AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU Review

Brent_Justice

Brent_Justice

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 23, 2019
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,938
Introduction AMD’s next-generation Zen 4 architecture CPUs are launching, and we have a full review of the Ryzen 5 7600X CPU. In this review, we will look at several synthetic benchmarks, including multi-core and single-core performance, and no less than 8 games worth of performance at 4K, 1440p and 1080p. Our CPU comparisons today are […]

Go to post
 
My opinion. If you're currently on Zen2+ or Zen3 on anything less than a 5800X3D, and all you do is game, then the 5800X3D is the best bang for the buck upgrade. That CPU is a gaming powerhouse.

I kind of have mixed feelings about these mid-tier Zen4 CPU's. At least from a gaming perspective. It would cost significantly more to build a 7600X system, for inarguably less gaming performance, than it would be to build a cheaper 5800X3D system. Especially with AMD saying they were going to continue development of X3D AM4 parts.

They kind of put themselves in a tough situation with their product stack.
 
Yes, for gaming, I agree.

The question one has to ask is what is their intention and use case. What workloads will they need? If all you do is gaming on the PC, then you have your answer. However, if you do much more, or throw other certain kinds of workloads at the CPU, then perhaps there is value. It depends on your needs.
 
Yar, tough sell to migrate from AM4 to AM5 currently (though if I was building new I'd for sure go AM5).

Looking forward to see how the 7000X3D's perform, but think I won't be migrating until the second revisions come out.
 
It's nice to see that these lower cost 6C/12T chips can still keep up in gaming, at least if you aren't trying to do TOO much in the background (like encode streams)

I bet these will find their way into a lot of decent gaming machines.
 
I'm betting they won't find their way in to much of anything until cheaper X670 boards come out, or B-series is released. The value isn't quite there yet. Especially with DDR5 costs, PSU and cooling requirements.
 
Riccochet said:
I'm betting they won't find their way in to much of anything until cheaper X670 boards come out, or B-series is released. The value isn't quite there yet. Especially with DDR5 costs, PSU and cooling requirements.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think the single chip B650/E will be the way to go. All those extra USB and PCIe connections on the expensive X670/E will be limited by the bridge between the 2 chipsets.

B650 + 7_00X3D will be the best early AM5 for gaming.
 
Riccochet said:
My opinion. If you're currently on Zen2+ or Zen3 on anything less than a 5800X3D, and all you do is game, then the 5800X3D is the best bang for the buck upgrade. That CPU is a gaming powerhouse.

I kind of have mixed feelings about these mid-tier Zen4 CPU's. At least from a gaming perspective. It would cost significantly more to build a 7600X system, for inarguably less gaming performance, than it would be to build a cheaper 5800X3D system. Especially with AMD saying they were going to continue development of X3D AM4 parts.

They kind of put themselves in a tough situation with their product stack.
Click to expand...
If you game at 4k you are better off getting a 5600X.

BTW thanks a lot for using settings one would actually use for gaming. Not Low/mid 720p/1080p settings like many reviews out there.
 
Stoly said:
BTW thanks a lot for using settings one would actually use for gaming. Not Low/mid 720p/1080p settings like many reviews out there.
Click to expand...

I think both have value.

Using minimum settings and low resolution you see the potential performance a CPU might have if you have a really fast GPU.

This is valuable for theoretical comparisons and to get an idea how "future proof" the CPU is.

Benchmarking a CPU at real world settings is easier to understand for those who don't get the fact that they will in all likelihood be GPU limited, and helps minimize the arguing over irrelevant performance differences no one will ever actually experience in their CPU due to this GPU limitation.

Honestly, if I had to pick just one, I'd pick the CPU benchmark at minimum settings and low resolution. Using that and GPU benchmarks I can project what my performance will be in almost any combination of hardware. if I only have the latter, I can only really predict how it will perform in that one CPU/GPU combination.

So yeah. I like to see both, but if I had to pick just one, I'd pick the "everything graphical at minimum settings and resolution using an overkill top end GPU" just to try to isolate the CPU performance, because that is honestly more useful.

If I have that CPU isolated data I can look at a CPU benchmark and at a GPU benchmark separately and just pick the minimum framerate of the two, and know that is likely a reasonable prediction of how they will perform together. This is of much greater value to me than real world benchmarks on a system with a GPU I may or may not ever use.
 
Last edited:
I also see value in both results, low rez, and high rez, for both reasons. That's why I include 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, I think it's all relevant, and important to see scaling between resolutions, comparing CPUs. I'm rather excited about the fact that we represent that, that way anyone reading can hone in on the resolution they take value from, and make up their own mind. I think it gives an overall bigger picture of CPU performance, and I'm very happy people get value out of that in our reviews.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I also see value in both results, low rez, and high rez, for both reasons. That's why I include 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, I think it's all relevant, and important to see scaling between resolutions, comparing CPUs. I'm rather excited about the fact that we represent that, that way anyone reading can hone in on the resolution they take value from, and make up their own mind. I think it gives an overall bigger picture of CPU performance, and I'm very happy people get value out of that in our reviews.
Click to expand...
More than the resolution, my issue is low settings. Normally I see cpu benches even at 720p low and those exacerbate the impact of the mobo/cpu.

I recall asking Kyle at [H] several times to do hi-res/high settings on the CPU/Mobo reviews as it would reflect a more real world scenario (which was [H] policy). Never happened.

Thankfully you got all my bases covered.
 
Stoly said:
More than the resolution, my issue is low settings. Normally I see cpu benches even at 720p low and those exacerbate the impact of the mobo/cpu.

I recall asking Kyle at [H] several times to do hi-res/high settings on the CPU/Mobo reviews as it would reflect a more real world scenario (which was [H] policy). Never happened.

Thankfully you got all my bases covered.
Click to expand...

That's why you look at both the GPU and CPU reviews, and - if you have CPU reviews run at low settings, and GPU reviews with overkill CPU/Platform to avoid it being the limiting factor - you can just take the minimum framerates of each review, and use that as a pretty reasonable predictor of what the combination of that CPU and GPU will look like.

The theory is to make the component under review the bottleneck to see what it is truly capable of so you can understand that particular component, rather than having the results confounded with the system as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top