AMD Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700, Ryzen 5 7600 | Review

AMD Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700, Ryzen 5 7600 | Review

AMD Ryzen 9 7900

Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 5 7600 are the first “non-X” AMD Ryzen processors to debut on the market for the new AM5 platform. They are also based on the recent Zen 4 architecture and, like the "smooth" models of the past, offer the same number of cores and threads and the same cache as their older brothers, sacrificing frequencies and debuting with a price, at least on paper, lower: we're talking about €514.90, €394.90 and €274.90 respectively.

Unlike the top models, the new AMD Ryzen  are sold with a heatsink included, an element that helps make the even more interesting offer. Another important element is the possibility of overclocking, not present on Intel's 65W models, which allows you to get even closer to the performance of the Ryzen 7000X.

The new 65W Ryzen smile even to those who, so far, have been held back by the cost of the platform: the high price of DDR5 memories and motherboards (including the theoretically cheaper B650 models) has penalized AMD a lot so far, thanks to the fact that with Intel Raptor Lake it is possible choose a cheaper motherboard and DDR4 memory. These new chips should improve the situation thanks to significantly lower prices and goodies such as the included heatsink.

Technical specifications

Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 5 7600 all have a  TDP of 65W and a power limit (PPT) of 88W. A Ryzen 9 7950 is missing, so the top of the range of the family is Ryzen 9 7900 with its 12 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.7GHz and a maximum frequency of 5.4GHz, 300MHz less than the Ryzen 9 7900X . the Ryzen 7 7700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base frequency of 3.8GHz which in boost reaches 5.3GHz, while the Ryzen 5 7600 has a 6 core / 12 thread configuration, a base frequency of 2.5GHz and a maximum speed of 5.1GHz.

The Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 include an AMD Wraith Prism cooler, while an AMD Wraith Stealth is included with the Ryzen 5 7600. AMD positions the new chips respectively against Core i9-13900, Core i7-13700 and Core i5-13600, of which, however, we do not yet know the performance as we have not yet received them.

AMD Ryzen 9 7900 AMD Ryzen 7 7700 AMD Ryzen 5 7600 Cores / Threads 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12 Base Frequency / Boost (GHz) 3.7 / 5.4 3.8 / 5.3 2.5 / 5.1 Cache (MB) 76 40 38 TDP / PPT (watt) 65 / 88 65 / 88 65 / 88 Introductory price (Euro) 514,90 394,90 274,90 Heatsink included AMD Wraith Prism AMD Wraith Prism AMD Wraith Stealth Exactly like the other Ryzen 7000, these too models are based on Zen 4 architecture, which uses TSMC's 5nm for CCDs and 6nm for I/O Die. On board we therefore find all the new features of the architecture, starting from an IPC improved by about 13%, up to integrated graphics RDNA 2 and support for AVX-512 instructions, passing through support for DDR5 and PCIe 5.0, where up to 24 lines are available. For more information about what's new in Zen 4, we refer you to the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 7 7700X review, where we discussed the architecture in more detail.


We used our classic suite of games, synthetic benchmarks, productivity software, and typical workstation workloads to evaluate the performance of the new 65W Ryzen. As always we tried to use test platforms as similar as possible, using both AMD processors and latest generation Intel SSD PCIe 4.0, a 32GB DDR5-6000 CL30 RAM kit and a 360mm AIO cooler high-end. The only difference obviously lies in the motherboard, a Z790 for Intel Core Raptor Lake and an X670E for Ryzen 7000, both the new models and the previous Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 7 7700X that you find in the graphs. The tests were performed on Windows 11 in version 22H1.

Below you will find, as usual, the graphs of our tests divided by category. As far as consumption and temperatures are concerned, in addition to the percentage differences, we have also included the classic graphs with the recorded numerical values, so as to provide you with a precise idea of ​​how much the tested CPUs consume and heat up; in particular, we wanted to insert different graphs for consumption and temperatures under stress and in game, so as to also show you how the behavior of the processors changes based on the case of use. Unfortunately, the graphs lack both the "non-K" Intel processors, as mentioned, not yet received, and the Ryzen 9 7900X and Ryzen 5 7600X, on which it was not possible to perform updated tests since they are no longer in our hands.

