly_404]

Wait till September/October as rumor has it the new x3d chips might launch then. Else just go for the 7800x3d rock solid CPU!

[@fueler5479]

yes

[@andreas8194]

yes

[@tylerharris4568]

@@Sly_404 I'm prob just gonna go with 7800xed anything but intel I undervolted and everything and have constant crashes and bluescreen

[@haroldbacker5915]

7800X3D for now and that is what I have I am not sure if I will update anytime soon

[@abibirawa4119]

HUB's power consumption data is weird. Check LTT and GN's data. 7700x consumes 80% more power (150w vs 90w) than the 9700x

[@mikkaloo6525]

Go buy one and test by yourself

[@vulcan4d]

Gotta love buying the previous gen before the disappointing next gen comes out. Loving my 7800x3d which I got for $250 ;).

[@tristianyamaty]

It's about the same performance (a little better on average) but 40W lower power than Zen 4. That seems like some crazy good performance/watt improvements. Looking forward to see what the higher end chips are like.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@mikeoxmells69 Okay? The 7800X3D also wrecks the 7700X. Wait until the 9800X3D before making unfair comparisons, two completely different use-case CPUs. Should also add that AMD even said before the 9700X launched that none of the non-X3D Zen 5s would be better than a 7800X3D for gaming. Which was obviously expected given how good the X3D CPUs are.

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@mikeoxmells69 Well yeah, the 9700X isn't competing with the 7800X3D and never was. Until the 9800X3D comes out there are no reasonable comparisons that can be made between the 7800X3D and Zen 5 right now. We're all really just waiting for the 9800X3D.

[@INTJ791]

​@@mikeoxmells69price performance is most people care about but some, if not most prefer "efficiency performance"

[@Shl0kk]

Phoronix had some interesting results - 9700X has about 15% better performance than 7700X while using 33% less power. The caveat is this was under Linux. Perhaps Windows needs to up their game?

[@TheMeragrin]

Are you talking about the overall results? When I perused the results, it seemed very hit and miss when it came to improvements. The AVX-512 tests seem overweighted to me. I don't think this is a Windows vs Linux thing. It's more of an entirely different take on what and how to test.

[@Shl0kk]

Yep the overall results. Not every test will be a slam dunk

[@35sdf14ds]

when intel had the monopoly we would get a 10% improvement on the same quad core every year, now that intel is rusting away we are back at stagnation

[@rnapol3266]

Are you trying to imply that AMD sucks? Because it’s a driver issue at launch ..

[@fergus247]

Only thing that stagnated was your brain

[@perroguerrero9568]

Zen 6 will be a better generation to upgrade. The changes in Zen5 is not worth the money. Better to wait for Zen 6 or buy the 7000 series x3d chips at discounted prices right now.

[@jarnovilen5259]

No one knows that yet. But it will not be a very difficult task since Zen 5 is not really an performance update at all. Very disappointing.

[@user-eu5ol7mx8y]

Zen6 still on AM5 or new socket?

[@alubto]

Wow, I see both very positive and very negative reviews of these chips, it's been a while to see this for CPUs

[@TheMeragrin]

Have you seen any negative reviews which weren't solely focused on some niche like gaming?

[@ΠάνοςΒασιλειάδης-ω7φ]

I prefer efficiency, especially now with the increasing prices in electricity! What exactly is the problem??

[@eventhorizon9598]

I was even surprised, we are already at Ryzen 9000 and it feels like Ryzen 7000 is just one year old.

[@clifflenoir4323]

They are on a yearly CPU release cycle compared to 1.5-2 yearly approximately on GPUs

[@yancgc5098]

People need to understand that the era of big performance gains on the CPU single core side of things is dead. Clock speed stagnated and now IPC is getting harder and harder to increase, pretty much reaching stagnation as well at this point. The only way forward now is more cores

[@michaelangst6078]

We should sitll be able to get at least 15% performance increase every 2 years.. You sitll can with this CPU actually compared t the 7700X if you OC it

[@madelaki]

Not true at all. People said that many years ago and then we got multiple new CPU gens that brought 15-20% IPC gains over their predecessors, sometimes even more depending on the use case.

[@yancgc5098]

@@madelaki Well that’s because Zen 1 was still slower than Intel’s offering. AMD still had some IPC to gain because they were still behind Intel, only matching them with Zen 2. The majority of Zen 3’s performance jump over Zen 2 was the fact that inter-core communication didn’t have to go through the infinity fabric with their 6 and 8 core parts. That’s a performance increase from latency reduction, which was a low hanging fruit for AMD. With Zen 4 they tried actually improving the CPU core itself and the best they could do after 2 years is a 13% IPC increase for games, though typically it was only about 10%. With Zen 5 the increase is even less and clock speed didn’t improve even a little. So as I said, clock speed stagnated and IPC gains are less and less as time goes on. More cores is the way to go at this point, Intel has already been giving us 24 cores on their i9 chips since 2022, AMD should do the same and give us 24 cores on their Zen 6 Ryzen 9 chips.

