AMD Ryzen 5 9600X & Ryzen 7 9700X Linux Performance With 105 Watt cTDP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • phoronix
    Administrator
    • Jan 2007
    • 67396

    AMD Ryzen 5 9600X & Ryzen 7 9700X Linux Performance With 105 Watt cTDP

    Phoronix: AMD Ryzen 5 9600X & Ryzen 7 9700X Linux Performance With 105 Watt cTDP

    Motherboard vendors have begun rolling out updated BIOS versions for AMD AM5 platforms that allow a configurable TDP on the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X processors to allow a 105 Watt cTDP compared to the base 65 Watt TDP. For those wondering about the Linux performance and power efficiency impact from running these mid-tier Zen 5 desktop processors at the higher cTDP value, here is the full set of benchmarks compared to my original review data on Linux.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
  • UpSideDown
    Junior Member
    • Jun 2021
    • 19

    #2
    I think we need a return of the old Turbo button on cases so we can swap power limits on the fly. ( Not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not here! )

    Comment

    • Errinwright
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2023
      • 192

      #3
      The final graph is truly a work of art. Makes comparison of the same CPU before and after a breeze, cheers.

      Comment

      • grigi
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2008
        • 642

        #4
        I really liked the ability to turn turbo off to play old games, or to launch any app written in Turbo Pascal.
        It used to unconditionally run a mini bench on startup to normalize the sleep funtion. A 486 on turbo would fail with a divide-by-zero (as the bench took less than 1ms), so you'd need to start the app with turbo OFF, then turn it on afterwards. Because most apps didn't do a sleep. (facepalm)

        Comment

        • sykobee
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2012
          • 174

          #5
          "Ryzen 7 9700X saw just a 3% boost to the performance overall"

          But it went from 90 to 96 in the table, which is 6.6%.

          Either the 7900X result was switched with the 9700X@65W in the final table, or the wrong value was accidentally used to calculate 3%?

          Aside, it makes sense the 9700X saw more from 105W than 9600X, with the two extra cores and higher clock that can make more of it. Indeed, this suggests the 65W for the 9600X is a fairly good choice.

          Comment

          • Michael
            Phoronix
            • Jun 2006
            • 14311

            #6
            Originally posted by sykobee View Post
            "Ryzen 7 9700X saw just a 3% boost to the performance overall"

            But it went from 90 to 96 in the table, which is 6.6%.

            Either the 7900X result was switched with the 9700X@65W in the final table, or the wrong value was accidentally used to calculate 3%?
            Whoops, just my text is wrong, mistakenly looked at wrong line for performance when writing the text. Thanks
            Michael Larabel
            https://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment

            • loganj
              Senior Member
              • Nov 2017
              • 608

              #7
              only 6% more performance for so much more power consumption.

              Comment

              • raystriker
                Phoronix Member
                • May 2023
                • 54

                #8
                Originally posted by loganj View Post
                only 6% more performance for so much more power consumption.
                6% geomean,,, not all workloads scale linearly with power consumption. Also undervolting is a VERY big thing with modern Zen. Infact OC+UV is the best way to run these processors to the point where if you're not doing it you're actually leaving tangible "free" performance off the table

                Comment

                • sophisticles
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2015
                  • 2616

                  #9
                  Basically some motherboards now allow overclocking, that's really what the story is.

                  I have never been a big fan of overclocking, and i certainty would not run a processor that originally was sold as a 65w part at a 105w setting, you're just begging to damage something.

                  It's also ironic that AMD, which in addition to more cores, has been marketing its processors as being lower power consumption than Intel's should suddenly allow their processors to be taken to setting that consumes an extra 40w.

                  Are they scared how their processors will stack up against Intel's performance-wise when the new Intel's are released?

                  I think yes.

                  Remember years ago when AMD could not compete and they released that 220w CPU, the FX-9590​ or before that when Intel released their first quad core CPU, the Core2Quad and AMD decided to put 2 dual core CPUs and bundle them with a motherboard that supported 2 CPUs as a competitor to Intel?

                  I think the AMD lovers are about to experience deja vu real bad.

                  Comment

                  • Phoronos
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2024
                    • 172

                    #10
                    OK I have a question :
                    Where are the 9950X3D ??
                    Where are the 9900X3D ??

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X