AMD Ryzen 5 9600X review: a suprisingly good budget CPU for gaming
AMD's baseline entry into the 9000 series tested against it's rival
WePC is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Prices subject to change. Learn more
AMD’s Ryzen 5 9600X is a compelling option for gamers and everyday users looking for a balance of performance, efficiency, and value. Built on the refined Zen 5 architecture, this 6-core, 12-thread processor focuses on delivering exceptional single-core performance. However, it needed a 105W TDP patch to get there.
Positioned in the middle of the market, the 9600X offers pretty good gaming performance (considering its cost), competitive efficiency, and thermals, making it perfect if you have a smaller budget or are concerned about power efficiency. It’s a chip that doesn’t aim to compete with multi-core behemoths like the two Ryzen 9 CPUs or the Core Ultra flagship. Instead, it shines where it matters most for gamers—low power consumption and reliable performance in almost every area.
The launch of the 9000 series was a bit of a disaster for AMD, but it seems to have clawed back a chance for the 9600X to shine. But how does it stack against stiff competition like Intel’s Core Ultra 5 245K or AMD’s own 9800X3D? Let’s dive into the benchmarks.
- Core configuration: 6
- Threads: 12
- Base core speed: 3.9 GHz
- Boost core speed: 5.4 GHz
- DDR5 support: Yes @ 5600 MT/s
- TDP / PPT: 65W (105 boosted) / 88W (142W boosted)
This CPU is for those who want to save on energy efficiency, and have a very capable CPU to strike a balance between price and performance. You also have the option to upgrade the performance of the 9600X by selecting the 105W TDP mode, which should do more than put a pep in the step of this little CPU.
- Strong gaming performance
- Low temperatures and power efficient
- Option to boost performance with PBO and 105W TDP mode
- Not the best choice for multi-core workloads
- Beaten by all Intel Core Ultra CPUs in productivity tasks
Specifications and comparison
We will compare the 9600X to the recently released Core Ultra 5 245K for a fair shot. These CPUs are from opposite sides of the same generation and are direct competitors. Luckily, we have the data for both.
| Component | Ryzen 5 9600X | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 6 | 14 |
| Threads | 12 | 14 |
| Hybrid architecture | N/A (6 multithreaded Zen 5 cores) | P-core: 6 E-core: 8 |
| Base frequency | 3.9 GHz | P-core: 4.2 GHz E-core: 3.6 GHz |
| Boost frequency | 5.4 GHz | P-core: 5.2 GHz E-core: 4.6 GHz |
| Turbo clock | 5.4 GHz | up to 5.2 GHz |
| Memory speed | 5600 MT/s | 6400 MT/s |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |
| L2 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |
| TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme) | 65W (105W extended) / 88W (142W extended) / N/A / N/A | 125W / 159W / 159W / 159W |
| Process size | 4 nm | 3 nm |
| Socket | AM5 (compatible with X870E, X870, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620) | LGA 1815 (compatible with Z980) |
The Ryzen 5 9600X and Core Ultra 5 245K take very different approaches to mid-range performance. AMD sticks with a traditional multithreaded design, offering 6 Zen 5 cores and 12 threads. Intel counters with its hybrid architecture, combining 6 P-cores and 8 E-cores for 14. However, the lack of multithreading on Intel’s efficiency cores limits the thread count to 14, leaving AMD with an advantage in heavily threaded workloads.
Regarding clock speeds, the Ryzen 9600X hits a higher boost frequency of 5.4 GHz, edging Intel’s 5.2 GHz on its P-cores. However, Intel strikes back with a higher base frequency of 4.2 GHz on those same P-cores compared to AMD’s 3.9 GHz. This gives the Core Ultra 5 245K an edge in lighter workloads, where sustained turbo frequencies might not come into play as often.
Cache design also highlights the differing strategies between the two CPUs. The 9600X features a shared 32 MB L3 cache, which is excellent for gaming and latency-sensitive tasks. Intel, meanwhile, uses a larger 3 MB L2 cache per core to handle smaller, faster-access tasks. However, the Core Ultra 5’s shared L3 cache is smaller, at 24 MB, which may slightly impact its gaming performance compared to AMD’s more gaming-optimized architecture.
In terms of platform and connectivity, AMD holds a few advantages. The 9600X supports up to 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, providing better options for high-speed storage and GPUs. Intel is slightly behind here, with only 20 PCIe lanes available. Memory support, however, goes to the Core Ultra 5, which handles speeds of up to 6400 MT/s, outpacing AMD’s limit of 5600 MT/s.
