Review Ryzen 7 9700X Reviews

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,731
2,125
136
Since we're talking about BG3, this power usage from HUB's 9600x review shows how there is no real efficiency benefit. Toss on eco mode or just use the Non X 7000 parts and its likely worse.

 

Hotrod2go

Senior member
Nov 17, 2021
349
233
86
I can't place it right now, but I recall an SMT off test for Zen3 or Zen4 that showed it had minimal impact in gaming; it was either good or bad per title by a few % points but no real benefit to it being turned off permanently; queue the Process Lasso fun to isolate threads... 😢
Yeah, but I ain't fiddling with 3rd party apps to improve thread efficiency. Besides I'm pretty pleased with the fps I'm getting now in my favourite games. When the 9700X goes into the system, be pleased a bit more. Some game engines as I'm sure know already are just not optimized well for PC, the most optimized game I've come across in recent yrs for PC is Doom eternal, that game is smooth as butter but it's not to everyone's liking.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
762
136
I'm not being obtuse. I'm trying to understand the absolutely bizarre result that TYC is getting. Compare his own 1080p and 1440p graphs. No matter how you slice it, there is something weird going on here. My criticism of Brian is him not doing further testing to provide some understanding of whats actually causing this result. Putting this out there (without any effort to do further testing) leads one to conclude that he is a low value reviewer. That result doesn't make sense. Plastering this outlier all over the forum (like its some kind of gotcha) and concluding that 9600X has amazing 0.1% low performance is intellectually lazy. Talk about obtuse.

View attachment 105092

The end of the video he said his time with the chip was limited at the moment, as he was traveling.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
762
136
I just did my own quick testing with my 7800X3D and 7900XT. I'm new to this whole game benchmarking thing, but it appears from my testing that TYC's data is garbage. I loaded up a save at the exploding mushroom area in the Underdark shown in Brian's video. I started a capture in capframex, threw an alchemist fire bottle on the mushrooms, then waited for all of the explosions to go off. I waited for the fires to burn out and then immediately ended the capture. I did 4 runs at 1080p low.

Most YT reviews use Afterburner and RTSS to caputure data, as it is considered the "cleanest" way to get actual data that does not impact the testing.

 
Reactions: Rigg

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
762
136
Yeah, but I ain't fiddling with 3rd party apps to improve thread efficiency. Besides I'm pretty pleased with the fps I'm getting now in my favourite games. When the 9700X goes into the system, be pleased a bit more. Some game engines as I'm sure know already are just not optimized well for PC, the most optimized game I've come across in recent yrs for PC is Doom eternal, that game is smooth as butter but it's not to everyone's liking.

Bethesda id did a great job with the engine for Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.

Process Lasso is only needed for Ryzen's beyond 8 cores in some use cases, but it can be used as a software "SMT off" trick to more easily test 8 core chips in an ad hoc manner.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Thunder 57

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
615
1,451
136
Most YT reviews use Afterburner and RTSS to caputure data, as it is considered the "cleanest" way to get actual data that does not impact the testing.

This is the best you can come up with after I give you data that backs up every single argument I've put forward in this thread? Capframex is also using RTSS. Getting any useful 0.1% data from this sub 1 minute test run is a fools errand regardless of what you are using to collect data. My frame time plots show that. This is just a bad test. Especially if you want to look at 0.1% performance.

This is mostly a test of the huge initial frame time spike from triggering a bunch of simultaneous explosions in one specific area of the game. It's not at all indicative of the typical gameplay experience. Running around in the Baldur's Gate city area where there are lots of NPC's (like most reviewers do) is a much better test. Even if it's less repeatable. I'm not sure that I care enough to do any more testing on this to find out, but I'd wager the game settings probably don't impact the 0.1% numbers in this specific test very much at all.
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
615
1,451
136
The end of the video he said his time with the chip was limited at the moment, as he was traveling.
Which is fine. If he had said something like "I got this really weird result that doesn't make sense. Here's exactly how I got it. I'll need to do some further testing when i have more time to dig into it." then I'd be fine with it. Instead he tries to explain it away by flashing a technical slide on screen and offering a a very brief bit of speculation about how "low level latency" changes to the new architecture likely lead to the result.

Brian's content is generally fine. He seems like a good dude and a genuine enthusiast. Technical analysis and testing methodology don't appear to be his strong suit. This isn't unique among techtubers. He should stay in his lane. I'll continue to take his testing with a grain of salt unless he shows an effort to improve his methodology and approach to dealing with strange test results.
 
Last edited:

Thunder 57

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2007
3,455
5,720
136
Bethesda id did a great job with the engine for Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.

Process Lasso is only needed for Ryzen's beyond 8 cores in some use cases, but it can be used as a software "SMT off" trick to more easily test 8 core chips in an ad hoc manner.

