AMD Fights Itself: Ryzen 7 7700 CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. i5-13600K & R5 7600
video description
Date: 2023-01-10
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 14
fatih
Ryzen 7000 series are so boring that I don't even care how the non x ryzen chips perform these days. I don't want to buy an AM5 motherboard with it's first generation of DDR5 memory topology. Because as we all know, the first generation of something always sucks. And when it comes to memory overclocking, AMD always sucked. Wait for DDR5 on AM5 to mature a bit, then it might be a good idea to buy a new socket AMD system for it's future upgrade path. However intel 14th gen will probably support up to 2 generation of cpus anyway so unless AMD really beats intel in single threaded speed which has never happened. The upgrade path the zen 4 offers doesn't seem to be that interesting if you're not buying anything this year anyways because who know how many more generations will amd support the AM5. This is the first generation, if they support it 3 generations in total, 14th gen intel motherboards will end their support at the same generation anyways. So it's time to punish AMD for their ridiculous pricing this year. They have completely gotten this game wrong. If you release the underperforming product. You need to be the underdog even if it underperforms just 5%. AMD's 7000 series overall platform cost is way too expensive even for intel. Don't buy new amd cpu's this year, don't buy any gpu's also this year. It's time to react to these greedy tech companies. They say it's inflation blah blah. Yeah we know there's inflation so the wafer costs are higher. But the chips are so much smaller this generation and smaller chips mean more chips and also less defects so far better yields. So yeah the inflation is there but not for the freaking chips these companies make. Hell they might be making them for cheaper now if you factor in the better yields and more chips per wafer. And nothing else in the industry is 3 to 4 times more inflated since the pandemic so there is no way I can justify these ridiculous price hikes. They are freaking lying to everyone. So do not buy anything until they realize they f cked up.
reply
Ryzen 7000 series are so boring that I don't even care how the non x ryzen chips perform these days. I don't want to buy an AM5 motherboard with it's first generation of DDR5 memory topology. Because as we all know, the first generation of something always sucks. And when it comes to memory overclocking, AMD always sucked. Wait for DDR5 on AM5 to mature a bit, then it might be a good idea to buy a new socket AMD system for it's future upgrade path. However intel 14th gen will probably support up to 2 generation of cpus anyway so unless AMD really beats intel in single threaded speed which has never happened. The upgrade path the zen 4 offers doesn't seem to be that interesting if you're not buying anything this year anyways because who know how many more generations will amd support the AM5. This is the first generation, if they support it 3 generations in total, 14th gen intel motherboards will end their support at the same generation anyways. So it's time to punish AMD for their ridiculous pricing this year. They have completely gotten this game wrong. If you release the underperforming product. You need to be the underdog even if it underperforms just 5%. AMD's 7000 series overall platform cost is way too expensive even for intel. Don't buy new amd cpu's this year, don't buy any gpu's also this year. It's time to react to these greedy tech companies. They say it's inflation blah blah. Yeah we know there's inflation so the wafer costs are higher. But the chips are so much smaller this generation and smaller chips mean more chips and also less defects so far better yields. So yeah the inflation is there but not for the freaking chips these companies make. Hell they might be making them for cheaper now if you factor in the better yields and more chips per wafer. And nothing else in the industry is 3 to 4 times more inflated since the pandemic so there is no way I can justify these ridiculous price hikes. They are freaking lying to everyone. So do not buy anything until they realize they f cked up.
reply
Darren
8 core processors are far superior for what I do for work. More than 8 and the software doesn't use more than 8 cores and less than 8 and it's very slow. So I will be getting the 7700 or 7700 X and since the lower power 7700 costs less, uses less power and gets close performance. I will probably get the 7700 non X and save money and use less power and get close to the same performance.
I have a 4800 in a laptop and the timing with 8 cores makes my work software very fast even with the lower performing processor. Oddly enough a coworker with a faster Intel processor with more cores calculates things slower because having more cores is detrimental. Don't ask me why. These people who write these programs stop at good enough and make interfaces that look more like DOS shells from the 1990s even though they are power hungry and will use every single one of those 8 cores. More cores and it gets confused. I don't try to figure it out or figure out a work around and just accept that it works this way.
