Please report any spam as you see it, thanks! And while you're here, be sure to check out the 9600X review: ruclips.net/video/AAzstB2BxAk/видео.html and the 9700X review: ruclips.net/video/1oFtbQqIhgQ/видео.html
Well, thats mighty fine of AMD to increase the price by £30 just before launch, so you shot all this video at their initial price and didnt have time to redo it all. Always good to live in the UK
I didn't take those prices Leo gave at the start as official; and that there wasn't an actual price from AMD other than an extrapolation from the US pricing. Vendors very often tweek their prices just before launch. Sometimes they favour us, sometimes they don't. The price in question is still less than that of the previous part and that is not taking several years of high inflation into account.
That gigabyte board seems pretty decent - as you said though best waiting on the new generation boards coming soon to see what memory will work best with them
9900x seems the way to go so far, but Leo is right, for gaming, it has to be the 3D parts - would be the time to show some lower IQ game settings to drive performance more to CPU- even though we dont game like that, its interesting to see
Exactly what I am thinking. I was thinking of getting the 7800x3d but I don't do enough gaming for it. Happy to see 9900x easily beat it in power and performance and seems to be the sweet spot.
don’t buy it then. And go somewhere else and cheer up. The power demands alone as Leo showed are brilliant. Running in the 70s under load is great ! 9900x is in the 60s even better
I would like to see the addition of a section of gaming at lower IQ to drive more to CPU - but the game choice is critical - I think GTA5 works well for that. Luke used to use it a lot here on KG
power consumption is great, and I am glad to see you didnt move to the later chips, I also dont like to see 95c all the time, I never thought that was a good idea, triggers me
I think the pricing is pretty good for this chip. unless you live in the UK - thanks for the last minute UK deal 🤠 - I like leos point saying its best waiting for 3D chips to appear, seems to make the most sense based on the last generaition and how good they are
@@amdforlife5591I don't think there is any country thats is "cheap" to live in its also because of the currency value that is making prices higher than average prices.
Nice of them to say the price was too low in the UK and increase it by £30 - very decent of AMD to do that, thinking of us brits always. what a bunch of ……
Even this 13900HX in a mid range laptop limited to 100W long power gets 27K. All these ubermulticore chips are capable of amazing perf/W they are just stupid out of the box due to the insane turbo arms race. Zen 4 in eco mode (basically how they run in laptops) is even better
I’m not a gamer, just a photographer and fine art printer. So, even with all the bad news and confusion re the Ryzen 9000 series, I decided to go ahead and replace my 7900 with a 9900X anyway. I have an MSI MPG B650i EDGE WiFi motherboard in an open case with an ID-Cooling SE-207-XT air cooler to which I have attached a second fan. The 7900 runs with DDR5-6000 memory, Game-Boost and the TDP elevated to 105W. It pulls 142W running Cinebench R23 with a high temperature of 79C for a multi-core score of 27550. When I replaced the 7900 with the 9900X, with the BIOS cleared except for EXPO, Cenibench R23 scored it at 32214 with a high temp of 81C. That’s a 17% improvement, much better than I expected. Think I’ll be keeping the 9900X and seeing how much I can wring out of it with a better cooler. I have no intention of playing the core parking game. BTW, B&H is selling the 9900X for $50 less than everybody is reporting. They also pay the tax if you use their PayBoo card. No connection to B&H, just a happy customer for many years. Some good news re the 9000 series is overdue. I appreciate that gaming drives the technology, but other users make up a large part of the marketplace, so it seems wrong for gaming to influence the whole picture. Even though AMD fumbled the rollout, the 9900X is still a great CPU for non-gamers.
These really arent designed for gamers, even though they are perfectly servicable - would wait for 3D processors later this year before spending more money , gives the boards time to hit retail and get more stable, hopefully
Why are AMD changing the prices last minute? Seems a bit of a mess up you reviewed it as a certain price then they pushed it up 30 quid last minute - thanks for doing the update on the video for us
Did not know you were still using that old CPU - thats some life you got out of that one, for a tech reviewer anyway - I expected you to change every few months :p
For working,there s no doubt, go for 9900x or any new 9... series cpu.But for games,go for 7...3d series.I cant wait to see what performance will come with the 9...3d series cpus
@@tuuchen2990 Cause I dont work for Intel and I am not blind like many making comments? So many Intel fanboys wetting themselves lately, fuelled by cult like drama at two big tech channels, its been hilarious.
