Synthetic System Benchmarks
On this page, we will show synthetic benchmarks, some that test a variety of system use-case scenarios, and others that test specific multi-core and single-core/thread workloads to hone in on performance differences. Note that the graphs are arranged from fastest to slowest, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X CPU is highlighted. One of the primary goals while reading the performance is to see the difference between the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 7 7700X. Of course, the competition is included as well. Take note that Core/Thread count differences will affect many results in multi-core/multi-thread testing.
PCMark 10 Express
PCMark 10 Express tests workloads as follows: PCMark 10 Express is a benchmark that focuses on basic work tasks. It is a good choice when tendering for PCs for general office use. The PCMark 10 Express benchmark focuses on the performance needs of a typical office worker. It tests Essentials and Productivity.
This benchmark focuses mainly on workloads that are more lightly threaded in office applications. We find that the new AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is 7% faster than the Ryzen 7 7700X, according to this system benchmark of lightly threaded workloads. This puts it as one of the fastest CPUs on this graph, beating the Intel Core i5-14700K and Intel Core i7-14600K by 8% and 7% respectively.
Geekbench 6
We are using Geekbench version 6.3.0 for our testing. We will show Multi-Core (nT) and Single-Core (1T) performance in separate graphs.
According to Geekbench Multi-Core testing, the new AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is 7% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Multi-Core performance. At this performance level, it puts the Ryzen 7 9700X near the top of the chart on performance but does ultimately sit 6% slower than the Intel Core i5-14600K and 20% slower than the Intel Core i7-14700K due to their increased core counts. The Ryzen 7 9700X is an 8-core/16-thread CPU while the 14600K has access to 20 threads, and the 14700K has access to 28 threads.
The new AMD Ryzen 7 9700X really shines in its Single-Core performance. The new AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is 13% faster than the Ryzen 7 7700X in single-core performance, which shows promise. At this performance level, the Ryzen 7 9700X has the fastest single-core performance out of every CPU on this graph. The Ryzen 7 9700X is 19% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600K and 10% faster than the Intel Core i7-14700K. Also, take note that the slowest CPU for Single-Core performance is the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and therefore the Ryzen 7 9700X is 22% faster than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in Single-Core performance!
3DMark CPU Profile
We are testing 3DMark’s CPU Profile which tests Max Thread performance and Single Thread performance, we are reporting both on separate graphs.
Unlike Geekbench, in 3DMark’s CPU Profile Test the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is on par with the performance of the previous Ryzen 7 7700X CPU for Max Thread performance. We reached out to AMD in regards to the performance we experienced in this test, to check our sanity. AMD ran the exact same tests we ran and reported its results as: 9193 for the 9700X and 9153 for the 7700X in AMD’s performance testing, showing again that performance is practically the same, in this particular test.
Suffice it to say, that in this test, both CPUs are on par in performance due to clock speed and power differences. Keep in mind that the Ryzen 7 9700X is operating at less power (lower TDP), than the Ryzen 7 7700X, yet is still matching it in performance, which you will see is impressive.
At this performance level, the 14600K and 14700K are faster, due to their higher thread count. The Ryzen 7 9700X is also 13% faster than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D which has the same core/thread count.
The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X once again shines in the 1-Thread or single-thread performance testing according to 3DMark. Similar to Geekbench, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is at the top of the charts in performance, performing the fastest single-thread performance out of any CPU here. The Ryzen 7 9700X is 15% faster than the Ryzen 7 7700X in single-thread performance! At this performance level, the 9700X is 15% faster than the 14600K and 8% faster than the 14700K. Once again, we also see that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D has the slowest single-thread performance, and that puts the Ryzen 7 9700X 31% faster than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D on single-thread performance!!
PerformanceTest 11
In PassMark PerformanceTest 11 CPU Mark result the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is 1% faster than the Ryzen 7 7700X, again much like 3DMark’s Multi-Thread performance test. The impressive part, as you will find, is that the Ryzen 7 9700X matches the performance in this test at less power. This test weighs heavily on multi-thread performance, as is evidenced by the 14600K and 14700K doing much better with more thread access.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →I'm sorry. LESS Power draw, Slower Clock. But so much IPC gain that it out performs it's previous generation.
I can not WAIT to see the 9950 and 9900 reviews!!! (Especially when you get the new gen of motherboard chipsets!)
So all we get basically this go-around is better power-efficiency.. I mean, that's all well and good but this was AMD's chance to put their foot on Intel's throat and they missed the mark...
Thank you Brent for a thorough review as always!
How do you figure they missed the mark? the 9700x is out performing in many cases systems with more threads from Intel.
Maybe if the 9900x is loosing to the 14700k you will have a point.
But an 8 core processor trading blows with 20 and more thread CPU's from the competitor is impressive. And for FAR less power?! AND lower GHZ rating. That's an IPC and Power improvement on an impressive scale.
