[nextpage title=”Introduction:”]
After last week’s review of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X, we had the opportunity to get our hands on a copy of the Ryzen 9 9900X. As you no doubt know, AMD is planning to launch four AMD 9000X processors from the ZEN 5 generation. So where is the Ryzen 9 9950X? We haven’t received one yet, due to the limited number of samples currently available. So you’ll only be able to find out about the performance of this new AMD Ryzen 9 9900X today. If you haven’t already done so, we invite you to take a look at our test from last week. This test will be carried out on a ROG X670E GENE motherboard, since the new AMD X870E chipsets are not yet available, even though several brands have already unveiled their future models.
So we’re going to concentrate on the performance gains between the previous-generation ZEN 4 and these two new models built around ZEN 5. Thanks to AMD for making this Ryzen 9 9900X available to us.
[nextpage title=”ZEN 5 architecture and Ryzen 9000: “]
ZEN 5 architecture:
Dr. Lisa Su unveiled four new processors in June, scheduled for launch on July 31st. In the end, the launch was pushed back to August 7th for the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. The launch of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X is scheduled for August 14th. These new Ryzen 9000s benefit from 4nm etching by TMSC and are based on the new Zen 5 architecture. To be precise, it is the CCDs(core compute die) that are etched in 4nm.
The improved etch finesse means that Ryzen 9000s are more energy-efficient than the previous generation. This is one of the advantages of this new generation highlighted by AMD.
ZEN 5: 4 processors for the moment
The launch of the range is therefore complete today. As far as launch prices are concerned, AMD has announced a price of $276 (€308.90) for the 9600X, $359 (€396.90) for the 9700X, €548.90 for the 9900X and €714.90 for the 9950X.
The Ryzen 5 9600X is the equivalent of the current Ryzen 5 7600X. It has the same number of cores: 6c/12t. However, it uses new-generation ZEN 5 cores. In terms of frequency, this processor will operate with a single-core boost frequency of 5.4 GHz, i.e. 100 MHz more than the 7600X. The other big difference is the TDP, which drops from 105 to 65 watts for the 9600X! We should see an interesting gain in terms of temperature and, above all, power consumption.
On the Ryzen 7 9700X side, we find a 8c/16t like the Ryzen 7700X as well as a frequency gain of 100 MHz compared to the previous generation. Here too, the TDP drops from 105 to 65 watts. It’s not hard to imagine that this type of TDP would have been chosen for the ‘future’ Ryzen 5 9600 and Ryzen 7 9700.
The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12c/24t, will come up against the Ryzen 9 7900X. Compared with the previous generation, the maximum frequency remains identical at 5.6 GHz in single-threaded mode. As far as TDP is concerned, it has improved from 170 watts for the Ryzen 9 7900X to 120 watts for the Ryzen 9 9900X. On the next page, we’ll look at the impact of lower TDP on frequencies.
The packaging of these new processors is virtually identical to that of the previous generation. The colours are slightly darker and there is no cooling system available. AMD and Intel have not been offering cooling units in bundles for some time now .
The new chipsets are coming soon:
The test of these two processors will be carried out on a ROG Crosshair X670E GENE motherboard, which of course remains perfectly compatible with its AM5 socket. AMD has already unveiled its new AMD 800 chipset, and a number of manufacturers have also unveiled their first motherboards. These include the AMD X870E, X870, B850 and B840 chipsets.
We should be able to unveil the first motherboards in the coming weeks.
[nextpage title=”Frequencies reached:”]
As with every new processor test, our first idea is to check whether the advertised frequencies are actually achieved. To do this, we’re going to use the Cinebench R23 benchmark. Two scenarios will be used: a single-core benchmark and a multi-core benchmark. The idea is to be able to judge the frequency achieved and compare it with what AMD has announced in its slides.
Remember that the Boost frequency in the bench differs according to the processor. As AMD points out, when we talk about maximum boost frequency, we are talking about the maximum frequency achievable by one of the processor cores running a single-core workload. The maximum boost varies according to several factors: the load, the cooling system and therefore the temperature of your processor. It’s important to keep this in mind. So here are the frequencies we should achieve on a single core during our Cinebench R23 run.
Please pay close attention to our information, as we have encountered a performance problem in multithreading with the RYZEN 7 9700X.
Test with the Ryzen 9 9900X :
Here we go with our sample of the day, the Ryzen 9 9900X. As you can see, we’ve opened several windows to check the frequency and temperature.