I would like to see you running some game tests at low IQ, I know why you dont do it, but its a good way to see how the architecture has moved forward a bit over the years and between intel and AMD too
There is very little info on the main site about the test set up for any Intel chips in the mix. In the graph around 3:50 there is a 14700k score of 1934. Would that be before or after any changes from Intel to prevent damage? Still watching but would like to know if the 9900x is fighting a fair battle.
The Intel CPUs ran on Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master X with BIOS F7e which predates the Beta with updated micro code. F7e runs the Core i5 at 181W/181W and the Core i7 and Core i9 at 253W/253W Leo
Their results are very low. It seems that the Gigabyte BIOS has choked the processors very much. I checked the latest BIOS on my Apex Encore(version 1503 129 microcode). 14700k gave out about 35k in cinebench r23. On bios 1102 with my manual undervolt I get 36k cinebench r23. Lock at 85 degrees. LLC 3, V/f offset P cores(5.1GHZ -0.05V, 5.3GHz -0.05V, 5.5GHz -0.065V) and specific offset E cores -0.04V. Power consumption is ~250w during the test. That is, the results are identical to the stock BIOS 1102 from Asus. On it, the processor also gets 36k in cinebench r23. But consuming 315w and heating up to 100 degrees Celsius.
10:45 There are quite a few significant differences. Ryzen 6C/8C Write >> Read, Ryzen 12C/16C having higher Read but lower Write, Intel having higher both..
Finally someone who test games in the real world scenario, most of the people who are going to buy these processors will play at high resolution and settings. Thanks Leo!
Thinking about a new PC in November but the scores on all the recent tests seem to be all over the place. I'm sure the tests are right, but the various chips don't seem to line up the same way each time. And if the new boards mentioned can affect speed as well I guess I'll have to wait and see. If you're not overclocking do you need to buy a large liquid cooler?
Thanks Leo, was a pretty good review. I would like to see an extra short section of maybe 2 games running at 1080p low IQ to see more what the CPU is doing, even though I dont game like that
I'll keep my 7900X for now. I've been extremely happy with it and since I only game sporadically and only play Civ6, it's still suitable for my scientific needs.
First video I've seen with curve optimizer. Rather impressive, but I'm not sure how much it will get used in the professional workstation market It does seem like a good upgrade from Zen 3 professional chips, but questionable if you have Zen 4. It seems like the 9900/9950 chips were released a month or two early for heavy professional use. Might have made sense to wait for x870e, better tuning/stability, and DDR5-8000 rather than releasing now.
Yes. If you want to run your system using a single core. Of course if it tried the same power draw per core in multi-core, the Intel chips would cook themselves.
Shame the 7900 non X is never mentioned! :( looking at that vs the 9700x. On the off chance Leo may see this comment. Any tips on choosing between 7900 vs 9700x for moderate work/light gaming?
9900X seems to be a good choice for my photo and video production pc, with some gaming thrown in. Will wait a while for the street price to stabilise itself and check out the new chipsets motherboards Vs the current motherboards. Always prefer my CPU to run cool with a lower TDP.
Hi, I got 31133 in Cinebench R23 (multi-core) and 14085 in Time Spy on the CPU score out of the box with only XMP/EXPO enabled of course. Are these scores within standard or is something off with mine? I always get paranoid when I get a new CPU so if you could offer me some expertise on the matter I would greatly appreciate it.
Gaming should be tested at 4K and 1440p with keen eye to the amount of data that is being processed when using RT and Frame Gen. New games are consuming well over 12 GB of data some like Avatar much more. It doesn't make sense to test without those considerations 1080p just isn't reflective of reality.
Firstly, quite a lot of players of e-sports / fast FPS titles still use 1080p to maximise frame rates. Secondly, the higher the resolution, the more GPU -bound games get. If you notice on the charts for the higher resolutions, most of the tested CPUs are reading virtually identical test scores, as they're waiting around for the GPU. As Leo points out in the video, they could theoretically test at 720p to maximise CPU usage. But that would be silly in today's market.