I can run Doom 2016 on only one or two cores just fine. It's incredibly efficient.
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
615
1,451
136
A good rebuttal to the efficiency debate on zen5.
It is. There is still a piece of the puzzle missing though. In the applications that show an improvement with PBO enabled, we need to see some testing with different PPT values. Full send PBO probably isn't doing 9700X any efficiency favors. 88W is clearly holding it back in some heavier workloads so there is most likely a sweet spot somewhere in between that's worth the performance/efficiency trade off.
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,222
1,571
136
Took the TPU gaming figures:

Had to calculate the 1700X figure from the 5800X review as Zen 1 is no longer in the current results.
Ignoring the refresh of Zen1+, the average was +28% per gen prior to Zen 5.
 

H T C

Senior member
Nov 7, 2018
600
432
136
A good rebuttal to the efficiency debate on zen5.

It would be, had HU included the PBO results / Intel's equivalent of the CPUs he was comparing against ...

Using PBO results of just ONE of the CPUs will obviously make it look worse in efficiency than whatever he's comparing against.

It's like a reviewer using a CPU's LN2 results to showcase how poorly efficient that CPU is.
 

H433x0n

Golden Member
Mar 15, 2023
1,224
1,604
106
It would be, had HU included the PBO results / Intel's equivalent of the CPUs he was comparing against ...

Using PBO results of just ONE of the CPUs will obviously make it look worse in efficiency than whatever he's comparing against.

It's like a reviewer using a CPU's LN2 results to showcase how poorly efficient that CPU is.
That doesn’t really change anything. The most apples to apples would be comparing against Zen 4 at same TDP.

If it’s +32% more efficient compared to intel instead of +25%, it’s the same difference as being +7% more efficient compared to Zen 4. It’s the same data either way.
 

H T C

Senior member
Nov 7, 2018
600
432
136
The most apples to apples would be comparing against Zen 4 at same TDP.

Agreed ... except he didn't compare that.

If he wanted to compare it to the 7700, that's fine: just compare the 9700X PBO to 7700 PBO ... except he didn't do that either ...
 

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,227
1,642
136
Or measure the CPU power rails which HWUB does in todays Re-Review:

Yikes, gaming is a disaster, at least for the lower end parts. Maybe the 9 series with more cache and higher TDPs will perform better. Of courses there are always the x3D parts. Looking at the gaming for the vanilla Zen 5, it is easy to understand why they are planning to release the x3D parts earlier than in previous releases.
 
Reactions: Elfear

Josh128

Senior member
Oct 14, 2022
740
1,249
106
Guys, gaming wont change much from 9700X PBO to 9950X. Dont expect it to.
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,752
6,258
136
Took the TPU gaming figures:

Had to calculate the 1700X figure from the 5800X review as Zen 1 is no longer in the current results.
Ignoring the refresh of Zen1+, the average was +28% per gen prior to Zen 5.

It makes Zen 1+ look like a big upgrade.
 

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,227
1,642
136
And still Intel is going to lose to this Zen 5 dud with X3D in gaming. Truly I think x64 is in hospice.
Seems like they have both kind of hit a wall. This is really the first disappointing (at least for gaming) release from AMD since they introduced Zen.

Edit: if Intel had really nailed it with ARL, they could have been quite competitive with Zen 5 x3D. Unfortunately, ARL seems mediocre as well, so I am not expecting much.
 

jdubs03

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2013
1,227
870
136
Agreed ... except he didn't compare that.

If he wanted to compare it to the 7700, that's fine: just compare the 9700X PBO to 7700 PBO ... except he didn't do that either ...
The 9700X with PBO is comparable to the 7700X. The 9700X sans-PBO can be compared to the 7700. They're just comparing/equating the TDP values for each to measure the efficiency. Nothing out of sort there.

Seems like they have both kind of hit a wall. This is really the first disappointing (at least for gaming) release from AMD since they introduced Zen.

Edit: if Intel had really nailed it with ARL, they could have been quite competitive with Zen 5 x3D. Unfortunately, ARL seems mediocre as well, so I am not expecting much.
Might want to revisit that commentary once an actual ARL product is released.
Doesn't seem right to make comparisons of a released product, with one that isn’t and only has preliminary data about it.
 
Reactions: Ranulf

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,606
12,103
136
The 9700X with PBO is comparable to the 7700X. The 9700X sans-PBO can be compared to the 7700. They're just comparing/equating the TDP values for each to measure the efficiency. Nothing out of sort there.


Might want to revisit that commentary once an actual ARL product is released.
Doesn't seem right to make comparisons of a released product, with one that isn’t and only has preliminary data about it.

Most, if not all, that turned PBO on with the 9700x did so with an unlimited power setting, which is not the same as a 7700x.
 
Reactions: Rigg
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |