8 ms·
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X Offer Excellent Linux Performance
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zaid_brilliant 2y agoOk. The Power Consumption of Ryzen 7 9700x threw me off a bit at the end. I wasn't expecting such a gap b/w i9 14900k. Competitive Price, leading in most performance matrices with very good power consumption numbers. That really is a Home run.
- jeffbee 2y agoThe 14900k is a 24-core CPU. Don't doubt that "efficiency" cores draw current. The e-cores cluster alone can draw over 135W if you push it.
- Panzer04 2y agoPower consumption can only really be compared at the same performance level (IMO) - though I guess it depends on if you plan to tweak the processor defaults. One of my biggest bugbears is people using maximally clocked processors (such as the i9) as indicative of power efficiency in general. Processors use way more power for those last few hundred megahertz. I don't think this release is all that impressive, tbh. Fairly minor upgrade all told, and not an upgrade at all for those of use who value performance more then efficiency (admittedly, you can eke out some small improvement via PBO)
- xioxox 2y agoIt would be nice to see the idle power numbers, including the motherboard. A lot of the time I'm using my home PC for light tasks (browsing, listening to music, etc). The idle power is likely to dominate unless doing heavy processing tasks or gaming.
- jeffbee 2y agoAlso would be great if a Linux-focused outlet would mention whether the power saving features of the platform work at all. The difference between the idle power of a platform that reaches deep package sleep states and one that doesn't is very large.
- stracer 2y ago9700X system has materially the same performance and only a little lower consumption than similar 7700X system, which was released 21 months ago. It's stagnation like Intel 2010-2015.
- infocollector 2y agoNice benchmarks. One caveat is - why not publish which motherboard/RAM combination you were using for the review? Looks like they were using an existing AM5 MB - but I don't see it in the review.
- michaellarabel 2y agoIt should be on the system table on the 2nd page. Its a bit small but SVG can zoom in. It was an ASUS ROG STRIX X670E with latest BIOS. Edit: but yeah I need to find a way to scale that table better to make it easier to read.
- celrod 2y agoAny suggestions for ECC? Would you suggest going with an ASRock Rack motherboard, even for desktop use, like you used here? https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen9-ddr5-ecc https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen9-ddr5-ecc I'm strongly tempted to get a Zen5 CPU, but am unsure of the motherboard.
- michaellarabel 2y agoI haven't yet tested ECC with any Zen 5 desktop CPU. But yes in general with Zen 4 that ASRock Rack and Supermicro boards have worked out well. With time will try out ECC on Ryzen 9000 series.
- celrod 2y agoZen5 appears to officially support up to DDR5 5600, but unfortunately all of the ASRock Rack or Supermicro boards I looked at only supported DDR5 5200. I may wait for new Zen5 boards, or maybe take a gamble on something like the Asus ProArt, where I saw comments online indicating that ECC is (unofficially?) supported. Looking forward to Ryzen 9000 ECC benchmarks.
- kvemkon 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jjice 2y agoAMD has been doing really well on their CPU side the last few years, but with Intel's recent issues at the some time as Zen 5, I have to imagine this is going to be a good time for them going forward. I remember when AMD was the budget choice that threw raw speed and cores at the problem with CPUs like the FX 83XX chips and Intel was the real player (memories of building my first computer in high school). I love the switch up. I hope Intel can get their comeback as well (without just throwing 240W at the processor). I love some competition in the x86 market.
- englishspot 2y agoAMD being good was really jarring when I got back into building PCs a few years ago. I was so used to the Phenom and Bulldozer era, when the consensus was AMD was pretty much a joke. How times have changed..
- linuxftw 2y agoFor non gaming builds, the Phenom processors were a great value. I had a Phenom 2 X6 for running virtualization labs, no issues whatsoever. Bulldozer was a flop, no real performance gains over the Phenom 2's.
- neogodless 2y agoPhenom was really good. Ran mine for 10 years before getting into Ryzen. But Bulldozer was a letdown.
- Havoc 2y agoAnybody else finding that the need for upgrades slowed down dramatically? Did a 3700X -> 5800x3D upgrade for a last gasp of AM4 and at this pace I'll probably wait till what zen 6? 7?
- BugsJustFindMe 2y agoI use a 3700X and have had no reason to upgrade yet.
- drbscl 2y agoSame here; at this point I'll probably only upgrade when CAMM2 becomes more widespread
- noelwelsh 2y agoOutside of niche areas, I think programmers can easily go at least 5 years without needing an upgrade. The average office worker can probably use recent hardware until it breaks. My 2016 Macbook would be fine for day-to-day work if the battery wasn't completely dead. My current laptop (M1) and desktop (3600) are both 2020 models and fine for most programming tasks.
- rubslopes 2y agoAlso my experience. My macbook air M1 16gb of ram still is all I need for my programming work.
- attendant3446 2y agoDepends on what you do, I found that without the active cooling it throttles a lot. The similar MBP worked great.
- duffyjp 2y agoMy wife's PC is a i7-2600 circa 2011. I have the ram maxed out, an SSD, and an nvidia card and for day-to-day stuff you'd never know it wasn't brand new-- seriously. It even runs Windows 11 perfectly with the Rufus modified installer. If you're chasing FPS in AAA games it's not going to cut it, but it boots in seconds, loads apps quickly, plays streaming video perfectly...
