AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: Retaking The High-End

Test Bed and Setup

As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance.

While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC-supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.

The Current CPU Test Suite

For our AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X testing, we are using the following test system:

As we are in a transitional period between our current CPU 2021 suite and data, and optimizing our CPU 2023 suite with different data comparisons required, we have included a varied selection of benchmarks for this review. This ranges from our traditional un-updatable Google Octane 2.0 web test, through a variety of rendering benchmarks such as CineBench R23 and Blender, to encoding, and all the way to our more scientific-related tests.

With our processor reviews, especially on a new generational product such as AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X, we also include SPEC2017 data to account for any increases (or decreases) to generational single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. It should be noted that due to the terms of the SPEC license because our benchmark results are not vetted directly by the SPEC consortium, we have to label them as ‘estimated’. The benchmark is still run and we get results out, but those results have to have the ‘estimated’ label.

Moving Foward to Our CPU 2023 Suite: What to Expect

Looking ahead to our updated CPU 2023 suite, we've updated some of our existing benchmarks to the latest and current versions (as of Sept 22) such as Blender 3.3. In terms of benchmarks from our CPU 2021 suite, we've included benchmarks such as Dwarf Fortress, Factorio, and Dr. Ian Cutress's 3DPMv2 and Crysis CPU benchmarks. 

We've also added some completely new benchmarks and workloads to our suite, including an update to Blender (v3.3), C-Ray 1.1 rendering, as well as more scientific-based workloads such as SciMark 2.0 and Primesieve 1.9.0. We have also decided to add UL's latest Procyon suite which measures overall system performance when doing tasks such as office-based tasks, as well as video, and photo editing.

As it stands, we have also updated our pool of games going forward into 2023 and beyond, including the latest F1 2022 racing game, the CPU-intensive Total War Warhammer 3 real-time strategy, and the popular Hitman 3 assassin-based title.

Our aim is to provide varying levels of data points across a variety of different workloads, instruction sets, and tasks. Going forward, we will keep our CPU 2023 suite updated as frequently as possible, and when we have a consistent and suitable number of data points, it will feature on our Bench database as we continue testing new and older CPUs for varying data points.

Some of these new benchmarks will make an appearance in this review, while others won't. Our aim is to assess and subjugate our way through whatever CPUs we have on hand to add vital data points. However, some parts of our CPU 2023 suite are still under testing and it should make a full debut in our next CPU review.