The 4800 in my laptop is pretty fast so the 7700 non X should be a screamer. So that's what I will likely get. I am glad I waited. I will still be interested in the X3D variant but I think that I will be fine with the 7700.
reply
8 core processors are far superior for what I do for work. More than 8 and the software doesn't use more than 8 cores and less than 8 and it's very slow. So I will be getting the 7700 or 7700 X and since the lower power 7700 costs less, uses less power and gets close performance. I will probably get the 7700 non X and save money and use less power and get close to the same performance.
I have a 4800 in a laptop and the timing with 8 cores makes my work software very fast even with the lower performing processor. Oddly enough a coworker with a faster Intel processor with more cores calculates things slower because having more cores is detrimental. Don't ask me why. These people who write these programs stop at good enough and make interfaces that look more like DOS shells from the 1990s even though they are power hungry and will use every single one of those 8 cores. More cores and it gets confused. I don't try to figure it out or figure out a work around and just accept that it works this way.
The 4800 in my laptop is pretty fast so the 7700 non X should be a screamer. So that's what I will likely get. I am glad I waited. I will still be interested in the X3D variant but I think that I will be fine with the 7700.
reply
Cute
I feel like efficiency should be the big take away here. Intel just ran wild with power consumption/TDP/Temps to get their leads, but I feel all 3 of these non-X chips really do give a compelling value in that aspect. I'm personally waiting for the X3D variants to come out before making a decision (for the first time in 10 years) but the efficiency and max temps of these chips might have me second guessing depending on how big of a leap in performance the X3D are. I'm looking a building a custom SFF build, so the temps will probably be my biggest personal limit; however, the overall operating cost to performance of the non-X chips seems pretty compelling as well.
It's a shame the 7000 series AMD GPUs didn't produce as efficient of as story as the CPU counterparts with the GPUs idle power consumption and possible thermal issues, but I am curious if we will see performance gains in the future with the Smart Access Memory if developers ever decide to start optimizing for that.
reply
I feel like efficiency should be the big take away here. Intel just ran wild with power consumption/TDP/Temps to get their leads, but I feel all 3 of these non-X chips really do give a compelling value in that aspect. I'm personally waiting for the X3D variants to come out before making a decision (for the first time in 10 years) but the efficiency and max temps of these chips might have me second guessing depending on how big of a leap in performance the X3D are. I'm looking a building a custom SFF build, so the temps will probably be my biggest personal limit; however, the overall operating cost to performance of the non-X chips seems pretty compelling as well.
It's a shame the 7000 series AMD GPUs didn't produce as efficient of as story as the CPU counterparts with the GPUs idle power consumption and possible thermal issues, but I am curious if we will see performance gains in the future with the Smart Access Memory if developers ever decide to start optimizing for that.
reply
cldpt
I once again suggest comparing this to a 13600k with cooler price included. In this particular comparison, the 7700 with a Wraith Prism included makes a lot more sense. The 13600k will not do amazingly well with a 30-40 tower cooler, while the box Prism will deal with PPT of 100ish just fine, meaning consumers will take a lot more hit on performance, or their wallet if they want to go with a beefier AIO which the 13600k demands.
This will be a nicer match when a 13600 non-K comes out (and Intel doesn't decide to gimp it on E-cores like it did for the 12600 non-K). May not include a box cooler too, but if price cut and actual power use under load are OK, it may very well be a nice deal in contrast to the 7700.
Also, the option of DDR4 on Intel, while being worth mentioning, should really not be an alternative to new system buyers seeking a long-term platform. There's little reason to be saving that cash on this price tier.
reply
I once again suggest comparing this to a 13600k with cooler price included. In this particular comparison, the 7700 with a Wraith Prism included makes a lot more sense. The 13600k will not do amazingly well with a 30-40 tower cooler, while the box Prism will deal with PPT of 100ish just fine, meaning consumers will take a lot more hit on performance, or their wallet if they want to go with a beefier AIO which the 13600k demands.
