AMD Ryzen 7 9700X review: the power to choose efficiency or performance
Reviewing AMD's middle-ground processor
WePC is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Prices subject to change. Learn more
Upon launch, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X was criticized by many who felt that AMD had focused too much on power efficiency rather than improving performance over the previous generation. AMD recently released a 105W TDP patch to address some of these concerns, but is it enough to satisfy the masses? This does add a neat little 105W TDP mode if 65W isn’t serving your needs, giving you the choice of either high efficiency or high performance.
We think the 9700X is one of the best CPUs for gaming in a pre-9800X3D world. Sure, the 7800X3D will outperform this chip in games, but if you want to save a little money, the 9700X is a fantastic option. Even with the TDP boost, it’s still a very efficient chip if you care about power consumption.
- Cores: 8
- Thread: 16
- Boost speed: 5.5GHz
- L1/L2/L3 Cache: 640KB/8MB/32MB
- Deafault TDP: 65W
The 9700X is a fantastic semi-budget gaming CPU that still manages it hold it’s own in terms of multi-core performance. The 9000 series did start off a bit rocky, but seems to have redeemed itself after some Windows patches and TDP increases.
- Fantastic gaming performance compared to new Intel CPUs
- Relatively affordable and can often be found at a slight discount
- Compatible with older AM5 motherboards
- Will be blown away by the 9800X3D
- Can’t compete with new Intel offerings in Multi-core workloads
We will test the 9700X in synthetic and real-world workloads and compare it to some of the industry’s new releases. But first, let’s learn a little more about the 9700X.
Specifications and comparison
| Component | Ryzen 7 9700X | Ryzen 7 7700X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 8 | 8 |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base frequency | 3.8 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Boost frequency | 5.5 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| Memory speed | 5600 MT/s | 5200 MT/s |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 (Gen 5) | 24 (Gen 5) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| TDP / E TDP / PPT | 65W / 105W / 142W | 105W / N/A / 142W |
| Process size | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Core architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |
| Socket | AM5 (compatible with X870, X670, B650, A620) | AM5 (compatible with X870, X670, B650, A620) |
As you can see, there are a few major differences between the specifications of the 9700X and the 7700X. The most notable is the 1 nm smaller manufacturing process, meaning the transistors in the 9700X are a little smaller. This allows the 9700X to be more efficient and provides a small bump in IPC, which measures how many instructions it can process per clock cycle.
The base clock speed is another place where AMD saves on power consumption. Despite the 9700X being a higher-performance CPU, the base core speed is 700 Mhz slower than the 7700X. The boost frequency, however, is 100 Mhz faster, allowing the more impactful cores to spin up and cycle slightly faster.
If power efficiency is important to you, the 9700X has two modes: the 65W TDP mode and the 105W TDP mode. With the 65W mode, the PPT does not exceed 88W, but the 105 TDP mode allows the CPU to use 142W through the motherboard.
Design and Gallery
Nothing much has changed physically with the 9700X or the 9000 series over the 7000 series CPUs. They fit into the same socket, have the same IHS design, and feature the same dimensions. The only real differences lie within the Zen 5 CPU cores.
The best thing about the 9000 series is that you don’t have to get a new motherboard if you already have an AM5 board. The issue is that we aren’t 100% sure the 9700X is worth upgrading from the 7700X. That said, generational gains are present; we can’t justify the upgrade unless it’s to something with more cores, like the 9900X / 9950X.
However, if you’re coming from AM4 or an older Intel chip, and a new motherboard is required anyway, the 9700X is a fantastic gaming-based upgrade. The 9800X3D has shown promise for roughly $100 more in that arena.
Performance
Before we discuss the 9700X’s performance metrics, we need to outline the test bench we used. To create comparable results, we like to keep this as close as possible across generations and platforms.
| Component | WePC test rig |
|---|---|
| CPU | Ryzen 7 9700X |
| Cooler | Corsair H150i Elite LCD |
| Motherboard | ASUS Crosshair Hero X870 |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 @6800 MHz |
| GPU | MSI RTX 4070 Ti |
| PSU | ASUS Thor Platinum II 1000W |
| Case | Cooler Master Masterframe |
A standardized rig helps us deliver the best recommendations possible. If you’re interested in an explanation of our full testing methodology, check out our How we test CPUs page for some insight.
Graphs
We’ve broken up some of our results into nice, easy-to-read graphs.
gaming performance average FPS 9700X
average PPT 9700X
synthetic multi core 9700X
synthetic single core 9700X
Gaming performance
We tested the 9700X in games that utilized the CPU more than others to get a broad sense of how the CPU performed no matter the kind of game you play. We will also compare products in the same price bracket as Team Blue. That’s right—we’re bringing the Core Ultra gaming trainwreck into the equation.
| Metric | CS2 | Days Gone | CP 2077 | Doom Eternal | Horizon FW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (FPS) | AVG: 335.49 99%: 145.71 | AVG: 301.83 99%: 142.36 | AVG: 314.32 99%: 132.76 | AVG: 486.32 99%: 348.76 | AVG: 196.44 99%: 139.16 |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 51 | 56 | 61 | 53 | 59 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 71 | 66 | 64 | 67 | 70 |
| Average PPT (W) | 77.06W | 87.39W | 107.07W | 84.87W | 96.05W |
As you can see, the 9700X remains very collected and power efficient across all of the games we tested, only breaking out of the 100W ceiling for Cyberpunk 2077, which was only by 7W. If you notice, the CPU also stays very cool for an AMD CPU, which, let’s be honest, isn’t the coolest when it comes to thermal efficiency. The maximum CPU temperature we ever see here is 71°C. The die temps will be slightly higher but nowhere near the Tjmax of 95°C.
