AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: Retaking The High-End
by Ryan Smith & Gavin Bonshor on September 26, 2022 9:00 AM ESTTest Bed and Setup
As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance.
While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC-supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
The Current CPU Test Suite
For our AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X testing, we are using the following test system:
| AMD Ryzen 7000 Series System (DDR5) | |
| CPU | Ryzen 9 7950X ($699) 16 Cores, 32 Threads 170 W TDP Ryzen 5 7600X ($299) 6 Cores, 12 Threads 105 W TDP |
| Motherboard | GIGABYTE X670E Aorus Master (BIOS 813b) |
| Memory | G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo 2x16 GB DDR5-5200 CL44 |
| Cooling | EK-AIO Elite 360 D-RGB 360 mm AIO |
| Storage | Crucial MX300 1TB |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX850 |
| GPUs | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, Driver 496.49 |
| Operating Systems | Windows 11 21H1 |
As we are in a transitional period between our current CPU 2021 suite and data, and optimizing our CPU 2023 suite with different data comparisons required, we have included a varied selection of benchmarks for this review. This ranges from our traditional un-updatable Google Octane 2.0 web test, through a variety of rendering benchmarks such as CineBench R23 and Blender, to encoding, and all the way to our more scientific-related tests.
With our processor reviews, especially on a new generational product such as AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X, we also include SPEC2017 data to account for any increases (or decreases) to generational single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. It should be noted that due to the terms of the SPEC license because our benchmark results are not vetted directly by the SPEC consortium, we have to label them as ‘estimated’. The benchmark is still run and we get results out, but those results have to have the ‘estimated’ label.
Moving Foward to Our CPU 2023 Suite: What to Expect
Looking ahead to our updated CPU 2023 suite, we've updated some of our existing benchmarks to the latest and current versions (as of Sept 22) such as Blender 3.3. In terms of benchmarks from our CPU 2021 suite, we've included benchmarks such as Dwarf Fortress, Factorio, and Dr. Ian Cutress's 3DPMv2 and Crysis CPU benchmarks.
We've also added some completely new benchmarks and workloads to our suite, including an update to Blender (v3.3), C-Ray 1.1 rendering, as well as more scientific-based workloads such as SciMark 2.0 and Primesieve 1.9.0. We have also decided to add UL's latest Procyon suite which measures overall system performance when doing tasks such as office-based tasks, as well as video, and photo editing.
As it stands, we have also updated our pool of games going forward into 2023 and beyond, including the latest F1 2022 racing game, the CPU-intensive Total War Warhammer 3 real-time strategy, and the popular Hitman 3 assassin-based title.
Our aim is to provide varying levels of data points across a variety of different workloads, instruction sets, and tasks. Going forward, we will keep our CPU 2023 suite updated as frequently as possible, and when we have a consistent and suitable number of data points, it will feature on our Bench database as we continue testing new and older CPUs for varying data points.
Some of these new benchmarks will make an appearance in this review, while others won't. Our aim is to assess and subjugate our way through whatever CPUs we have on hand to add vital data points. However, some parts of our CPU 2023 suite are still under testing and it should make a full debut in our next CPU review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
205 Comments
View All Comments
Tomatotech - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link
Nice idea but you’re swimming against the flow of history. The trend is always to more tightly integrate various components into smaller and smaller packages. Apple have moved to onboard RAM in the same package as the CPU which has bought significant bandwidth advantages and seems to have boosted iGPU to the level of low-end dGPUs.The main takeaway from your metaphor of the 650w dGPU with a 55w mainboard and 100-200w CPU is that high-end dGPUs are now effectively separate computers in their own right - especially as a decent one can be well over 50% of the cost of the whole PC - and are being constrained by having to fit into the PC in terms of physical space, power supply capacity, and cooling capacity.
It’s a shrinking market on both the low end and high end for home use of dGPU, given these innovations and constraints and I don’t know where it’s going to go from here.