Game performance

The game benchmarks were performed in Full HD resolution with low details, in order to have higher framerates and to be able to highlight as much as possible the difference in performance between the different processors. For the tests we use the integrated benchmark where available, in particular in F1 22 we select the Monaco circuit and a rainy condition. In titles like Doom Eternal we play instead in a limited area of ​​the map, so that we can repeat the test easily and obtain results that are comparable to each other.

In games overall the Core i9-13900K remains the best processor, even if the updates received from the new AMD platforms have helped to further improve the performance of the new Ryzen 7000. Very interesting how the Ryzen 9 7900 is only 2.5% slower than the Ryzen 9 7950X  and, similarly, the  Ryzen 7 7700 is practically identical to the Ryzen 7 7700X, with an average difference of only 1%, and 4% faster than the Core i5-13600K. Finally, the Ryzen 5 7600 is practically as fast as a Core i5-13600K, only slightly more than 1% behind it.

Rendering performance

For the rendering tests we use three software quite famous: Cinebench R23, POV-Ray and Blender. The first two are synthetic benchmarks where we perform both multi core and single core testing, while Blender is a program used by several professionals. We use it to simulate a real use scenario by rendering the “Classroom” demo project, which can be downloaded directly from the official site.

In the rendering tests, obviously the situation changes, thanks to the ability of these software to make the most of the highest number of cores and threads and high frequencies. The Ryzen 9 7900 lags behind in all multi core tests, while in single core tests it manages to close the gap, but the MHz difference in boost frequency is felt. The Ryzen 7 7700 remains closest to the Ryzen 7 7700X with which it shares most of the technical specifications, remaining slightly behind only due to the lower operating frequencies. The new Ryzen 7 also struggles against the Core i5-13600K for the same reasons.

Performance under office loads

We rely on the PCMark suite to measure performance under typical office use 10, running both the general benchmark and the "Applications" one, focused on the basic elements of the Office suite (Word, Excel and PowerPoint) and on the web browser. Thanks to these two tests we can understand which processor best handles a typical office or home use, made up of web surfing, document management, presentations, spreadsheets, emails and so on.

PCMark tests show a scenario not too different from the one described so far, with the Ryzen 9 7900 on average 10% slower than the Core i9-13900K and 5% slower than the Ryzen 9 7950X, while the Ryzen 7 7700 follows the big brother Ryzen 7 7700X with an average gap of less than 3%. Beyond the differences between the processors, in any case we can say that the whole range, including the Ryzen 5 7600, performs very well in these areas; if you want to build a new PC for home or office use with these programs, any of the new Ryzen will do just fine and meet your expectations.

Performance under workstation loads

L The last group of tests is related to the typical loads of a workstation, which we simulate thanks to the SpecViewPerf  software and the multiple benchmarks integrated into it; of those available we choose only a few related to mathematical calculation, modeling, graphics and rendering. We support SpecViewPerf  Procyon, a program that uses Photoshop and Lightroom Classic for photo editing operations, 7-Zip for file compression and decompression and Handbrake,  which we use for performance in video transcoding tasks.

The workstation loads are very varied and, consequently, show different scenarios: as you can see from the graphs, in some cases AMD processors are definitely better, in others Intel ones, in still others (typically in those tasks where the video card is used more and the processor has a lower impact) the processors are all close together. By averaging the values ​​obtained in these benchmarks, we find that the Ryzen 9 7900 is about 10% behind Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X, while the Ryzen 7 7700 is equivalent to Ryzen 7 7700X and Core i5-13600K. Even the  Ryzen 5 7600  performs quite well, remaining behind the Core i5-13600K but with a gap of only 9%.

Consumption and temperatures

We measure consumption and temperatures in two ways: under stress and during one of the game benchmarks, a scenario where in theory the CPU is under less pressure and therefore heats up less and consumes less energy. For the stress test we use Blender and the "Classroom" project again, while for the game we rely on Cyberpunk 2077, a latest generation title and not particularly light, even if run at low details.