[@yancgc5098]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@michaelangst6078 I think it’s bad that the only way to keep the 15% single core performance increase every 2 years alive is to throw power efficiency out the window. That’s just unsustainable and we won’t be able to do it for much longer at this point, which is why adding more cores is the path that should be focused on since it would increase overall performance while still keeping good power efficiency.

[@davehill9951]

I rocked an 1800x for almost ten years and was very happy. Bought a new 5900x and a b550 asus strix board i guess 3 years ago. For me no need to change, friggin works fabulous and still Rockin an EVGA 3070ti. Do i need to buy a new Porche every year? Going to be interesting what may be available in another 8 years and if its worth buying or just another boat anchor just like this 9 series!

[@Flinty88]

I like the channel but bad take this time around. It's cheaper and more power efficient, which is something we needed. Sure it's not much of an improvement horsepower wise, but it is an improvement nonetheless. It's not a wild jump for a generation but I think this review is overly harsh on it.

[@b1lleman]

exactly.

[@olivur_1459]

This thing is AMAZING! On par with the 14600K while being 65% more efficient. How could you say this is a disappointment??

[@HalfLifeHalfDead]

Because the 7700x exists.

[@dividion8102]

It should get a little better over time with new BIOS and drivers and such, but I don't think it'll ever catch the 7800X3D in gaming. And though this review didn't cover it, it could make for a decent low-power AV1 streaming box that doesn't require a dedicated GPU. (I'd probably choose a lower-end part for that though. Techpowerup has some good comparison graphs for AV1, H264, etc.)

[@Hardwareunboxed]

Please note there is a mistake in the Cinebench power graph, I have issued a correction here: x.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1821307394238116061

[@Hanclok]

The correct wattage usage is indicated at the 2:45 mark, located at the bottom right.

[@MarkSerenadesYou]

Glossing over all the architectural improvements and calling it a "flop" seems like the biggest error. This obsession with getting a few more points in benchmarks is what drove Intel to roid their CPUs to death. AMD went in a different direction and ya'll are dragging'em thru the mud for it.

[@Hardwareunboxed]

@@MarkSerenadesYou the 'flop' is based on the performance, not how long they spent tinkering with it. The performance uplift is generally poor, extremely poor for gaming. It uses slightly less power for the same performance, and it costs a lot more. Sorry bud it's a flop.

[@kizvy]

@@MarkSerenadesYou some people do value performance over power usage

[@Hardwareunboxed]

@@kizvy power usage is somewhat important, but less than a 10% improvement for the same performance isn't going to make a real difference to anyone. Also the power improvements when gaming are nearly zero.

[@nickschmitz841]

Giving the 9700x a chance, was this testing conducted with the 9000 series bios applied ? With that in mind, do you think we could see some potential performance improvements once some more mature bios updates come out ?

[@gernot4490]

i love the honesty, and i block channels which hype zen 5

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

Thumbnail seems to have primed a grenade in the comments section. Why so black and white? Iteration is life, not feast or famine. This will be a fine cpu for everyone who doesn't own last gen.

[@MoireFly]

Because it's hardly any better than last gen, yet significantly more expensive? Zero reason to get this, for everyone.

[@IlMemetor72]

Yes iteration is fine What isn't fine is how there's no improvement.

[@mokahless]

@@IlMemetor72 What are you talking about? There's literally an up to 15% (maybe more in some workloads, haven't checked) vs the same TDP 7700 non-X. I get backlash, and it's important to have it to avoid accepting another iterative-increases-for-8-years that intel did, but it's important to not be dishonest while we do it.

[@MoireFly]

@@mokahless But there are also workloads where is almost just as much slower (7-zip). On average, it's just definitely a yawn. And sure, maybe you can overclock, PBO and tweak your way to a faster zen5 chip, but then you can do most of those things with zen4 too (except the power boost, which is already higher) - and so you're left with a chip that takes manual tuning to win by at best single digit percentages on average, while costing 25% more than the last gen chip. It's a total dud. If the price were the same, this would be yawn-worthy but still iterative improvement. It's not though; it's way more expensive, so it's just a universally bad deal.

[@INTJ791]

​@@MoireFly"significantly more expensive", the efficiency for some people will offset the cost in long run, by your logic non X3D model should be fully abolished

[@mfam72]

I think Steve is missing the point here. Efficiency gain is hugeeeee according to Linus. Since the performance is already good, an increase in efficiency is a big win.

[@fazlerabbi460]

Efficiency gain isn't huge....It is just that 7700x is pushed way too hard in default mode....cap 7700x at similar power level, it won't be more than 15% slower.....Zen 5 is RDNA 3 all over again

[@jwmoffat]

Sure, a big efficiency gain would be a big win. But that's not really the case here, with only ~25W of power savings. Like Steve says: "it's not nothing but, also, it's certainly not exciting." EDIT: Looking at the GN review, he was showing about a 60W delta for Blender, which is a big gain. So, something odd is going on here.

