Summary
- Neither gamers nor creators have anything to be excited about, considering the 5% average performance improvement.
- AMD's tall claims about both performance and power efficiency evaporated as soon as its new CPUs saw the light of day.
- AMD might have targeted Zen 5 at the server market for its EPYC CPUs, handicapping the desktop performance.
Earlier this month, the reviews for AMD's latest Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X started coming out from multiple publications. There's a mixed reaction to AMD's Zen 5 processors, and the incredible gains (especially in gaming) that AMD claimed have mostly been proven false. Both gamers and creators were expecting the Ryzen 9000 CPUs to take the AM5 platform to new heights, but what we got is stagnation.
Focusing on the most-anticipated chips in the lineup i.e. the 9600X and 9700X, one can easily conclude that Zen 5 is far from the slam dunk many of us were hoping for. So, let's dissect the three broad areas where AMD has let consumers down with its latest CPUs.
Windows has been dragging down performance in AMD's latest processors
Turns out the lackluster performance of the new Ryzen 9000 series could be partially Windows' fault.
3 Gamers basically got higher-priced Zen 4 CPUs
Stick with your 7600 and 7700
Two years after the launch of the Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" CPUs, this is not what you expect from a "new and improved" architecture. Sure, AMD might have managed to squeeze a lot more transistors on an ever-so-smaller die (switching from TSMC N5 to N4P for the CCDs), but that technical achievement didn't translate to any reasonable gains in gaming performance. It turns out that we only got 2-3% more FPS on average compared to the Zen 4 chips.
It makes more sense to compare the 65W 9700X and 9600X to the 65W 7700 and 7600 respectively, apples to apples.
Moreover, this comparison is between the newer chips and the Ryzen 7 7700 & Ryzen 5 7600, and not the 7700X and 7600X. This is because it makes more sense to compare the 65W 9700X and 9600X to the 65W 7700 and 7600 respectively, apples to apples. Even if you factor in the fact that Windows is dragging down performance on Zen 5 and Zen 4 CPUs, the gaming gains are still minor compared to the previous generation.
The Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 chips draw significantly more power than their predecessors to deliver identical performance
Enabling PBO on the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 chips does basically nothing for gaming. So, all the talk about Zen 5 CPUs being more "power efficient" doesn't ring true either, as the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 chips draw significantly more power than their predecessors to deliver identical performance, sometimes over 30% more. Plus, when you consider the fact that we haven't really received "price cuts" on the 9700X and 9600X when compared against the 7700 and 7600 respectively, things start to look even worse.
After 2 years, AMD is basically asking you to pay significantly more for the exact same CPU that just comes with a lower TDP. The lower power limit doesn't translate to better FPS per watt either. AMD could have rated its newer chips at 105W instead of 65W by default to squeeze out 1% more FPS, but sticking to 65W made more sense. The sad thing is doing that did next to nothing for gamers, performance or temperature-wise.
Why my Zen 3 to Zen 5 upgrade will have nothing to do with the new Ryzen 9000 CPUs
The new Ryzen 9000 chips look decent but I'm saving an upgrade for something better
2 Even creators have nothing to get excited about
More multi-core performance for more watts?
While the Zen 5 chips aren't delivering anything for gamers to get excited about, creators have at least something to look forward to. However, they'll have to deal with a much hotter CPU to get there. This is because, on the default 65W TDP, the Ryzen 7 9700X is only around 5% faster than even the 7700X in multi-core performance. Only when you enable PBO do you get a nearly 20% improvement over the Zen 4 chip.
This increase in performance, however, comes with significantly higher CPU temperatures, hurting AMD's value proposition. AMD seems to have focused a bit too much on the rated TDP of its new chips rather than delivering strong out-of-the-box performance. Maybe the idea here was to show its CPUs in a better light against Intel's usually hotter offerings, but this has again resulted in unimpressive gains after 2 years.
AMD seems to have focused a bit too much on the rated TDP of its new chips rather than delivering strong out-of-the-box performance.
What we've ended up with, as a consequence, is a situation where neither gamers nor professionals have any strong reason to consider the 9700X or 9600X. Even the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X, which many creators might turn to, is only around 3% faster, on average, than the Ryzen 9 7950X, making it impossible to recommend over the Zen 4 chip. So, who is Zen 5 really for?
The 9950X might be faster than Intel's Core i9-14900K in many professional workloads, but so was the previous-gen 7950X. The glaring issue with the Ryzen 9000 launch is the minor generational improvements we see over Zen 4. Consumers were used to seeing big gains with each generation of Ryzen CPUs, so these results have obviously disappointed many users, especially since AMD made tall claims that turned out to be simply untrue.
The new Ryzen 9000 CPUs show that AMD is playing it safe
Granite Ridge is almost here, but should you consider buying these new desktop CPUs?
1 Zen 5 is probably only for the server market
Looks like desktop users suffered as a result
I might be grasping at straws here, but seeing the nothing burger that the Ryzen 9000 desktop chips are, I think AMD might be concerned with optimizing Zen 5 for its server CPUs. In the past, we've seen almost every successive Zen architecture handily beat the previous one, but this time around, it looks like AMD doesn't even care if Zen 5 is basically a like-for-like replacement for Zen 4 while being worse in several areas.
This might have resulted in a lackluster architecture for desktop users, where neither gamers nor creators see any point in considering these new chips.
AMD might be focusing on maximizing its profits from the EPYC line of server processors. And considering that's where the money is, it's not surprising. AMD has been increasingly following in the footsteps of Nvidia, focusing on the data center market when it comes to GPUs. It now seems that the same story has played out in the CPU space, at least for this generation.
However, this might have resulted in a lackluster architecture for desktop users, where neither gamers nor creators see any point in considering these new chips. For every kind of user, there seems to be a cheaper or more powerful option available than the Ryzen 9000 CPUs.
The only people who'll end up buying the Ryzen 9000 CPUs will probably be reviewers — just to churn out more data to dunk on AMD.
Gamers like me will probably wait for the 9000X3D CPUs or stay content with their Ryzen 7000 chips. Professionals will simply opt for the Ryzen 7000 flagship or the Core i9-14900K/13900K. And those building entry-level systems won't consider these new chips anyway, considering the price tag. The only people who'll end up buying the Ryzen 9000 CPUs will probably be reviewers — just to churn out more data to dunk on AMD.
Nvidia and AMD are in their AI era, and gamers can do nothing but watch
The AI wave has turned into a tsunami for gamers, as Nvidia and AMD turn all their energies to data center GPUs
Will the Ryzen 9000X3D CPUs also disappoint?
I'm one of the many users waiting for the Ryzen 9000X3D chips in hopes of upgrading to the world's fastest gaming CPU. Coming from the Ryzen 7 5700X personally, it would be a big upgrade for me, but I'm worried that the same Zen 5 issues might plague the upcoming Ryzen 7 9800X3D and other X3D CPUs.
If the 9800X3D doesn't deliver a meaningful generational upgrade over the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, AMD might lose the gaming crown to Intel. Even now, the 14900K is only around 5% slower than the 7800X3D, so it isn't unthinkable that the upcoming Arrow Lake chips might come out ahead of not only the 7800X3D but also the 9800X3D. We might see a shake-up in the desktop CPU space very soon, and as always, it'll be exciting to cover whatever happens.