In single-core mode, we can see that core #1 and core #2 alternately reach a frequency of 5600 MHz, which corresponds to the frequency announced by AMD. When all 12 cores are used, the frequency approaches 5000 MHz and always remains between 4975 and 5025 MHz, depending on the core. This is where we need to understand the difference with the Ryzen 7 7900X, which saw its frequencies easily reach 5300 MHz on certain cores. It’s the 120 watt TDP of our Ryzen 9 9900X that will ‘limit’ this rise in frequency so as to maintain a more attractive power consumption than the previous generation.
[nextpage title=”Cinebench, Geekbench and CPUZ benchmarks:”]
As we said in the introduction, we are (once again) busy updating all our graphics using the latest chipset drivers from Intel and, of course, AMD. The idea, of course, is to regularly update our test graphics in order to be consistent with OS, BIOS and chipset updates. The gaming part of our tests will arrive in the days to come with the new BIOS and chipsets.
- Motherboard: ROG Crosshair X670E GENE (BIOS 2204)
- Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 9900X
- Memory: 32 GB GSKill 6000 MT/s CL30 (EXPO profile)
- Graphics Card: MSI GT 710 – NVIDIA RTX 3070 Ti
- Cooling system: Optimus Signature V3 waterblock and Eiszeit 2000 chiller
- Operating system: Windows 11 64 bits
Let’s start with a CPU benchmark staple, the Cinebench series. We’ve opted for Cinebench R15, the R20 version and R23, the most widely used version at the moment. Scores will be given in Single-core and Multi-core. In other words, the benchmark tests performance on a single processor core and then on all available cores.
To do this, we’re going to use Benchmate, which has just been updated to version 12.1.0 and can be downloaded here. The advantage of Benchmate is that it already contains a whole series of benchmarks and what’s more, it’s recognised and certified when you want to encode your results on the Hwbot site.
As a reminder, before you start reading these results, make sure you take a look at the previous page to fully understand the operating frequencies of these Ryzen ZEN 5s.
Cinebench R15 Single Core and Multi Core:
This benchmark is widely used by overclockers to compare the performance of different processors. It also allows you to judge the optimisation of your OS and memory kit by setting a frequency and trying to score as many points as possible. Even though it is used a little less nowadays with the arrival of R20 and R23, it remains a reference for comparing CPUs, as it was one of the first benchmarks used by the community.
We’re off to a good start, with our Ryzen 9 9900X topping the charts. We already knew that AMD had announced a very significant gain, and we can confirm it once again with this third processor.
In multi-threaded mode, the positions on the graph are logical, the Ryzen 9 9900X is ahead of the Ryzen 9 7900X. Even if the gain is only 5%.
Cinebench R20 Single Core and Multi Core :
Cinebench R20 offers similar tests to the R15 version with SingleThread and MultiThread. Freshly launched in March 2019, it offers a more complex benchmark than the R15 version, which had become a little too easy for CPUs with many cores. Cinebench R20 requires eight times more computing power than the R15 version, and four times more memory. It can already be likened to a stress benchmark, as it forces your CPU to be stable for the duration of the benchmark.
The same applies to Cinebench R20, where the gains are very interesting, with the Ryzen 9 9900X achieving a score of 883 points. This puts it just behind Intel’s top-of-the-range performance.
In multi-core, it’s the number of cores that once again speaks for itself, as well as their frequencies. Our Ryzen 9 9900X, despite having lower multithread frequencies, scores better.
Cinebench R23 Single Core and Multi Core:
How does this new version differ from its predecessors? First of all, it’s more realistic when it comes to the score obtained according to the processor used. As a reminder, Cinebench only tests the capabilities of your processor in single or multi-thread mode. But the main difference is that, by default, the benchmark lasts 10 minutes! MAXON’s idea with Cinebench R23 is to offer a benchmark that provides a certain stability in terms of temperature and boost frequencies. We’ll be testing the fast version here.
Same observation here, with a fourth place for our Ryzen 9 9900X, it’s ultra high-performance in single-threadedtasks .
With the R23 version of Cinebench, there’s no change in the rankings, with an excellent place for our sample of the day.
Geekbench 3.4.4 Single Core and Multi Core :
This is a benchmark available in several revisions, with version 5 being used more and more in recent months and often used for CPU performance leaks. It provides two scores: one in single core and the other in multi-core. The versions used for the tests are 3.4.4 and 5.2.5. Please note that in order to take full advantage of these two benchmarks, a licence is required and we are running the bench in 64-bit.
On this new benchmark, the logic continues with a first place for our Ryzen 9 9900X, but above all, the first three places for the ZEN 5.
The graphs follow one another, and the hierarchy remains the same. Our sample of the day has a much harder time competing with the blue ones, as they are equipped with extra E-core cores.