Taking a look at consumption, we see that  all the new Ryzens exceed the TDP of 65W and operate at the PPT of 88W, registering an energy absorption of 90 watts under stress . In gaming, the situation changes slightly, with a lower absorption (both peak and average) for both the Ryzen 5 7600 and the Ryzen 7 7700, with the Ryzen 9 7900 remaining the only one that always requires all the available power. The comparison with the other processors in the graph makes relatively little sense since they have different TDPs, but it is useful to talk about efficiency, a topic we will discuss in the conclusions.


In the Blender stress test the Ryzen 9 7900 is the cooler of the family, doing better than both the Ryzen 7 7700 and the Ryzen 5 7600. In general the values ​​are very good and better than those of the other processors, the Ryzen 7 7700 registers even 30°C less than the Ryzen 7 7700. In Cyberpunk 2077 instead all AMD processors are very close to each other, as well as the Core i5-13600K; the Intel Core i9-13900K is the only exception with its 81°C peak, only to settle on an average temperature of 66°C close to that of the other CPUs.

Verdict< /h2> It's difficult to judge the new AMD Ryzen processors, mainly because we don't have the 65W Intel counterparts in our hands yet. This prevents us from comparing the performance with that of direct competitors and making a definitive judgement, since a comparison with Intel's K series or AMD's X series is uneven for many reasons, starting from the different TDP.

Looking at performance and consumption, we note a  good energy efficiency:  in the stress test, the Ryzen 9 7900 absorbs 60% less energy than the Ryzen 9 7950X and 72% less than the Core i9-13900K, but in the benchmark the performance difference is 46% and 52% respectively; similarly the Ryzen 7 7700 is 35% less energy intensive than the 7700X, but only 5% slower in the test. The balance leans even more in favor of the new 65 watt Ryzen if we consider gaming, where (looking at average consumption) the Ryzen 9 7900 consumes about 40% and 20% less respectively than the top of the range Intel and AMD, reaching but same performance. In contrast, curiously the Ryzen 7 7700 consumes slightly more than the Ryzen 7 7700X, but also achieves a slightly higher average framerate. Finally, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 5 7600 also shine here compared to the Core i5-13600K, drawing 24% and 32% less respectively than the Intel processor but with identical framerates.

Speaking of prices, we know that the Ryzen 9 7900 will cost 514.90 Euros, the Ryzen 7 7700 394.90 Euros and the Ryzen 5 7600 274.90 Euros. At the time of writing, the Ryzen 9 7900X costs €495 and is cheaper than the Ryzen 9 7900, the Ryzen 7 7700 is instead slightly less expensive than the 7700X counterpart (about €20), finally the Ryzen 5 7600 costs almost €50 in less than the Ryzen 5 7600X.

Looking at the figures, the Ryzen 5 7600 seems the most interesting of the three, but in reality it will be essential to understand how the market will behave: the new "non K" Intel Core Raptor Lake for example are already available, but with prices much higher than expected. The Core i9-13900 currently costs around €765, 100 Euros more than the Core i9-13900K, while the Core i7-13700 can be purchased for €490, around €30 more than the Core i7-13700K; the two processors were announced at $549 and $384, respectively. In short, a lot will depend on the price at which the new Ryzen will actually be sold.

Summing up, the new Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 5 7600 are configured as good options for who wants a medium or high-end PC (depending on the CPU), performing, but at the same time efficient and less expensive than one equipped with a Ryzen 7000X. If on the one hand the switch to the AM5 socket does not allow them to be inserted in an old configuration and increases the final cost of the system due to some "forced choices" such as DDR5 RAM, on the other hand these processors are perfect combined with cheap motherboards , including the recent B650, and allow you to save on the heatsink using the one sold in the package. Another noteworthy plus is the presence of integrated graphics, which allows you to further reduce the cost of builds for home or office use that do not require a discrete GPU and for which, until now, you were almost forced to choose a processor Intel given the absence of integrated GPU in Ryzen. The price lists are in line with expectations, but considering the street price of the higher-end Ryzen 7000X, these new chips will be really affordable and interesting only when they have lower prices, with a wider gap compared to the corresponding "X" models. It will also be interesting to see how they fare compared to the 65W Raptor Lakes, which we hope to have in our hands in the coming weeks: will we find the same scenario seen with Raptor Lake and Ryzen 7000X, or will something change?

Powered by Blogger.