@@Penfolduk001 We don't know is the point. Games have changed dramatically in just a year with the growing dominance of UE5. There is no evidence or very little that can support extrapolating 1080 and relatively low data demands with 4K and higher data demands. There needs to be a recalibration of assumptions.
Interesting reading the leading youtube reviews this morning--some love it (kitguru, level1tech) and others hate it at its current price points (nexusgamers, jayztwocents). Which is it? benchmarks look completely different depending on the channel
"Reaction Face" Click bait channels that love drama are the worst. They refuse to use the tools AMD provides to extract performance and optimise the CPU they way you want whilst simultaneously claiming to be "enthusiasts." Then, they make up arguments to support that position, basically engaging in confirmation bias. As this channel has shown there is great performance to be had and at great temps/watts. They also didn't shy away from the negatives and pointed them out without having to resort to hyperbole like "trash," "garbage," "fail," and "waste of sand." This is the channel for a proper balanced review approach.
Good review! Even though i am waiting for X870 right now i believe the 9900X or it's X3D variant will be massive upgrade for my 3900X. So far out of all the prices this seems the most reasonable/balanced. I believe the 6/8/16 core variants are too pricy right now for what u get price/perf wise
"The Ryzen 9 9950X was 33% faster than the Intel Core i9 14900K performance overall and even the Ryzen 9 9900X was 18% faster than the Core i9 14900K. For those still on AM4, the Ryzen 9 9950X was delivering 1.87x the performance of the Ryzen 9 5950X processor. These are some great gains found with the Ryzen 9 9900 series." -Phoronix
the ending love it. take halve a point of because they screwing us again. I'm still going for a 5950X as platform is cheaper, power drew is more reasonable, and they don't fall that fare behind. I need a 16 core CPU that don't cook the room. So 7000 was out all together as TDP's was a joke. These look like a good step up on the 16 core side, hope it will flood market with used and/or cheaper 5850X's as mobos on AM4 I can afford more features that I need and also I have a 2X16GB DDR4 3200 sticks I would never get back good money on so as I want 16 cores and 64GB ram, all that on AM5 the total cost is just to muchs and AMD insistence of charging Dollar and pounds as the same is wrong as pounds are worth a lot more money so it sound be less in pounds than dollars. But the cost of new DDR5 64GB kit, a £600 CPU and £200 for a strong Mobo. the AM4 is still looking good even for a new build. Maybe sell me your old CPU, lol
Blimey! Whatever they think the market will bear! Always appreciate your reviews, going back to one about a Supermicro board that seemed to have been factory/state modified (to what end?). So, been following you for a while.
Please report any spam as you see it, thanks! And while you're here, be sure to check out the 9600X review: ruclips.net/video/AAzstB2BxAk/видео.html and the 9700X review: ruclips.net/video/1oFtbQqIhgQ/видео.html
@@KitGuruTech - And I appreciate your straight-as-an-arrow reviews. To the point, without wasting my time. Good show!
Well, thats mighty fine of AMD to increase the price by £30 just before launch, so you shot all this video at their initial price and didnt have time to redo it all. Always good to live in the UK
I didn't take those prices Leo gave at the start as official; and that there wasn't an actual price from AMD other than an extrapolation from the US pricing. Vendors very often tweek their prices just before launch. Sometimes they favour us, sometimes they don't. The price in question is still less than that of the previous part and that is not taking several years of high inflation into account.
7950X3D is still a monster for a lot of those graphs - will be a hard one to beat
Keep the Zen 5 videos coming!! Cant get enough of them
see how bad it is? :)
Leo getting 4 hours sleep put him in TURBO mode at the end 😂
😅
Big jump!
That gigabyte board seems pretty decent - as you said though best waiting on the new generation boards coming soon to see what memory will work best with them
We shall see!
@@KitGuruTech Great!
Finally someone does curve optimizing on the cpu like it is expected to optimize your silicon luck.
Interesting to see some of the gains over the year with the drop in power
no need to watch the 9950x review tomorrow, you gave all the results in this review and the graphs lol
Thanks Leo, was an interesting watch,. and funny end bit - leo the BBC newsreader
A leo review mid week, time for a coffee and a pice of chocolate cake. hurrah!
Loved the intro - and well said, agree 100%
Hi Leo, good review cheers!