This will be a nicer match when a 13600 non-K comes out (and Intel doesn't decide to gimp it on E-cores like it did for the 12600 non-K). May not include a box cooler too, but if price cut and actual power use under load are OK, it may very well be a nice deal in contrast to the 7700.
Also, the option of DDR4 on Intel, while being worth mentioning, should really not be an alternative to new system buyers seeking a long-term platform. There's little reason to be saving that cash on this price tier.
reply
Shryquill
Sure the 13600K might be 10 cheaper and a bit faster than the 7700, until you realise CPUs do need coolers, which adds 50-80 for a decent tower cooler.
Even then, the Intel platform is EOL, and your following generational upgrade is going to require a new CPU, RAM, and Motherboard if going Intel since they abandon their sockets every two generations.
But sure, the 13600K makes sense if you're already on Intel 12th gen and are wanting an upgrade.
For most others it makes far more sense going with AM5 instead.
The whole point of the 7700 and other Non-X CPUs is lowering the entry cost for getting onto AM5.
That's being followed up by cheaper AM5 boards next month.
Comes off as really out of touch when people compares product in a vacuum like this, as though a higher score and part price is the only thing that matters.
Nice work testing otherwise, but that's a pretty glaring omission.
reply
Sure the 13600K might be 10 cheaper and a bit faster than the 7700, until you realise CPUs do need coolers, which adds 50-80 for a decent tower cooler.
Even then, the Intel platform is EOL, and your following generational upgrade is going to require a new CPU, RAM, and Motherboard if going Intel since they abandon their sockets every two generations.
But sure, the 13600K makes sense if you're already on Intel 12th gen and are wanting an upgrade.
For most others it makes far more sense going with AM5 instead.
The whole point of the 7700 and other Non-X CPUs is lowering the entry cost for getting onto AM5.
That's being followed up by cheaper AM5 boards next month.
Comes off as really out of touch when people compares product in a vacuum like this, as though a higher score and part price is the only thing that matters.
Nice work testing otherwise, but that's a pretty glaring omission.
reply
Prajwal
Steve we can look it in a different perspective, hear me out. The reason Ryzen 7000 CPUs are expensive because of TSMC 4nm process, which is much more efficient, but also costs more to manufacture. Intel on other hand has their own manufacturing CPU manufacturing holds an advantage as it doesn't have pay for the extra margin on manufacturing. But when you consider the efficiency and power saving, in long run Ryzen 7 7700 isn't a bad choice, though i5 13600K is a better value when you buy because of better performance, in long run you will save much power and in turn you will save on energy bill, especially if you're using it for productivity. Si In long run Ryzen 7 7700 is a better value . As in 2022 where we are as a humanity (I know it's philosophical, but that is because of climate change, how fast we have to act to stop it getting worse), I think we need to prioritise efficiency more.
reply
Steve we can look it in a different perspective, hear me out. The reason Ryzen 7000 CPUs are expensive because of TSMC 4nm process, which is much more efficient, but also costs more to manufacture. Intel on other hand has their own manufacturing CPU manufacturing holds an advantage as it doesn't have pay for the extra margin on manufacturing. But when you consider the efficiency and power saving, in long run Ryzen 7 7700 isn't a bad choice, though i5 13600K is a better value when you buy because of better performance, in long run you will save much power and in turn you will save on energy bill, especially if you're using it for productivity. Si In long run Ryzen 7 7700 is a better value . As in 2022 where we are as a humanity (I know it's philosophical, but that is because of climate change, how fast we have to act to stop it getting worse), I think we need to prioritise efficiency more.
reply
David
Why are you testing CPUs with a GPU that s been superseded by 4 new GPUs? I know this is probably gonna be down voted into oblivion but this isn t to the standard I would expect from GN. I know you ve been busy but not updating your test suite and results when the 4090 has been out this long is ridiculous. The argument that people who buy 4090s don t game at 1080p is irrelevant, you are supposed to remove ALL bottlenecks and benchmarking on anything but the best ESPECIALLY when you have access to the 4090, 4080, 7900XTX and 7900XT is honestly just pointless. 5% difference when swapping to a 4090 is a small difference but it s enough to alter price to performance and also gives the best view of how these processors will perform as new GPUs release. If you present as a top tier outlet and stand by your great quality work then stuff like this needs to be 100% consistently delivered.
