Ryzen 9000 officially announced for July 31st Release
- Thread starter SpyderTracks
- Start date
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Here come the reviews (R7 9700X)...but their R5 9600X was DOA (replacement was fine though)...and pricing is not looking particularly favourable to the 7000 series CPUs 
My summary of it would be "meh", and that was before I got to the end of the video where Tech Jesus (Tesus?) agreed with me:
For now, I wouldn't recommend building anything with the 9000 series.
My summary of it would be "meh", and that was before I got to the end of the video where Tech Jesus (Tesus?) agreed with me:
- for gaming buy the 7800X3D for slightly less than the new 9700X
- for multi-core productivity buy the 7900X for the same price as the 9700X (or spend a bit more and go for the 7950X)
- for Photoshop (and only Photoshop due to AMD's IPC improvements) the 9700X is a winner
For now, I wouldn't recommend building anything with the 9000 series.
Last edited:
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
Do you think they recalled them to make them defective feeling bad for big daddy Intel?Here come the reviews (R7 9700X)...but their R5 9600X was DOA...and pricing is not looking particularly good
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
I think they've bought waste silicon from Intel 😖
The single core performance looked good but these are lacking cores compared to their Intel equivalents leading to disappointing benchmarks.
Lets see what the higher core counts of 9900X and 9950X look like. That could be where the real gains are ... we should find out next week.
Lets see what the higher core counts of 9900X and 9950X look like. That could be where the real gains are ... we should find out next week.
Yeah - big difference in TDP.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
They’re not lacking cores, Intel are a Big / Little architecture, P cores are not the same as ecores, so an i9 is not a 24core cpu, it’s an 8+16 which is a VERY different thing. It’s part of Intel’s marketing to fool you into thinking it’s loads of cores
I do wonder if there will be following microcode and BIOS updates that unlock performance.
The efficiency is great, Single core is ok, multicore IMHO is really poor
Last edited:
Mutlicore looks to be deliberately power limited. It'll be the only saving grace for the chip IMO. If it can't be unlocked for serious gains then I think they definitely got the naming wrong and the 9700X should actually be called the 9600X to give a worthwhile jump in performance.
I honestly don't understand what AMD are doing with this release. I don't see their claims stacking up at all, outside of Photoshop. Are they trying to retire the 8 core and below?
I honestly don't understand what AMD are doing with this release. I don't see their claims stacking up at all, outside of Photoshop. Are they trying to retire the 8 core and below?
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
They're saving the 'K' 'suffix for their unlocked versions to grab the Intel fanboys who won't buy anything without a 'K' at the end!
They probably won't release the 9800X3D-KS until the very end
They probably won't release the 9800X3D-KS until the very end
I may be wrong here but I was positive that previous releases the top tier was out first followed by the lesser variants. This felt like a cash grab to get desperate early adopters buying the more expensive premium chips rather than waiting for the newer lower tier offerings.
Now we have the new chips releasing today but they're the lower tier models.
My guess is that the reason for this is they want the early adopters buying the trash release and not holding off for the actual decent chip(s) next week.
Your girl is disappointing me @SpyderTracks 😬
Now we have the new chips releasing today but they're the lower tier models.
My guess is that the reason for this is they want the early adopters buying the trash release and not holding off for the actual decent chip(s) next week.
Your girl is disappointing me @SpyderTracks 😬
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
This is what confused me because leaked benchmarks of the 9950x look insanely good in multithreaded, of course may not be accurate, or perhaps that was with power limits removed but I suspect the 9900x and 9950x will be a rather different story.
But I’m very disheartened so far.
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Some 'overclocking' scenarios benchmarked here...
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Seems to perform slightly better on Linux benchmark suites, so wonder if there's a Windows issue in here somewhere as well?
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
That’s very interesting, as you say could this be a windows scheduler issue for some reason? Don’t really see why as same core design and quantitySeems to perform slightly better on Linux benchmark suites, so wonder if there's a Windows issue in here somewhere as well?
View attachment 41818
Perhaps windows chipset driver needs updating for 600 series boards?
I understand what you are saying but benchmarks done by Jayz2Cents showed they were up there with the best on single thread but way behind on multithreaded benchmarks. Yes the e-cores are weaker, but more power efficient, than the p-cores and not hyperthreaded either but they will still make a meaningful contribution in the multithreaded synthetic benchmarks.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
That's what I mean though, I think there's more to this currently, I don't think we're seeing full performance from these chips as yet due to buggy release versions of drivers etc.
ecores aren't more power efficient at all, they are against the P cores, but that's no decent efficiency, they're still awfully inefficient. eCores are atom architecture which is god awful, they only reason they've done it (IMHO) is because they had buckets of wafers left over they needed to make some capital on.
But in an awful lot of workloads on Intel, it's still best advice to disable eCores fully, including gaming.
TonyCarter
VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
If my business depended on it, I'd rather have a AMD CPU that can run, flat-out, all day every day, and deliver 95% of the performance of the 'best' CPU, than one that will throttle after an hour and probably crash every few hours (or need to be artificially under-powered so that it's slower than the CPU I should have bought).