Cant get over that GPU at the end - how big it is on the MOBO, like a big growth
😂
@@KitGuruTech 😂😂😂
Dual chipset design is interesting - its clearly a Work in progress
9950X tomorrow - looking forward to that one, hope its as good as this one, but based on your review of 9900x maybe not quite such a good proposition
Lets hope this week is a little quieter to last weeks and we dont need 4-5 videos on the same thing to ride the algorithm
Seems like a solid CPU Leo - thanks for the content on Zen 5 ! excited to see how 3D chips perform.
I love living in the UK, we always get the sharp end of the stick
it was a bit too low compared to USD pricing - UK getting shafted yet again, cheers for that. waiting for intel and 3D processors to come
9900x seems the way to go so far, but Leo is right, for gaming, it has to be the 3D parts - would be the time to show some lower IQ game settings to drive performance more to CPU- even though we dont game like that, its interesting to see
You guys do best reviews!!
3D parts - waiting for them, agree completely. Too early to make a choice - and too early to say Zen 5 sucks as well (cough shall remain nameless).
9900X seems a winner. the 9950X price seems pretty high - temps and power are good, and nice to see nothing locked to 95c as standard out of the box
Exactly what I am thinking. I was thinking of getting the 7800x3d but I don't do enough gaming for it. Happy to see 9900x easily beat it in power and performance and seems to be the sweet spot.
@@adammorra3813 yeah I know leo hasnt officially reviewed the 9950X yet, but in the graphs, the 9900x looks like the one to get.
@@Everychillitsjustlife-cz8zz 9950x is loke 150 more for a 5% gain if that.
don’t buy it then. And go somewhere else and cheer up. The power demands alone as Leo showed are brilliant. Running in the 70s under load is great ! 9900x is in the 60s even better
power consumption is very good, thats a lot of charts to study, got a sore head already
Had no idea LEO used AMD processors for his own systems - thats interesting ! always thought he was an Intel fanboy until recently
I would like to see the addition of a section of gaming at lower IQ to drive more to CPU - but the game choice is critical - I think GTA5 works well for that. Luke used to use it a lot here on KG
power consumption is great, and I am glad to see you didnt move to the later chips, I also dont like to see 95c all the time, I never thought that was a good idea, triggers me
That curve optimiser feature is really cool!
Thanks Leo - nice level leaded, no drama review, as I would expect from you and KitGuru!
Glad you enjoyed it
@@KitGuruTech Welcome!
I think the pricing is pretty good for this chip. unless you live in the UK - thanks for the last minute UK deal 🤠 - I like leos point saying its best waiting for 3D chips to appear, seems to make the most sense based on the last generaition and how good they are
Uk is getting a rough deal again... not sure EURO prices , havent checked.
@@Everychillitsjustlife-cz8zz Yeah UK prices are always high. expensive country to live in
Always get better deals in USA
this cpus are shit !!1% in gaming over 7950x and productivity 1-3% over 7950x with 9950x
@@amdforlife5591I don't think there is any country thats is "cheap" to live in its also because of the currency value that is making prices higher than average prices.
Thanks Leo - some fair, even handed thoughts - love KG !
67-69c is really good under 100% load ! 9950x is so much hotter, mad - oh hang on, that was OC = 74c is good too
Nice of them to say the price was too low in the UK and increase it by £30 - very decent of AMD to do that, thinking of us brits always. what a bunch of ……
single core performance, still 14900k? wasnt expecting that in cinebench R23
Yes, thanks AMD for the price increase, last minute, probably didnt expect Leo to reshoot a bit for the end of the video. lol
I very much like the way you test processors in gaming, close to real life behaviour, full on graphics details, that is the way to do it!
These cinebench scores we are getting nowadays are just amazing.
Even this 13900HX in a mid range laptop limited to 100W long power gets 27K.
All these ubermulticore chips are capable of amazing perf/W they are just stupid out of the box due to the insane turbo arms race.