reply
Why are you testing CPUs with a GPU that s been superseded by 4 new GPUs? I know this is probably gonna be down voted into oblivion but this isn t to the standard I would expect from GN. I know you ve been busy but not updating your test suite and results when the 4090 has been out this long is ridiculous. The argument that people who buy 4090s don t game at 1080p is irrelevant, you are supposed to remove ALL bottlenecks and benchmarking on anything but the best ESPECIALLY when you have access to the 4090, 4080, 7900XTX and 7900XT is honestly just pointless. 5% difference when swapping to a 4090 is a small difference but it s enough to alter price to performance and also gives the best view of how these processors will perform as new GPUs release. If you present as a top tier outlet and stand by your great quality work then stuff like this needs to be 100% consistently delivered.
reply
OneAngryCat
I really don't see how this analysis makes sense...the 7700 is 70W less than the 13600K. Even with the performance differential, I don't see how the 7700 isn't a better deal. If you need the extra perf, sure it's a bad offer, but if not, I really can't see the 7700 not eventually overtaking the 13600K in overall lifetime costs (aka price + power costs). And if you really need extra perf, I don't see why you'd pick a 13600K over a 7700 and not just go straight to the 13700K or 7900. To me, there is no appeal in a 10% perf increase and a 40% power efficiency loss.
To me, this is an 8 core solid CPU that manages great performance at only 90W and barely 1.2.W away from its 6 core brother. It sounds like an amazing deal. I hope the 7900 still has that kind of low power and great performance.
reply
I really don't see how this analysis makes sense...the 7700 is 70W less than the 13600K. Even with the performance differential, I don't see how the 7700 isn't a better deal. If you need the extra perf, sure it's a bad offer, but if not, I really can't see the 7700 not eventually overtaking the 13600K in overall lifetime costs (aka price + power costs). And if you really need extra perf, I don't see why you'd pick a 13600K over a 7700 and not just go straight to the 13700K or 7900. To me, there is no appeal in a 10% perf increase and a 40% power efficiency loss.
To me, this is an 8 core solid CPU that manages great performance at only 90W and barely 1.2.W away from its 6 core brother. It sounds like an amazing deal. I hope the 7900 still has that kind of low power and great performance.
reply
Jimster480
I think it's hard to recommend LGA1700 at all.... The 13600k might be fast but it's on a dead end platform and you need a Z series board to get all the features.... You could buy a B650 for less than a Z670 and do overall better... Even the X670E boards have come down quite a bit with a few around 200 and this will just be better for the future.
Overall CPUs today are so insanely fast that games are running in the hundreds of frames per second and this isn't something we have seen before the past couple years. So unless in productivity you literally do the same thing all day and a few seconds matters; the 13600k has meaningful lead in basically any task so it becomes hard to justify especially if you need a good cooler for it.
reply
I think it's hard to recommend LGA1700 at all.... The 13600k might be fast but it's on a dead end platform and you need a Z series board to get all the features.... You could buy a B650 for less than a Z670 and do overall better... Even the X670E boards have come down quite a bit with a few around 200 and this will just be better for the future.
Overall CPUs today are so insanely fast that games are running in the hundreds of frames per second and this isn't something we have seen before the past couple years. So unless in productivity you literally do the same thing all day and a few seconds matters; the 13600k has meaningful lead in basically any task so it becomes hard to justify especially if you need a good cooler for it.
reply
diegoaccord
Why would a 13600K be recommended over a 7700? When talking about price competitiveness, you are done on that LGA 1700 platform. If you want a decent motherboard you will still have to pay good money, and go DDR5 and then your best upgrade is a 13900KS. And if you skimped on the mobo and/or went DDR4, congrats, you nerfed your 13900K.