Missed the mark... do you work for intel marketing? Or did you just misread the article?
Nah, think @Space_Ranger may have not realized that these are basically i5 competitors, but also are falling between 14th gen and whatever comes next from Intel. Weird place to be.
Intel was barely holding on to any 'marks' up to this point. 7800X3D erased really any reason to go Intel purely for gaming aside from cost or wanting something that is only available on the Intel platform.
Higher IPC, efficiency, and lower temperatures. There's still overclocking to consider, could be plenty of headroom above 88W stock, and the thermal improvement bodes well for overclocking as well as for the eventual X3D releases.
Yeah idk, it feels like techtubers are missing the mark on this one and people are just being dense.
I didn't misread the article. I did take other reviews into my OPINION on the matter. If having an opinion you don't like placing me in "Intel Marketing" territory, then so be it..
No it just seems way off the mark of the review. And others in have seen this far. To be fair inhacent hunted for ones either.
Personally excited for the 9900x and the 9950x
Thanks, @Brent_Justice for the thorough review. Glad to see the single-threaded performance gains and improved power efficiency. I'll probably be holding out for a bit longer but still keeping track of AM5 progress and happy to see CPUs like this making their strides.
@Brent_Justice
Yeah I would like to echo Peters comment, that was a great review.
The title picture is a bit cheeky tho.... =)
I did not see it mentioned but I have not read everything, how is RAM and/or system stability? I seen techtubers having lot's of issues with RAM speeds and crashing of benchmarks.
I need to see this improved b4 I will consider these CPU's (the 3D variants anyways)
@Brent_Justice can probably expand more on this...
1. We haven't had stability issues with our systems.
2. We're using AMD's suggested configuration, which is essentially the X670E board and EXPO ram kit that they shipped for the Zen 4 launch reviews. We haven't dabbled with various configurations.
3. We're using a very new bios for the board that AMD sent us (that is not released yet to my knowledge).
4. The motherboard/bios combination is what is setting FCLK in EXPO mode. Our board is setting it to 2100MHz - different boards will set it to different values, however, AMD says that if you're not stable at 2100MHz (as it's going to depend on CPU quality and board), to drop the FCLK manually to 2000MHz (in non EXPO mode it runs even lower than this). I suspect this could be part of what the TechTubers are running into is having a board/CPU combo that doesn't like the board's selected FCLK.
I will echo what David said. So far, I have only seen 1 TechTuber report stability issues, but I haven't watched a ton of videos yet. I do not know if stability problems are a widespread issue. For my testing, I had absolutely no stability problems with the 9700X and 9600X. I actually tried 2 different BIOS's on the ROG CROSSHAIR X670E HERO I'm using, first, the official public BIOS from ASUS prior to the launch, which was version 2124 dated 7/19, this BIOS is based on AGESA Combo AM5 PI 1.2.0.0a. I had no problems at all with the 9700X on this BIOS. Second, I updated to BIOS 2201 provided by AMD, it is still based on Combo AM5 PI 1.2.0.0a but adds a PatchA for improvements with 12c and 16c Zen 5 CPUs, that's the only difference in that BIOS, but I also had no problems with that. Right now, ASUS has an even newer one on their website, 2204, but I have not used it yet, it only became available on the 5th, and it says the exact same Combo AM5 PI 1.2.0.0a PatchA version as the one AMD sent.
David hit the nail on the head with FCLK. It is possible some might experience issues on certain CPUs/RAM/Mobo combos with a higher 2100MHz (or higher) FCLK (Infinity Fabric). The "sweet spot/safe spot" for stability is 2000MHz. In the one video I saw, of the tech tuber having stability issues, they did manually set it to 2000MHz. So beyond that, I don't know what else would case stability issues. But, surely you may see some differences in both performance benchmarks, and stability, based on the motherboard/RAM a reviewer is using for reviews, so as I stated in our YouTube video, make sure to always check the Test Setup page for any review you read online, to see what they are running.
For me, and the hardware I'm using, this launch was super smooth. The only thing that I questioned was the performance I experienced, I felt it to be below expectations, therefore I exchanged a lot of messages back and forth with AMD to share my concerns, and experiences and compare benchmarking performance. AMD actually re-ran several benchmarks in their labs, of what I was using, so we could compare notes and validate performance. There was a good interaction there with AMD, and AMD was very tentative about my experiences in regards to the performance that I experienced.
Great review. I sat out the last round, still on AM4 5700x. I hope the AM5 mobos that are in the wild will at least boot and allow a firmware update, if I end up buying a Microcenter bundle or whatever.
I'm going to wait on the new chipset because I'll ride that combo for a least a couple years.
AM4, one for the history books for sure. Nothing really wrong with AM5 and some nice features for sure but AM4 has stood the test of time for just getting the job done.
Just checked, coming up on its 8-year anniversary in September.