Zen 4 in eco mode (basically how they run in laptops) is even better
I’m not a gamer, just a photographer and fine art printer. So, even with all the bad news and confusion re the Ryzen 9000 series, I decided to go ahead and replace my 7900 with a 9900X anyway. I have an MSI MPG B650i EDGE WiFi motherboard in an open case with an ID-Cooling SE-207-XT air cooler to which I have attached a second fan. The 7900 runs with DDR5-6000 memory, Game-Boost and the TDP elevated to 105W. It pulls 142W running Cinebench R23 with a high temperature of 79C for a multi-core score of 27550. When I replaced the 7900 with the 9900X, with the BIOS cleared except for EXPO, Cenibench R23 scored it at 32214 with a high temp of 81C. That’s a 17% improvement, much better than I expected. Think I’ll be keeping the 9900X and seeing how much I can wring out of it with a better cooler. I have no intention of playing the core parking game. BTW, B&H is selling the 9900X for $50 less than everybody is reporting. They also pay the tax if you use their PayBoo card. No connection to B&H, just a happy customer for many years. Some good news re the 9000 series is overdue. I appreciate that gaming drives the technology, but other users make up a large part of the marketplace, so it seems wrong for gaming to influence the whole picture. Even though AMD fumbled the rollout, the 9900X is still a great CPU for non-gamers.
Appreciate the time you took to offer your experiences !
These really arent designed for gamers, even though they are perfectly servicable - would wait for 3D processors later this year before spending more money , gives the boards time to hit retail and get more stable, hopefully
I am shocked you are testing these on old motherboards - usually there are new boards with the processors - are you reviewing any Leo soon?
X670 is still the newest chipset from AMD - but we're expecting X870 next month
@@KitGuruTech Great to know!
Good review, fair conclusion and thoughts, well done
This new range is looking really good they have optimised the power to performance ratio really well.
Why are AMD changing the prices last minute? Seems a bit of a mess up you reviewed it as a certain price then they pushed it up 30 quid last minute - thanks for doing the update on the video for us
It can happen. Makes doing video difficult however if they change last minute before launch
@@KitGuruTech Ya last minute change makes thing difficult.
3D processors coming soon - looking forward to that, whenever that might be
Hopefully next month!
@@KitGuruTech Great to know!
Some weird results in some of those benchmarks - early days for bios and drivers I guess
Respect for KitGuru Ethics... Also great and informative video.
💯
Fighting through the drama to give honest reviews 👍🏻
Thanks and welcome
Did not know you were still using that old CPU - thats some life you got out of that one, for a tech reviewer anyway - I expected you to change every few months :p
It’s served Leo well that processor !
@@KitGuruTech Right!
For working,there s no doubt, go for 9900x or any new 9... series cpu.But for games,go for 7...3d series.I cant wait to see what performance will come with the 9...3d series cpus
When it comes to games I repeat our previous advice to wait until we see Zen 5 3D and have every expectation they will be good
Leo
the new 3D processors will be better than the last gen. Zen 5 is great so far.
@@amdforlife5591 What makes you think new gen will be better than last gen?
@@tuuchen2990 Cause I dont work for Intel and I am not blind like many making comments? So many Intel fanboys wetting themselves lately, fuelled by cult like drama at two big tech channels, its been hilarious.
@@amdforlife5591 It was a serious question. When I'm looking the 9-series charts compared to 7-series, I'm not seeing much of a difference.
12:34 Little to choose? The 1% lows beg to differ.
Seems this platform isnt quite ready yet - some weird results, no new motherboards and no one knows what memory speeds work best
Spooky warning from Leo right at the beginning. I am frightened now!
Good to see those massive temp drops over the last gen. Running at 95c triggers me.
Exactly. I can accept mild performance gain as long as the temp goes down noticeably.
Good review. Funny ending.
That curve optimiser is so clever I cant imagine a situation where you wouldnt use it.
Thanks for the opening words of wisdom Leo, I would agree with you 100% on that one
We all do - 3D chips for the win
Glad you enjoyed it
I would like to see you running some game tests at low IQ, I know why you dont do it, but its a good way to see how the architecture has moved forward a bit over the years and between intel and AMD too
Thanks, certainly something we will keep in mind!
@@KitGuruTech Welcome!
Intel launches are soon too, right? in 2-3 weeks I have heard online ?? anyone know?
Their heat spreader looks really cool.
There is very little info on the main site about the test set up for any Intel chips in the mix. In the graph around 3:50 there is a 14700k score of 1934. Would that be before or after any changes from Intel to prevent damage? Still watching but would like to know if the 9900x is fighting a fair battle.
