Power Temperature and Frequency
We will now test power and temperature on each CPU, as well as the frequency on the Ryzen 5 7600X. To run these tests we ran Cinebench R23 for 10 minutes and took readings according to HWiNFO64, the latest version.
Power
Looking at the CPU Package Power result, the new Ryzen 5 7600X is about a little less power draw compared to the Intel Core i5-12600K. The Ryzen 5 7600X does consume more power than the previous generation Ryzen 5 5600X, by about 51%. However, in our benchmarks, we never did see a 50% performance improvement in anything over the last generation. In that regard, it does consume more power than the actual performance gain we get, it’s a little unbalanced. We also saw the Core i5-12600K outperforming the 7600X in several benchmarks and gaming performance scenarios, so considering both are near the same power, again it’s a bit unbalanced for the 7600X.
Temperature
There is also a big temperature difference comparing the last generation Ryzen 5 5600X and the new Ryzen 5 7600X. The 7600X got as hot as 86.8c on our MSI MEG CORELIQUID S360 running at full blast. That is about 29 degrees hotter than the 5600X. The temps are even hotter than the 5800X and come very close to the 12900K in temperature. Again, AMD states that 95c is the TjMax, and the intended temperature it can run at 24/7 safely.
CPU Frequency
The CPU Boost Frequency is up to 5.3GHz on the Ryzen 5 7600X. What we want to know though is how high it can attain when running all cores at the same time. For this test, we again ran Cinebench R23 to see in HWiNFO64 what all the cores looked like.
As you can see, running all the cores at full-throttle in Cinebench R23 the Ryzen 5 7600X achieved 5.250GHz while running all cores.
Discussion (13 replies)
Join Discussion →My opinion. If you're currently on Zen2+ or Zen3 on anything less than a 5800X3D, and all you do is game, then the 5800X3D is the best bang for the buck upgrade. That CPU is a gaming powerhouse.
I kind of have mixed feelings about these mid-tier Zen4 CPU's. At least from a gaming perspective. It would cost significantly more to build a 7600X system, for inarguably less gaming performance, than it would be to build a cheaper 5800X3D system. Especially with AMD saying they were going to continue development of X3D AM4 parts.
They kind of put themselves in a tough situation with their product stack.
Yes, for gaming, I agree.
The question one has to ask is what is their intention and use case. What workloads will they need? If all you do is gaming on the PC, then you have your answer. However, if you do much more, or throw other certain kinds of workloads at the CPU, then perhaps there is value. It depends on your needs.
Yar, tough sell to migrate from AM4 to AM5 currently (though if I was building new I'd for sure go AM5).
Looking forward to see how the 7000X3D's perform, but think I won't be migrating until the second revisions come out.
It's nice to see that these lower cost 6C/12T chips can still keep up in gaming, at least if you aren't trying to do TOO much in the background (like encode streams)
I bet these will find their way into a lot of decent gaming machines.
I'm betting they won't find their way in to much of anything until cheaper X670 boards come out, or B-series is released. The value isn't quite there yet. Especially with DDR5 costs, PSU and cooling requirements.
Yep, I think the single chip B650/E will be the way to go. All those extra USB and PCIe connections on the expensive X670/E will be limited by the bridge between the 2 chipsets.
B650 + 7_00X3D will be the best early AM5 for gaming.
If you game at 4k you are better off getting a 5600X.
BTW thanks a lot for using settings one would actually use for gaming. Not Low/mid 720p/1080p settings like many reviews out there.
I think both have value.
Using minimum settings and low resolution you see the potential performance a CPU might have if you have a really fast GPU.
This is valuable for theoretical comparisons and to get an idea how "future proof" the CPU is.
Benchmarking a CPU at real world settings is easier to understand for those who don't get the fact that they will in all likelihood be GPU limited, and helps minimize the arguing over irrelevant performance differences no one will ever actually experience in their CPU due to this GPU limitation.
Honestly, if I had to pick just one, I'd pick the CPU benchmark at minimum settings and low resolution. Using that and GPU benchmarks I can project what my performance will be in almost any combination of hardware. if I only have the latter, I can only really predict how it will perform in that one CPU/GPU combination.
So yeah. I like to see both, but if I had to pick just one, I'd pick the "everything graphical at minimum settings and resolution using an overkill top end GPU" just to try to isolate the CPU performance, because that is honestly more useful.
If I have that CPU isolated data I can look at a CPU benchmark and at a GPU benchmark separately and just pick the minimum framerate of the two, and know that is likely a reasonable prediction of how they will perform together. This is of much greater value to me than real world benchmarks on a system with a GPU I may or may not ever use.
I also see value in both results, low rez, and high rez, for both reasons. That's why I include 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, I think it's all relevant, and important to see scaling between resolutions, comparing CPUs. I'm rather excited about the fact that we represent that, that way anyone reading can hone in on the resolution they take value from, and make up their own mind. I think it gives an overall bigger picture of CPU performance, and I'm very happy people get value out of that in our reviews.
More than the resolution, my issue is low settings. Normally I see cpu benches even at 720p low and those exacerbate the impact of the mobo/cpu.
I recall asking Kyle at several times to do hi-res/high settings on the CPU/Mobo reviews as it would reflect a more real world scenario (which was policy). Never happened.
Thankfully you got all my bases covered.
That's why you look at both the GPU and CPU reviews, and - if you have CPU reviews run at low settings, and GPU reviews with overkill CPU/Platform to avoid it being the limiting factor - you can just take the minimum framerates of each review, and use that as a pretty reasonable predictor of what the combination of that CPU and GPU will look like.
The theory is to make the component under review the bottleneck to see what it is truly capable of so you can understand that particular component, rather than having the results confounded with the system as a whole.
Or just give the reader all the info you can in each review and let them decide what's important to them :p
I'll never argue against more information :p