The Ryzen 9600X is significantly more efficient for power consumption, with a base TDP of just 65W compared to Intel’s 125W. This makes AMD the better choice for energy-conscious or thermally constrained builds, whereas Intel’s higher power budget translates into better-sustained performance under heavy workloads. The TDP of the 9600X can also be boosted to 105W with a patch for more performance, but the extra wattage still puts it ahead of Intel in terms of power efficiency.
Both processors are built on cutting-edge manufacturing processes, with AMD’s 4 nm node focusing on efficiency and Intel’s 3 nm process offering greater transistor density. Platform compatibility is another win for AMD, thanks to its AM5 socket supporting many motherboards, including more affordable options. In contrast, Intel’s LGA 1815 socket currently requires the high-end Z980 chipset, making it a pricier ecosystem overall.
Design and Gallery
The design of the Ryzen 9 9900X doesn’t bring much new to the table visually, sticking to the same physical layout as the Ryzen 7000 series. AMD’s AM5 socket is unchanged, which means it retains compatibility with AM4 coolers—a feature we’ve come to appreciate but have known about since the platform’s debut. The real change lies under the hood, with the cores now built on AMD’s latest Zen 5 architecture.
Performance
Gaming performance was exceptionally good, considering this is intended to be a fairly budget CPU and the base requirement for entry into Zen 5, for now, anyway.
| Metric | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal | Horizon FW | Frost punk 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (FPS) | AVG: 326.59 99%: 133.88 | AVG: 284.73 99%: 138.62 | AVG: 466.74 99%: 322.52 | AVG: 182.27 99%: 125.02 | AVG: 199.32 99%: 127.01 |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 49 | 57 | 60 | 65 | 49 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 59 | 68 | 70 | 79 | 56 |
| Average PPT (W) | 70.36W | 79.09W | 94.38W | 97.42W | 62.9W |
The Ryzen 5 9600X shows solid gaming performance across a range of titles, with impressive average frame rates that make it a strong contender for mid-range builds. CS2 averages an exceptional 326.59 FPS, maintaining a respectable 99th percentile of 133.88 FPS, showcasing its ability to handle high-refresh-rate gaming. Games like Doom Eternal and Days Gone see average FPS scores of 466.74 and 284.73, respectively, with solid consistency in the 99th percentile performance. Even in more demanding titles like Horizon Forbidden West and Frostpunk 2, the processor delivers stable frame rates, keeping averages above 180 FPS and holding up well in the lower percentiles.
Thermals and power consumption remain well within reasonable limits. Average package temperatures across these tests range from 49°C to 65°C, with peak temps hitting a maximum of 79°C during the most demanding workloads. Power draw is efficient for a chip of this calibre, with an average PPT of 62.9W to 97.42W, depending on the game. But how does it stack up against the Core Ultra 245K?
| CPU | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 5 9600X | AVG: 326.59 99%: 133.88 | AVG: 284.73 99%: 138.62 | AVG: 466.74 99%: 322.52 |
| Core Ultra 5 245K | AVG: 300 99%: 129 | AVG: 189.6 99%: 113.8 | AVG: 457.9 99%: 308.9 |
The Ryzen 5 9600X outperforms the Core Ultra 5 245K in gaming performance across these titles. In CS2, the 9600X delivers a higher average frame rate of 326.59 FPS compared to Intel’s 300 FPS, with a slight edge in 99th percentile performance (133.88 FPS vs. 129 FPS).
The gap widens in Days Gone, where the 9600X achieves an impressive 284.73 FPS average, far surpassing the 245K’s 189.6 FPS. In Doom Eternal, AMD continues its dominance, posting a higher average (466.74 FPS) and stronger 99th percentile (322.52 FPS) compared to Intel’s 457.9 FPS and 308.9 FPS. Overall, the Ryzen 5 9600X demonstrates better consistency and higher performance, particularly in demanding games, as this is not where the Core Ultra CPU shines.
| CPU | CPU Z | Cinebench R23 | Geekbench 6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 5 9600X | Single 819 Multi 6,563 | Single 2,109 Multi 17,070 | Single 3,207 Multi 12,755 |
| Core Ultra 5 245K | Single 796.5 Multi 10,565 | Single 2,043 Multi 22,954 | Single 2,932 Multi 18,240 |
The Ryzen 5 9600X and Core Ultra 5 245K show different strengths in synthetic benchmarks. In CPU-Z, the 9600X leads with a stronger single-core score of 819 compared to the 245K’s 796.5, and similarly, its multi-core score of 6,563 is ahead of Intel’s 10,565. However, when we look at Cinebench R23, Intel’s multi-core performance shines, with the Core Ultra 5 scoring 22,954 versus the 9600X’s 17,070. The 9600X still performs better in single-core with 2,109, surpassing Intel’s 2,043. In Geekbench 6, the gap narrows, with Intel pulling ahead in both single-core (2,932 vs. 3,207) and multi-core (18,240 vs. 12,755).