The Intel CPUs ran on Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master X with BIOS F7e which predates the Beta with updated micro code. F7e runs the Core i5 at 181W/181W and the Core i7 and Core i9 at 253W/253W
Leo
Their results are very low. It seems that the Gigabyte BIOS has choked the processors very much. I checked the latest BIOS on my Apex Encore(version 1503 129 microcode). 14700k gave out about 35k in cinebench r23.
On bios 1102 with my manual undervolt I get 36k cinebench r23. Lock at 85 degrees. LLC 3, V/f offset P cores(5.1GHZ -0.05V, 5.3GHz -0.05V, 5.5GHz -0.065V) and specific offset E cores -0.04V. Power consumption is ~250w during the test. That is, the results are identical to the stock BIOS 1102 from Asus. On it, the processor also gets 36k in cinebench r23. But consuming 315w and heating up to 100 degrees Celsius.
10:45 There are quite a few significant differences. Ryzen 6C/8C Write >> Read, Ryzen 12C/16C having higher Read but lower Write, Intel having higher both..
Finally someone who test games in the real world scenario, most of the people who are going to buy these processors will play at high resolution and settings. Thanks Leo!
Those game tests are weird, did you see the same variances with lower IQ settings - might be the GPU?
Was good overall, thank you for honest thoughts as always
No worries!
This one seems really good - some performance gains over last Zen
X870 motherboards - WHERE ARE YOU !
Hopefully next month!
@@KitGuruTech GREAT!
Thinking about a new PC in November but the scores on all the recent tests seem to be all over the place. I'm sure the tests are right, but the various chips don't seem to line up the same way each time. And if the new boards mentioned can affect speed as well I guess I'll have to wait and see. If you're not overclocking do you need to buy a large liquid cooler?
And the new boards could be crazy expensive
If AMD is putting this much effort into reduced power consumption then any branded cooler should be fine you would think
Thats a nice custom loop you put together there.
I think these cpus are more suited for things which arent entirely related to gaming - still a good CPU, like it.
Thanks Leo, was a pretty good review. I would like to see an extra short section of maybe 2 games running at 1080p low IQ to see more what the CPU is doing, even though I dont game like that
4 hour before NDA price increase, just for UK people - very kind of them to do that. sighs
I'll keep my 7900X for now. I've been extremely happy with it and since I only game sporadically and only play Civ6, it's still suitable for my scientific needs.
First video I've seen with curve optimizer.
Rather impressive, but I'm not sure how much it will get used in the professional workstation market
It does seem like a good upgrade from Zen 3 professional chips, but questionable if you have Zen 4.
It seems like the 9900/9950 chips were released a month or two early for heavy professional use.
Might have made sense to wait for x870e, better tuning/stability, and DDR5-8000 rather than releasing now.
The curve tool looks great imo
The the gaming benchmarks would be a better measure of the CPU if FSR or DLSS were switched on.
That single core cinebench benchmark shows that intel still have that extra magic.
Yes. If you want to run your system using a single core. Of course if it tried the same power draw per core in multi-core, the Intel chips would cook themselves.
Zen 5 just runs way cooler would trust that CPU to last a long time.
Leos intro is good - wait for new 3D chips. thats where the money lands IMO
Shame the 7900 non X is never mentioned! :( looking at that vs the 9700x. On the off chance Leo may see this comment. Any tips on choosing between 7900 vs 9700x for moderate work/light gaming?
9900X seems to be a good choice for my photo and video production pc, with some gaming thrown in. Will wait a while for the street price to stabilise itself and check out the new chipsets motherboards Vs the current motherboards.
Always prefer my CPU to run cool with a lower TDP.
Looking forward to seeing how the 3D version does.
You and us too!
How can the curve optimised version be behind the regular auto one?
Is the price difference between the Ryzen 9 9900X and its 16 core counterpart justified?
Feels close, right?
Hi,
I got 31133 in Cinebench R23 (multi-core) and 14085 in Time Spy on the CPU score out of the box with only XMP/EXPO enabled of course.
Are these scores within standard or is something off with mine?
I always get paranoid when I get a new CPU so if you could offer me some expertise on the matter I would greatly appreciate it.
Gaming should be tested at 4K and 1440p with keen eye to the amount of data that is being processed when using RT and Frame Gen. New games are consuming well over 12 GB of data some like Avatar much more. It doesn't make sense to test without those considerations 1080p just isn't reflective of reality.