GeekBench 5.2.5 Single Core and Multi Core :
The latest version of the GeekBench software.It is becoming increasingly widespread and used by journalists. Like the version above, it allows you to test memory and processor performance. We decided to add this extra benchmark, but why? The CPU benchmark uses new tests that more closely simulate the tasks faced by processors in recent applications. Geekbench 5 also increases the memory used during the benchmark to better reflect the impact of this parameter on the CPU results.
No change in Geekbench 5, with the new ZEN 5 processors taking the top three places.
Once again, our Ryzen 9 9900X takes the lead over the Ryzen 9 7900X, but only just.
CPU-Z 17.01.64 benchmark in Single Thread and Multi Thread :
A new benchmark we’ve just added, as it’s being used more and more by brands to showcase processor performance. To use it, just download the latest version of CPU-Z, which is currently version 2.0.2. Then go to the ‘Bench’ tab to check single-thread and multi-thread performance. The benchmark version we used is 17.01.64.
As this first series of tests draws to a close, it’s clear that these new ZEN 5 processors perform very well on single-threaded tasks, enabling them to climb to the top of the table and, above all, to give Intel processors a run for their money. On multithreaded benchmarks, however, things are completely different. The Intel i5-14600K and i7-14700K processors are far ahead thanks to the addition of E-core. But what bothers us a little more is how close the scores of our ZEN 5 are to those of the previous generation. We would have liked to have seen a greater gain.
[nextpage title=”Synthetic benchmarks:”]
Let’s start with a series of synthetic tests that we use regularly. We’ve opted for the CPU scores of the benchmarks in the 3DMark series. The idea is to isolate only the CPU score by creating a custom test .
Here are the results for Fire Strike and Time Spy. In Fire Strike, the physics (CPU) test is identical for both the ‘standard’ and ‘ultra’ versions. As a result, you’ll only see the Fire Strike score. For Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme, on the other hand, the tests are different, so you’ll get both scores. These scores are of great interest to overclockers who want to choose the platform that offers the best performance and break as many records as possible.
Fire Strike CPU score :
Let’s start with 3DMark Fire Strike, which is one of the most widely used benchmarks today. It consists of two graphics tests, a CPU test and a fourth test that combines GPU and CPU. Don’t forget to disable the demo, which makes no difference to the final score and (unnecessarily) prolongs the benchmark’s duration.
It was to be expected that there would be no surprises in the 3D Mark tests, with a slight gain over the previous generation ZEN 4.
CPU score in Time Spy :
The second test is 3DMark Time Spy. Although this one is performed in 1440p, its main feature is the use of DirectX 12. It consists of two graphics tests and a CPU test. As with Fire Strike, don’t forget to disable the demo. These first two benchmarks are provided by UL Benchmark.
The same applies to the Fire Strike test, where our Ryzen 7 9900X fails to outperform the previous generation.
CPU score in Time Spy Extreme :
The second test is 3DMark Time Spy. Although this one is performed in 2160p, its main feature is that it uses DirectX 12. It consists of two graphics tests and a CPU test. As with Fire Strike, don’t forget to disable the demo.
We end with the CPU score for Time Spy Extreme and a slight advantage for our sample of the day.
[nextpage title=”Consumption: “]
As far as the power consumption tests are concerned, we didn’t modify anything and we wanted to know how our configuration would react by default. Basically, we installed the CPU and loaded the XMP profile. Then we carried out our various readings and benchmarks.
For power consumption, we used the Cinebench R23 benchmark. This is a multi-threaded benchmark. The idea is to measure the average power consumption of our different processors. Please note that we’re talking about the overall power consumption of the configuration. At the moment, we’re not yet able to measure CPU power consumption independently and correctly, but we’re working on it. We still have a few points to optimise before we can be completely convinced of the accuracy of our readings.
With a TDP of 120 watts, our Ryzen 9 9900X does much better than the previous generation and the 170 watts of the Ryzen 9 7900X. In the face of competition from Intel processors, it’s better, sorry, it’s much better!
[nextpage title=”Overclocking the Ryzen 9 9900X:”]
Overclocking the Ryzen 9 9900X via PBO :
There are several techniques for overclocking an AMD Ryzen processor. The first is to activate “Precision Boost Overdrive 2”, more commonly known as “PBO”, in the BIOS. This is automatic overclocking, which will lift certain restrictions and therefore increase the processor’s performance, but at what cost! We wanted to make it clear that using PBO is more complicated than expected, or at least that it will require a fair amount of adjustment in order to obtain a satisfactory result in terms of both performance and power consumption.
So we carried out a reference test, on the left, with just our memory profile activated. In the screenshot on the right, we have enabled PBO in the BIOS. Let’s have a look at the results.
