Product Name: Ryzen 5 9600X
Brand: AMD
Offer price: 1599
Currency: MYR
-
Efficiency - 8.5/10
8.5/10
-
Features - 8/10
8/10
-
Performance - 7/10
7/10
-
Value - 7/10
7/10
Summary
The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is in a tough spot – it barely outpaces its predecessor, and its rival is far outpacing it with significantly more cores (and performance) for the price.
Overall
7.6/10Pros
+ Decent single-core improvement
+ Cool and efficient
+ Direct upgrade path for Ryzen 7000 users
Cons
– Multi-core performance lags behind Intel CPUs
– Limited improvement in games
– Subpar value
AMD’s new Ryzen 5 9600X enters mid-range CPU market with some changes under the hood – for one, the TDP has been taken down a notch to a more pedestrian 65W category. Zen 5 is of course another new addition, but how will it fare against its predecessors in both ends of the power band, as well as against Intel’s potent mid-ranger? Read on.
Check out our previous reviews of Ryzen 9000 series by clicking the following links: Ryzen 9 9950X, Ryzen 9 9900X
Specifications & Comparison
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X
Here’s a quick chart comparing all the specs from AMD’s recent mid-range chips, plus Intel’s latest equivalent:
Processor | AMD Ryzen 5 9600X | AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | AMD Ryzen 5 7600 | Intel Core i5-14600K |
---|---|---|---|---|
Core Configuration | 6 cores / 12 threads (1 CCD) | 6P+8E / 20 threads (monolithic) | ||
Process Node | CCD: TSMC N4P IOD: TSMC N6 | CCD: TSMC N5 IOD: TSMC N6 | Intel 7 | |
Microarchitecture | Zen 5 “Granite Ridge” | Zen 4 “Raphael” | Raptor Lake Refresh P: Raptor Cove E: Gracemont | |
Boost Clock | 5.4GHz | 5.3GHz | 5.1GHz | P-Core: 5.3GHz E-Core: 4.0GHz |
Base Clock | 3.9GHz | 4.7GHz | 3.8GHz | P-Core: 3.5GHz E-Core: 2.6GHz |
Cache (L2+L3) | 6+32MB | 20+24MB | ||
TDP | 65W (88W PPT) | 105W (142W PPT) | 65W (88W PPT) | 125W (PBP) 181W (MTP) |
Memory Support | DDR5-5600 192GB dual-channel | DDR5-5200 192GB dual-channel | DDR5-5600 DDR4-3200 192GB dual-channel | |
Onboard Graphics | AMD Radeon Graphics 2 CUs (RDNA2) @ 2.2GHz | Intel UHD Graphics 770 32 EUs @ 1.55GHz | ||
Usable PCIe Lanes | 24x PCIe 5.0 | 16x PCIe 5.0 4x PCIe 4.0 | ||
Socket Type | Socket AM5 (LGA1718) | LGA1700 | ||
Chipset Support | AMD 600, 800 series | Intel 600, 700 series |
Test System
CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 9600X |
Cooling | Cooler Master MasterLiquid PL360 Flux 30th Anniversary Edition Cooler Master MasterGel Maker |
Motherboard | GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX ICE |
GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition |
Memory | Kingston FURY BEAST DDR5-6000 CL36 (2x16GB) |
Storage | ADATA LEGEND 960 MAX 1TB |
Power Supply | Cooler Master MWE Gold 1250 V2 Full Modular 1250W |
Chassis | VECTOR Bench Case (Open-air chassis) |
Operating System | Windows 11 Home 23H2 |
Benchmarks
All tests are conducted in out-of-the-box configuration unless otherwise specified. All Intel processors tested follows default power limits of 253W MTP.
Note: During the process of testing the CPUs, AMD published an update on its testing methodology which addresses the lack of gen-on-gen performance uplift. One of the process involves using a special administrator mode that can create significant security risk for normal users, though AMD has made it clear that such a workaround will not be needed in the upcoming Windows 11 24H2 update. As the 24H2 update is not yet officially released for all Windows systems, our results is produced on version 23H2 to reflect the current performance.
Cinebench
Starting with Cinebench, it’s brutal for the Ryzen 5 9600X from the get go. As the power limit is more reserved than its predecessor, the multi-core performance uplift suffered as a result. The good news: the 9600X is still faster than the 7600X; the bad news? Just look at how far ahead Intel’s Core i5-14600K is in multi-core tests (albeit with almost twice the power draw). The 9600X also edged out Intel’s mid-ranger in single-core with a lead of 4-5%.
Power Draw & Thermals
Gone is the 105W and in comes 65W, and this gets reflected in the power draw chart. Note that AMD’s true power draw is represented as PPT (package power tracking), as its interpretation of TDP is more of a classification for what type of coolers you should use to keep it cool. In any case, the 9600X draws 30W less compared to its predecessor, and coupled with an improved IHS, the CPU is sitting at a cool 56 degrees even under full load, while the 7600X is nearly approaching its thermal limit of 95 degrees.
7-Zip
Next is 7-Zip, and here we can see all three hexa-core chips from AMD have almost identical performance in terms of compression and decompression performance. Intel is once again massively ahead thanks to its 8 extra E-cores at bay, and the luxury of extra power given to the chip to really stretch its legs.
3DMark Time Spy (CPU)
3DMark Time Spy shows a miniscule improvement for the 9600X, although it’s a mere 4% improvement over the 7600X. At equal power (against 7600), the improvement is measured at 5% instead. Still, no match for Intel on this one (although Time Spy CPU test has traditionally favored Team Blue significantly, to be fair).
Handbrake
The Ryzen 5 9600X managed to shave just 7 seconds off from its predecessor, making this a mere 2.7% reduction in rendering times. It fared better against the Ryzen 5 7600 at equal power, netting a 10% lead instead. Still, none of them got close to the Intel Core i5-14600K that managed to wipe the floor with over a minute’s worth of lead.
Gaming
Here’s what gaming performance looks like for the games we tested, and for the most part, it’s negligible. Still, we do observe a minor uplift in the CPU-heavy Hitman 3 test, though this game heavily favors Intel chips, which meant the Core i5 gets a huge lead here. Forza Horizon 5 also sees the 9600X getting a 2FPS lead, but other than that, we’re looking at equal performance (or rather, bounded by GPU).
Verdict
Of the three Ryzen 9000 CPUs I’ve tested so far, the Ryzen 5 9600X is perhaps the most underwhelming of the bunch – and it really came down to just how much Intel has led in this segment thanks to its big lead in core counts. If AMD wants to properly compete in this class against Team Blue, the mid-range CPUs needs a lot more cores, be it full-size ones, or even the downsized Zen 5c cores if die area is an issue.
That said, Ryzen’s chiplet design can make this rather complicated, as there is no desktop CCDs that mixes both the standard and smaller cores into one physical silicon right now, and having a dual-CCD design (with a Zen 5 CCD plus a Zen 5c CCD) doesn’t make much sense in terms of cost. So where does AMD go from here? There’s not much options – it really has to step up in the mid-range segment, one way or another.
At the MSRP price of RM1,599, it’s going to have trouble compete against its cheaper predecessor, much less the more powerful rival that barely costs more. Simply put – either the price goes lower, or the performance gets significantly better next time around.
Special thanks to AMD Malaysia for providing the Ryzen 5 9600X for this review.