While the 9600X shows superior single-core performance, Intel’s Core Ultra 5 245K excels in multi-core tasks, reflecting its hybrid core design. With more plentiful cores and a lack of hyperthreading, you would think such a drastic change would hold back the 245K, but the CPU is impressively strong.
Efficiency and temperature
| CPU | Cinebench R32 (multi) | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 5 9600X | Score: 17,070 Max temp: 88°C Max PPT: 88.2W | AVG: 326.59 Max temp: 59°C Max PPT: 70.36W | AVG: 284.73 Max temp: 68°C Max PPT: 79.53W | AVG: 466.74 Max temp: 70°C Max PPT: 94.38W |
| Core Ultra 245K | Score: 22,954 Max temp: 60°C Max PPT: 88.2W | AVG: 300 Max temp: 47°C Max PPT: 74.4W | AVG: 189 Max temp: 54°C Max PPT: 79.9W | AVG: 457.9 Max temp: 50°C Max PPT: 96.2W |
| Core Ultra 285K | Score: 42,399 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 160.06W | AVG: 313.8 Max temp: 48°C Max PPT: 48.5W | AVG: 236.952 Max temp: 51°C Max PPT: 61.88W | AVG: 499.82 Max temp: 54°C Max PPT: 108.04W |
| Core Ultra 285K (E-core only) | Score: 25,394 Max temp: 57°C Max PPT: 85.93W | AVG: 146.27 Max temp: 47 Max PPT: 28.4W | AVG: 216.727 Max temp: 45°C Max PPT: 40.38W | AVG: 510.843 Max temp: 49°C Max PPT: 67.71W |
| Ryzen 9 9950X | Score: 40,166 Max temp: 64°C Max PPT: 167.67W | AVG: 323.7 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 113.55W | AVG: 237.4 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 108.33W | AVG: 507.658 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 155.96W |
There are clear differences between the thermal and efficiency performance of the Ryzen 5 9600X and the Core Ultra 245K, with each processor managing heat and power consumption differently.
Starting with the Ryzen 5 9600X, the chip maintains solid thermal efficiency, even in heavy loads. In Cinebench R32, the 9600X hits a maximum temperature of 88°C while drawing up to 88.2W of power. Its gaming temperatures are more modest, with CS2 peaking at 59°C, Days Gone at 68°C, and Doom Eternal reaching 70°C. Power consumption stays reasonably efficient across the board, averaging between 70.36W and 94.38W in gaming.
On the other hand, the Core Ultra 245K performs well in thermals, particularly in lighter loads. In Cinebench R23, it hits a max temperature of 60°C while using 88.2W of power. Its gaming temperatures are even lower, with CS2 maxing out at 47°C and Doom Eternal at 50°C, keeping the system cool during intense sessions. Power draw is relatively efficient, with CS2 averaging 74.4W and Doom Eternal 96.2W.
In short, while the Core Ultra 245K stays cooler, particularly under lighter workloads, the Ryzen 5 9600X is slightly more power-hungry but remains well within acceptable performance limits. Both CPUs offer a good balance of performance and efficiency, but the Ryzen chip takes on heavier tasks with a bit more power draw and higher temps in the most demanding scenarios.
Price and Value
The Ryzen 5 9600X, priced at $246.99, is a solid contender in the mid-range CPU market. It offers a well-rounded mix of gaming and productivity performance at an affordable price. It competes closely with Intel’s Core i7-13700K, priced at $273.47, which delivers excellent multi-core performance but at a higher cost. The 9600X offers balanced performance, especially if you’re gaming-focused. It delivers strong single-core performance while keeping things budget-friendly compared to other high-performance chips.
For those willing to stretch their budget further, Intel’s Core i7-14700K, priced at $347.00, provides solid performance for demanding tasks and sits between the 13700K and Core Ultra 7 265K in terms of pricing. However, if gaming is your primary focus, the 9600X offers excellent value without reaching the price of these higher-end models.
Intel’s Core i5-245K, priced at $319.00, is another option that competes in the same range as the 9600X. Still, it’s positioned as a higher-performing chip for multi-core tasks, making it better suited for professional workloads than pure gaming. If you’re focused on raw multi-core performance, the 245K is a solid option, but for a more balanced experience that still excels in gaming, the Ryzen 5 9600X stands out as a more well-rounded and cost-effective choice.
Final Word
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X
