Introduction
We have a full review of the Ryzen 5 7600X CPU from AMD. In this AMD Zen 4 review, we will look at several synthetic benchmarks, including multi-core and single-core/single-thread performance, and no less than 8 gaming benchmarks of performance at 4K, 1440p and 1080p. Our CPU comparisons today are very comprehensive, culminating in 10 total CPUs, 2 from the Ryzen 7000 CPU series, 5 from the Ryzen 5000 CPU series, and 3 from the Intel 12th Generation CPU series. Is the Ryzen 5 7600X the new mainstream CPU to have, or can the Core i5-12600K even compete?
This review today is a standalone Ryzen 5 7600X CPU review. Do not miss our AMD Ryzen 9 7900X CPU Review as well. For an overview of Zen 4 please read our AMD Ryzen 7000 Series CPU Introduction.
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X
The Ryzen 5 7600X CPU is a 6-core/12-thread CPU with 38MB of Cache clocked at up to 5.3GHz boost and 4.7GHz base. Pricing for this CPU will be $299.99 MSRP, which is the same MSRP that the Ryzen 5 5600X launched at. The L2 Cache has been increased to 6x1MB from the previous 6x512K compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X. It also has 32MB of L3 Cache, the same as 5600X. The official max memory speed is DDR5-5200 (2x16GB) but of course, it supports memory overclocking with D.O.C.P. memory profiles or the new AMD EXPO memory profiles. AMD states that the sweet spot for memory speed is DDR5-6000 RAM. Ryzen 5 7600X also supports Precision Boost 2, no changes for this generation. The CPU also has RDNA2 integrated graphics CUs.
The TDP is 105W, up from the last generation’s Ryzen 5 5600X of 65W. The way this works is that the actual Socket Power (PPT) will be up to 142W on this CPU, at a Peak Current amp (EDC) of 170A and a Sustained Current Amp (TDC) of 75A. Therefore, when looking at package power, it will up there in the 140W range for the Ryzen 5 7600X. The TjMax temperature is 95c with typical loaded temperatures between 70-90c.
In regards to temperature, the Ryzen 7000 series will run as fast as possible and will run into a thermal wall well before it hits a power wall. Therefore, you will see the CPU try to reside at 95c when running intense multithreaded workloads, this behavior is intended and by design. AMD states that the TJMax is the safe operating temperature, not the absolute max temperature. The Ryzen 7000 series are designed to run at TJMax 24/7 without risk of damage. At 95c it is not running hot, rather it will intentionally go to this temperature as much as possible under load because the power management system knows that this is the ideal way to squeeze the most performance out of the CPU without damaging it.
AMD recommends a Mid-frame tower cooler or equivalent for this CPU. As with all AM5 socket CPUs, it is backward compatible with AM4 socket coolers and mounting hardware. If there are any specific changes needed, then manufacturers will provide new mounting hardware.
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Installation
The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X uses AMD’s new Socket AM5 which uses LGA 1718 pins. The heatspreader is interesting, and one of the big questions has been whether thermal paste will pile up inside the open spaces. Well, below, we have some pictures after testing the CPU to see if the thermal paste piled up in the empty spaces or not.
Thermal Paste
In the pictures above we are showing the thermal paste on the CPU after doing all of our benchmarks with the Ryzen 5 7600X. As you can see, the spread is good and pretty even, and there is no thermal paste stuck down in the empty spaces. There was some thermal paste on the edges, but a simple Q-Tip was easy enough to clean it off. The reality is that only if you used an elaborate amount of paste would it cause a problem, using the right amount, a light amount, should not cause any pile-up issues.
ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR X670E HERO
Our review kit included an ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR X670E HERO motherboard, using the new AM5 socket and X670E chipset. As you can see, the latch system works similarly to what we have been accustomed to with Intel platforms. You place the CPU carefully in the socket, lower the lid and press down on the lever locking it in place, the protective cover will pop off automatically. We updated the BIOS on our motherboard to the latest available that AMD provided which was BIOS 0604.
One particular note with this motherboard, we could not get our SATA M.2 SSD to work on any of the M.2 SSD slots on the motherboard. Apparently, the motherboard only supports NVMe M.2 SSDs on the M.2 slots. This is something that motherboard manufacturers can do, it’s a design feature choice they can make. There is nothing about the X670E chipset stopping motherboard manufacturers from making SATA-supported M.2 slots, it’s just a feature choice the motherboard manufacturers can make, and apparently on this board, ASUS made. It caused a little confusion for us because our primary drive was a SATA SSD, and we ended up having to switch to an NVMe SSD for this motherboard.
G.SKILL DDR5-6000 RAM with EXPO
Our review kit also included G.SKILL Trident Z5 Neo DDR5 memory, kit 6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5N (16GBx2). This is DDR5 memory that runs at 6000MHz and timings of CL30-38-38-96 and supports EXPO memory timing profiles. We used this RAM on our Intel comparison platform, as well as the AM5 platform.
Setting it all up
Installation of the CPU went without a hitch, it cradles nicely into the new socket. RAM installation is also very simple, there is a guideline on the board for what DIMM slots it prefers if only two modules are installed.
Then we come to the BIOS where we can select the EXPO profile timings. There is EXPO I and EXPO II timings, the difference is that EXPO II contains further drilled-down sub-timings that are specified by RAM rather than letting the motherboard decide on Auto. For now, AMD recommends using the EXPO I profile, which sets all the main timings at specific values but leaves the extended sub-timings up to the motherboard. It also sets the RAM to 6000MHz. We did try the EXPO II profile, and it was unstable, only the EXPO I profile worked flawlessly. This is something that probably BIOS updates and RAM maturing over time will fix.
As you can see from CPU-Z the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X is codenamed Raphael, has a max TDP of 105W, uses Socket AM5 (LGA1718), and has a revision of RPL-B2.
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