[@mokahless]

@@fazlerabbi460 You can check the results of this theory already with any reviews that included the 7700 non-X in their review (no youtubers, just articles, most notably techpowerup). The gains are definitely better than you suggest. Edit: Nevermind, you are technically correct with most workloads. I guess looking at charts vs seeing just numbers I placed more value on 10-15%

[@INTJ791]

​​@@fazlerabbi460capped 7700 X is 20-25 percent slower or even more sometimes, especially with productivity, with intel mess recently, even using intel for productivity is not recommended

[@olivur_1459]

I really like the efficiency a lot. I think I'll just wait for the x3D variant later in the fall. 😊

[@mcrazza]

What the heck is going on with Zen 5???

[@Garu_Df]

intel sucks so amd plays the game

[@damianabregba7476]

​@@Garu_Dfas if cpu designs happens in weeks. It is a semi reset of a design to get better scaling in the future cpus at the cost on some losses of that one generation

[@jarnovilen5259]

Well not much to be honest. Useless "upgrade".

[@test_account939]

it seems great in efficiency and productivity once pbo is on but is the same in gaming, from debauer anyway

[@runninginthe90s75]

@mcrazza Amd milking the fanboys because they all believe Amd is "good guy", turned out Amd is just bad guy behind mask.

[@alun1038]

At this point the only thing that could save this new Zen 5 generation is their 9000X3D lineup, and it might not even be much better than last gen if we base it on these results lol

[@arekb5951]

That was the case with Zen 4 too, Zen 4 was pretty damn mediocre before price drops and X3D too. AMD just can't launch products, they're either too expensive for what they are, lack features AMD promised to deliver or are plagued with buggy software. Never buy AMD at launch. With time they correct the prices, fix bugs and add features and all is well, but never at launch.

[@haukionkannel]

These have low power budget vs 7000 series. The x3d seems to have same power budget and the 7000 does, so we may see bigger increase in there… but lets see.

[@jskop566]

Doesn't look like the resale value of my 7800x3d is going down anytime soon at least. I'm very curious to see what kind of improvements come with the new x3d chips however.

[@nathaniel0209]

65w tdp is a significant uprade.

[@Chasm9]

There seems to be some issue, no? It can't be slower 🤔🤔😳

[@mariuspuiu9555]

from the power draw numbers and clocks, there might be some bios issues for HU or maybe something else.

[@TheCgOrion]

Something seems off with the power delivery, or something 😂,and maybe BIOS changes could address it. I have a feeling this may change over time.

[@valiceman8015]

So 9700X is 3% to 5% faster than 7700X while consuming 20% to 40% less (see GN video, they can measure CPU consumption unlike HU) .. and Steve thinks it's a flop ?? Whaat ? From time to time we should have a generation which focuses on efficiency and lower consumtion.. or else we end up with processors like 14900K which draw a stupid 300 W.

[@Chainspike101]

I'm sorry I watched a 7800X3D absolutely destroy a 9700X next gen processor at the same / less money $ and my 7800X3D pulls less 60 watts in games... Yeah that's a no brainer.

[@TheZROLimit]

When I saw the title. I was like I see where we going with this lol

[@billnwa2250]

Good afternoon, with these being 65-watt chips, it seems a more direct comparison would be the non x 7000 series. It's odd that they called the 65-watt chips from this release x. It would have been nice to see the nonx 7000 series results in with the other results in the benchmarking. Anyway, my two-cents worth. Thanks for all the great videos. You guys are great.

[@youtubevanced4900]

Your results don't match up with Debauer's results at all. His Phantom Liberty results average 170FPS average over a 5min run. Whilst yours are 110. Yes your testing different areas but a 50% difference? His 1% lows are a bit higher as well. In addition his CS2 results are 50% higher roughly despite using 1440p for his test. Showing the 4090 isn't the bottleneck even at 1440p. Same for the 1% lows. How is there a 50% swing in your testing? Something isn't right with the testing being done somewhere here. Can you discuss with Debauer to figure this discrepancy out? (It's not just Debauer, Tom's hardware is showing higher performance that you as well) edit: I'm not talking about when he overclocks either which obviously bumps the performance quite a lot.

[@iequalsnoob]

Lmao gamers nexus says you need to cope as well fanboy.

[@youtubevanced4900]

@@iequalsnoob fanboy? I’m highlighting there is a discrepancy in the reporting. Something isn’t adding up.

[@marcinzasada5814]

One Korean KZbinr noticed significant differences in performance between MSI boards and Gigabyte

[@youtubevanced4900]

@@marcinzasada5814 it seems to me the whole launch should of been delayed longer. Wildly different results from one benchmarker to the next. No flagship chip. No mention of the X3D launch. The whole thing is a botch job.