Since I got optic fibre, I’ve started renting cloud based high-end dGPU and it has been amazing albeit the software interface has been frustrating at times. With symmetric gigabit service and 1-3ms ping, it’s like having it under my desk. I worked out that for unlimited hours and given the cost of electricity, it would take 10 years for my cloud rental costs to match the cost of buying and running a home high end dGPU.
Not everyone has optic fibre of course but globally it’s rolling out year by year so the trend is clear again. Reply
Castillan - Wednesday, September 28, 2022 - link
"clang version 10.0.0
clang version 7.0.1 (ssh://git@github.com/flang-compiler/flang-driver.git
24bd54da5c41af04838bbe7b68f830840d47fc03)
-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer
-march=x86-64
-mtune=core-avx2
-mfma -mavx -mavx2
"
...and then later the article says:
"The performance increase can be explained by a number of variables, including the switch from DDR4 to DDR5 memory, a large increase in clock speed, as well as the inclusion of the AVX-512 instruction set, albeit using two 256-bit pumps."
The problem here being that those arguments to Clang will NOT enable AVX-512. Only AVX2 will be enabled. I verified this on an AVX512 system.
To enable AVX512, at least at the most basic level, you'll want to use "-mavx512f ". There's also a whole stack of other AVX512 capabilities, which are enabled with "-mavx512dq -mavx512bw -mavx512vbmi -mavx512vbmi2 -mavx512vl" but some may not be supported. It won't hurt to include those on the command line though, until you try to compile something that makes use of those specific features, and then you'll see a failure if the platform doesn't support those extensions. Reply
Ryan Smith - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link
Correct. AVX-512 is not in play here. That is an error in analysis on our part. Thanks! Replypman6 - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link
intel supports 8k60 AV1 decode.Does ryzen 7000 support 8k60 ?? Reply
GeoffreyA - Monday, October 3, 2022 - link
The Radeon Technology Group is getting 16K ready. Replyyhselp - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link
I'd love to see you investigate memory scaling on the Zen 4 core. ReplyMyrandex - Thursday, September 29, 2022 - link
The table on page four mentions "Quad Channel (128-bit bus)" for memory support. Does that mean we could have a 4 memory slot solution, with one memory module per channel, with four channel support? This way to drastically increase memory bandwidth all while maintaining those fast DDR5 frequencies? ReplyRyan Smith - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link
No. That configuration would be no different than a 2 DIMM setup in terms of bandwidth or capacity. Slotted memory is all configured DIMMs; as in Dual Inline Memory Module. ReplyGeoffreyA - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link
All in all, excellent work, AMD, on the 7950X. Undoubtedly shocking performance. Even that dubious AVX-512 benchmark where Intel used to win, Zen 4 has taken command of it. However, lower your prices, AMD, and don't be so greedy. Little by little, you are becoming Intel. Don't be evil.Thanks, Ryan and Gavin, for the review and all the hard work. Much appreciated. Have a great week. Reply
Footman36 - Friday, September 30, 2022 - link
Yawn. I really don't see what the big fuss is about. I currently run 5600X and was interested to see how the 7600X compared and while it does look like a true uplift in performance over the 5600X, I would have to factor in cost of new motherboard and DDR5 ram! On top of that, the comparison is not exactly apples to apples in the testing. 7600X has a turbo speed of 5.3, 5600X 4.6. 7600X runs with 5200 DDR5 and 5600X 3200 DDR4, 7600X has TDP 105W, 5600X 65W. If you take a look at the final page where the 7950X is tested in ECO mode which effectively supplies 65W instead of 105W you lose 18% performance. If we try to do apples to apples and use eco mode with 7600X, to get apples to apples with 65W of 5600W, then lower boost to 4.6ghz then the performance of the 2 cpu's looks very similar. Perhaps not the way I should be analyzing the results, but just my observation.... Reply