If we stay focused on the score, it rises from 32930 to 34753 points under Cinebench R23, a gain of 5.5%. So overclocking is effective, but at what cost. If we look at the other Benchmate readings, we see that the temperature rises from 60 to 86°C and the power consumption from 161 to 240 watts. Needless to say, this is becoming very unattractive. It will therefore be necessary to set up PBO as accurately as possible to avoid this situation. We’ll be coming back to a more detailed parameterisation of PBO in the coming weeks, as the current temperatures in our lab are scorching.
Manual overclocking of the Ryzen 9 9900X :
Knowing that our Ryzen 9 9900X boosts all cores at 5000 MHz under Cinebench R23, we’re going to start at 5200 MHz. Before starting manual overclocking, we changed the loadline calibration in the BIOS and chose a level 7. Then on to Ryzen Master, where we’re going to increase the frequency of all the cores and maintain a voltage of 1.15 volts. This will drop to 1.10 volts when the cores of our processor are called upon.
Let’s look at our result at 5200 MHz and how high we’ll be able to go. At 5200 MHz, we obtained a score of 34376 points, fairly close to what we obtained with PBO, but here with a temperature of 60 °C and a power consumption of 170 watts! With the same parameters, we were able to climb to 5300 MHz and 5400 MHz.
Beyond that, the processor requires more voltage and, in order to pass 5500 MHz, we had to increase the voltage to 1.225 volts, i.e. 1.17 volts during the run. This gave us a score of 36367 points, a gain of 10.6%, while maintaining a temperature of 71°C and a power consumption of 208 watts.
In the coming weeks we’ll be publishing a special report on overclocking ZEN 5 processors, either via PBO or by switching to manual mode.
[nextpage title=”The last word:”]
Will our conclusion be any different from the ZEN 5-based Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X review? Not really. Without being a revolution, ZEN 5 has shown itself to be very promising on a number of points. Let’s start with performance in single-threaded tasks, where this new generation does as well as, or even much better than, its direct Intel rivals. In some benchmarks, the Ryzen 9 9900X even managed to take first place! In multithreaded tasks, performance is better than the previous generation, but without creating a significant gap, with a gain of up to 10%.
One thing is certain: the drop in TDP from 170 watts for the Ryzen 9 7900X to 120 watts for the Ryzen 9 9900X has a lot to do with it. So, at a time when Intel is experiencing a fair amount of stability problems with its 13th and 14th generation processors, it’s a credit to the Reds and, in the end, a good move on AMD’s part. As we have seen, the cores during a ‘ multithreaded ‘ task, such as under Cinebench R23, reach a lower frequency than the previous generation, in order to maintain lower power consumption, but ultimately perform better. AMD is therefore not obliged to continue increasing the frequencies of its processors to improve the performance of this ZEN 5 generation.
Overclocking confirms AMD’s intention to offer a generation of processors with more reasonable power consumption. In fact, we had no difficulty in increasing the core frequencies of our Ryzen 9 9900X, enabling us to achieve a gain of over 22% compared with the Ryzen 9 7900X. Thanks to overclocking, you can look for the best compromise for your needs and, above all, for your cooling system.
EDIT: At the time of publishing this article, ASUS was posting a new BIOS with a new AGESA. We’re currently busy testing it.
A clean sweep for AMD?
Unfortunately, as you’re know, at the end, future buyers will take the price into account, and in this case, AMD is doing AMD. The price we’ve been given by AMD is €548.90 for the Ryzen 9 9900X. The Ryzen 9 7900X is currently available for 380 euros! Suffice to say that owners of an AM5 platform and this processor will see no point in upgrading their configuration. For us, it’s impossible to recommend this new Ryzen 9 9900X at such a price, especially as this is the price recommended by AMD. The price announced by AMD for the Ryzen 7 9700X does not correspond to the price offered by online shops at the time of writing. We’re used to this with AMD, and this ZEN 5 generation should become more affordable in the months to come.
The good
news for AMD is that Intel’s current problems could encourage future buyers to take the plunge and opt for an AMD AM5 platform, although they may currently be limited to the Ryzen 7000X generation. There is still one unknown: will the arrival of the new AMD chipsets have an influence on the performance of this generation? And what if AMD launches a Ryzen 7 9800X3D to replace the Ryzen 7 7800X3D ?
AMD could be surfing the wave between Intel’s troubles and this promising generation, provided that the prices of the latter drop in the next few weeks. Thanks to AMD France for making this Ryzen 9 9900X available, and we hope to be able to bring you the performance of the Ryzen 9 9950X soon.