Thanks for sharing your views. We appreciate it.
Firstly, quite a lot of players of e-sports / fast FPS titles still use 1080p to maximise frame rates.
Secondly, the higher the resolution, the more GPU -bound games get. If you notice on the charts for the higher resolutions, most of the tested CPUs are reading virtually identical test scores, as they're waiting around for the GPU.
As Leo points out in the video, they could theoretically test at 720p to maximise CPU usage. But that would be silly in today's market.
@@Penfolduk001 We don't know is the point. Games have changed dramatically in just a year with the growing dominance of UE5. There is no evidence or very little that can support extrapolating 1080 and relatively low data demands with 4K and higher data demands. There needs to be a recalibration of assumptions.
I'm still on 5900X and not sure if it is time to upgrade. Please advise.
I got my 9900x. Use gigabyte pbo enhancement set it to 70C lvl 4. 120W usage for max performance
Interesting reading the leading youtube reviews this morning--some love it (kitguru, level1tech) and others hate it at its current price points (nexusgamers, jayztwocents). Which is it? benchmarks look completely different depending on the channel
Hey at least you can watch them all and hopefully get something from them yourself and make your own mind up. We do our best to help
"Reaction Face" Click bait channels that love drama are the worst. They refuse to use the tools AMD provides to extract performance and optimise the CPU they way you want whilst simultaneously claiming to be "enthusiasts." Then, they make up arguments to support that position, basically engaging in confirmation bias. As this channel has shown there is great performance to be had and at great temps/watts. They also didn't shy away from the negatives and pointed them out without having to resort to hyperbole like "trash," "garbage," "fail," and "waste of sand." This is the channel for a proper balanced review approach.
@@Berserkism Thanks for the kind words. appreciate it.
Looking at the chart AMD really need to look at cleaning up the way the name their product range.
😎👍
Good review! Even though i am waiting for X870 right now i believe the 9900X or it's X3D variant will be massive upgrade for my 3900X. So far out of all the prices this seems the most reasonable/balanced. I believe the 6/8/16 core variants are too pricy right now for what u get price/perf wise
What is the idle wattage and light load (like web browsing) wattage?
"The Ryzen 9 9950X was 33% faster than the Intel Core i9 14900K performance overall and even the Ryzen 9 9900X was 18% faster than the Core i9 14900K. For those still on AM4, the Ryzen 9 9950X was delivering 1.87x the performance of the Ryzen 9 5950X processor. These are some great gains found with the Ryzen 9 9900 series."
-Phoronix
I'd love a Zen 5 X3D chip if they made a somewhat cheaper 9700X3D and 9600X3D I might get one instead of waiting and saving for Zen 6.
A great many of us have the same view
Leo
That outro part was pretty funny - done like a BBC newsdesk update
Can you do a micro-ITX build with 9700x and a 4090 GPU.
Why only two graphics cores?
I’m not judging Zen 5 yet but if AMD messes up the Zen 5 X3D oh boy, I’m gonna be pissed.
the ending love it. take halve a point of because they screwing us again. I'm still going for a 5950X as platform is cheaper, power drew is more reasonable, and they don't fall that fare behind. I need a 16 core CPU that don't cook the room. So 7000 was out all together as TDP's was a joke. These look like a good step up on the 16 core side, hope it will flood market with used and/or cheaper 5850X's as mobos on AM4 I can afford more features that I need and also I have a 2X16GB DDR4 3200 sticks I would never get back good money on so as I want 16 cores and 64GB ram, all that on AM5 the total cost is just to muchs and AMD insistence of charging Dollar and pounds as the same is wrong as pounds are worth a lot more money so it sound be less in pounds than dollars. But the cost of new DDR5 64GB kit, a £600 CPU and £200 for a strong Mobo. the AM4 is still looking good even for a new build. Maybe sell me your old CPU, lol
Thanks for the comment !
Blimey! Whatever they think the market will bear!
Always appreciate your reviews, going back to one about a Supermicro board that seemed to have been factory/state modified (to what end?). So, been following you for a while.
I remember that one
Thanks for the support !
Launching at lower prices than last year. Are we seeing actual deflation happening in the tech industry?