- sod 2y agoI guess thank you apple for finally allowing someone else to use the 3n process. Everyone applauding apple for their incredible silicon, but IMO it's 70% just thanks to tsmc.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoAnd 30% soldering RAM on-package.
- kcb 2y agoThese are 4nm.
- copperx 2y agoA bit personal question, but can someone tell me if upgrading a 1800X to a 9700X worth it? Or should I just upgrade the whole enchilada (mobo, RAM)?
- Timshel 2y agoYou can't upgrade different cpu socket 1800x is am4 and 9700x is am5. You could upgrade to something like 5800x if needed.
- fumeux_fume 2y agoI believe the 9700X would require a new board with an AM5 socket and only accepts DDR5 RAM so whole enchilada.
- WithinReason 2y agoYou can upgrade to a much better AM4 CPU for very cheap (used)
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoI went 1700x -> 5700x on a lark, because it was really cheap. I wasn't expecting much & wasn't sure why I was doing it (I do some occasional gaming but my rx580 is almost certainly the bottleneck). I was pleasantly surprised to find my computer noticeably snappier. There are used 5800x's under $100 on eBay. I would absolutely recommend grabbing one of those. At $200+ (what I paid) it's nice & I was pleasantly surprised, but man, these things were already pretty fast!
- edward28 2y agoBuy a 5700x3d for a cheap upgrade.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stracer 2y agoIf you wanted to upgrade from Zen3/4, don't get your hopes up... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_bMt9fVm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_bMt9fVm0 On average, 9700X is few percent faster than 7700X, and has slightly lower consumption. Upgrading from Zen 3/Zen 4 not warranted.
- abhinavk 2y agoDepends on the workload. It certainly looks like Zen 5 will be meh for gaming build upgrades. On the other hand, these are great options for productivity and workstation builders. Check Level1Tech's video. This would be a great generation for Epyc too. [1]: https://youtu.be/JZuV35LgjxU https://youtu.be/JZuV35LgjxU
- stracer 2y agoYeah, Moore's law seems to culminate and the rising tide with it. We seem to be entering an era where new tech improvements are mostly about integrated coprocessors and specialized workloads, and sometimes lower power.
- Night_Thastus 2y agoI'm not sure I'd quantify it as "excellent". It's nearly identical to last generation's parts. The only pro so far is the very lower power usage, which is nice.
- Narishma 2y agoThey are faster than the previous generation in nearly all of the benchmarks while using much less power. I wouldn't call that 'nearly identical'.
- Night_Thastus 2y agoBy maybe 3% on average, if that. Some benchmarks elsewhere show cases where they're actually a tiny bit slower, due to the lower clock speeds.
- adrian_b 2y agoThe Phoronix benchmarks show exactly the expected results. However, there are some sites where the interpretation of similar results is ridiculous, for instance TechSpot. On that site, the author complains that e.g. 9700X is faster than 7700X in the multi-threaded benchmarks by only a few percent. Nevertheless, the author fails to mention that 7700X is configured for an 105 W TDP, while 9700X is configured for a 65 W TDP. For most of the new series, AMD has chosen a default configuration that favors energy efficiency over speed. Therefore, in the default configuration most of the improvements result in a much higher energy efficiency and an only slightly higher speed in multi-threaded benchmarks. The results measured by the reviewer were exactly as expected and the complaints make absolutely no sense. After that, the reviewer notices that the new series show a lower power consumption by a few tens of watts, but then the reviewer complains that when compared to the entire computer system power consumption that means only around 10%, so it is not impressive. However, the reviewer fails to point that this computer system includes an RTX 4090, which alone has a power consumption comparable with a couple of normal desktops. The reviewed computer has a power consumption around 500 W, many times greater than a normal desktop computer. Therefore a power saving that would be huge for a normal desktop appears modest for such a behemoth. Again, the complaints are ridiculous. Moreover, the reviewer fails to notice that in single-threaded benchmarks the new Zen 5 CPUs match or even exceed the fastest Raptor Lake CPUs, despite the latter having much higher clock frequencies. That means that when the faster Zen 5 models will be launched next week, they will beat easily any Intel CPU in single-threaded benchmarks. These results are excellent, and not a failure, like the weird reviewer concludes. Moreover, that bad review has not tested the domains where Zen 5 has up to double performance when compared to any previous desktop CPU, like floating-point computations, cryptography or ML/AI. These use cases alone are a good enough reason for upgrades for many of those who use such CPUs for professional purposes and not for games.
- stracer 2y agoSteve's reviews are focused on gaming and he probably isn't wrong there. 9700X seems to bring very little for gaming, compared to 7700X. 7700X is almost the same performance, sometimes even better, and cheaper to buy. Most gamers do not care about 10% lower power consumption, especially when they have to pay more upfront for it. Yes, the better energy efficiency allows 9700X to boost higher to get somewhat higher performance in multi-thread, but for some reason, gaming does not benefit noticeably. Zen 5 seems interesting for laptops and low-power client devices, but so does the new Intel Lunar Lake (for now, at least), so we have to wait for reviews and comparisons there. > has not tested... floating-point computations, cryptography or ML/AI. That is true, but small fraction of people care about these specialized workloads, it's overhyped in marketing. But if you care about those, I think you may be right that Zen 5 may be more interesting there.