Now, let’s compare it to what Intel has to offer.
| CPU | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal | Horizon FW |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 7 9700X | AVG: 335.49 99%: 145.71 | AAVG: 301.83 99%: 142.36 | AVG: 486.32 99%: 348.76 | AVG: 196.44 99%: 139.16 |
| Core Ultra 7 265K | AVG: 309.7 99%: 130.9 | AVG: 212.8 99%: 137.9 | AVG: 495.7 99%: 347.8 | AVG: 192.2 99%: 139.3 |
According to the data, the 9700X edged ahead of the 265K in all but one test. However, the Intel CPU managed to stay cooler and use more power on average. Still, though, the results remain. If it’s a toss-up between these two similarly priced CPUs, it’s clear that the 9700X is slightly better in gaming workloads. (apart from Doom Eternal, where it lags slightly behind, but it’s within the margin of error at that frame rate)
The 9700X manages 335 FPS in CS2 and 301 FPS in Days Gone. This is much better than the 265K faired, scoring 309 FPS and 212 FPS in the same tests.
You might not need to upgrade to a motherboard with a different socket if you already have an AM5 motherboard. Intel requires a whole new socket for its core Ultra series CPUs. However, upgrading to an 800 series motherboard has some advantages (more on that later). For now, we have some synthetics to study.
Synthetic benchmarks
Synthetic benchmarks measure a CPU’s performance in heavier, more intensive workloads. This time, there are some surprising results as Intel flips the script but still manages to come out ahead of AMD.
| Metric | CPU Z | Cinebench R23 | Geekbench | Blender render |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (points) | Single 840 Multi 8,807 | Single 2185 Multi 22,557 | Single 3,331 Multi 17,506 | Monster: 137.86 SPM Junkshop: 99.41 SPM Classroom: 69.90 SPM |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 66 | Single: 48 Multi: 69 | 48 | 70 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 75 | Single: 55 Multi: 76 | 71 | 75 |
| Average PPT (W) | 91.59W | Single: 45.82W Multi: 113.85W | 40.65W | 122.21W |
We see an increase in temperature here over gaming benchmarks for the 9700X, but that’s because the CPU is more heavily utilized. Synthetic tests are fairly demanding and take a lot of resources to process. This CPU manages a fairly reasonable score in multi-core loads, pretty much what you’d expect from an 8-core processor.
| CPU | Score | AVG temp (package) °C | Max temp (package) °C | Average PPT (W) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 7 9700X | Single 2185 Multi 22,557 | Single: 48 Multi: 55 | Single: 55 Multi: 76 | Single: 45.82W Multi: 113.85W |
| Core Ultra 7 265K | Single 2,037 Multi 33,429 | Single: 48 Multi: 63 | Single: 54 Multi: 69 | Single: 55.52W Multi: 162.63W |
| Ryzen 7 7700X (PCGuide) | Single 1,995 Multi 19,650 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
We compared the 9700X and 265K results with PCGuide’s 7700X results, and we see a massive variance in scores across the board. The Intel Core Ultra CPU is leaps and bounds ahead of the Ryzen CPUs in terms of multi-core power. Not only that, but it is cooler on average than the 9700X.
However, the 9700X isn’t at the point in the market where it targets multi-core performance. At the end of the day, it only has 8 cores, and the top Ryzen 9000 series SKU has doubled that. It can beat the likes of the 14900K when PBO is enabled. The point is that AMD wants the gaming portion of the market at this price point, and for the most part, it has it.
That said, the 9700X still manages 22,557 points in CB R23 multi, beating its predecessor’s score of 19,650. However, both are massively overshadowed by the 265K’s score of 33,429.
Regarding efficiency, the 9700X uses less power when performing the tests but has fewer cores to feed. The CPU scores a 113W average in the multi-core tests, much better than the 162W PPT of the 265K.
We recommend avoiding the 9700X for workstation tasks and opting for something with more oompf. You can pick up a more core-rich 7000 series CPU for around the same money, or better if you shop second-hand.
Price
The Ryzen 7 9700X was released with an MSRP of $359, but after the mediocre launch, the price dropped a few dollars to around $330 to bolster sales. That said, because of said sales numbers, you may be able to find the CPU on sale around major events sooner than normal. However, AMD managed to turn around the opinion on the 9700X, perhaps not. Here’s the trending price for the 7700X, a generally better-received product on launch.
As you can see, the 7700X tends to rend down around major sales events; this could be the future of the 9700X. Hopefully, this gives some insight into the best time to buy the 9700X if you want a discount.
Is the 9700X worth it?
Absolutely, but not really. Let me explain. In a world without a 9800X3D, the 9700X holds fantastic value for money when building a gaming PC on a budget. But for $100 or more, you can have the 9800X3D, arguably the best gaming CPU available today. And the price is pretty reasonable based on what it offers. If you can’t amount to what the 9800X3D asks for, you can always go with the 7800X3D, with around a 25% dip in overall performance in synthetic workloads.
The 9700X makes sense if you want to properly future-proof your platform with a CPU as close to $300 as possible—if that’s all you have in your budget. However, by that logic, you’d want to opt for an 800-series motherboard over a 600-series, which offsets the savings a little.
Final Word
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X