With that AMD setup, you have the next 3 gens of CPU possibly, and even the X3D. I bought a 7700X when I picked up a 4090 at launch, my end goal is the X3D as long as there are 4K gains. Even if there aren't, and I keep the 7700X, at 4K, which is where you should be with a 4090, it's going matter all of shit.
reply
Why would a 13600K be recommended over a 7700? When talking about price competitiveness, you are done on that LGA 1700 platform. If you want a decent motherboard you will still have to pay good money, and go DDR5 and then your best upgrade is a 13900KS. And if you skimped on the mobo and/or went DDR4, congrats, you nerfed your 13900K.
With that AMD setup, you have the next 3 gens of CPU possibly, and even the X3D. I bought a 7700X when I picked up a 4090 at launch, my end goal is the X3D as long as there are 4K gains. Even if there aren't, and I keep the 7700X, at 4K, which is where you should be with a 4090, it's going matter all of shit.
reply
Kaling
Honestly, I am really thinking about the 7700. The 7700x has risen 20 yet again, before it was 10 more expensive than the 13600k (now it is 30 ).
Meaning still the 7700 will itself cost probably less than the 13600k. So i am really thinking between those two.
What is a little compelling to me (towards the 7700) is that if I take the 7700 I can take a B650E board and thus maybe more easily upgrade my graphics card in the future generations.
Also the general future aspects of AM5, also general potential futureproofness of the am5 platform.
Not really sure at the moment what to think
... lets wait what the 7800x3d has to offer.
reply
Honestly, I am really thinking about the 7700. The 7700x has risen 20 yet again, before it was 10 more expensive than the 13600k (now it is 30 ).
Meaning still the 7700 will itself cost probably less than the 13600k. So i am really thinking between those two.
What is a little compelling to me (towards the 7700) is that if I take the 7700 I can take a B650E board and thus maybe more easily upgrade my graphics card in the future generations.
Also the general future aspects of AM5, also general potential futureproofness of the am5 platform.
Not really sure at the moment what to think
... lets wait what the 7800x3d has to offer.
reply
Innocentius
In many of those games you pointed that Intel chips hold 3% lead in average FPS, but there are significant (commonly 20-30%, sometimes even 50%) differences in 1% and 0,1% lows, as is pointed by those same graphs. The 0,1% lows might be pretty run dependent, but it could be interesting to see also on the summary graphs perhaps an evaluation on how close to average fps can these different CPUs hold the lows. Predictability is after all one of the most important aspects of gameplay feel: it goes as far as constant 80 fps being far better feeling than average 100fps, but fluctuations between 50 to 150.
reply
In many of those games you pointed that Intel chips hold 3% lead in average FPS, but there are significant (commonly 20-30%, sometimes even 50%) differences in 1% and 0,1% lows, as is pointed by those same graphs. The 0,1% lows might be pretty run dependent, but it could be interesting to see also on the summary graphs perhaps an evaluation on how close to average fps can these different CPUs hold the lows. Predictability is after all one of the most important aspects of gameplay feel: it goes as far as constant 80 fps being far better feeling than average 100fps, but fluctuations between 50 to 150.
reply
ATTILAvs2
I know how everyone is complaining about how your videos are boring, but honnestly since a bit you are putting not really more energy but more pacing, and staying less on the graphs, letting the people who are intrested by something witch is not the focus of the video pause themselves.
Also, i really like competition, my 5600X witch i bought 4 months ago is already getting shredded for a similar price, even if it's really good in gaming, and i oced it to 4.52 ghz boost (auto oc) and enabled PBO ect so i am drawing more than 100 watts, didn't really look but dang.
reply
I know how everyone is complaining about how your videos are boring, but honnestly since a bit you are putting not really more energy but more pacing, and staying less on the graphs, letting the people who are intrested by something witch is not the focus of the video pause themselves.
Also, i really like competition, my 5600X witch i bought 4 months ago is already getting shredded for a similar price, even if it's really good in gaming, and i oced it to 4.52 ghz boost (auto oc) and enabled PBO ect so i am drawing more than 100 watts, didn't really look but dang.
reply
Picchio
Am I the only one that is falling in love with the little guy 7700 non X? In my country electricity increased by 200% 2 years ago, the another 400% on top of that last year. And the year that just ended had a further 200%ish increase. People here are spending up to 500-800 every month betwen heating and electricity. The Intel alternative is just crap that will cost more in the not so istant future. BTW since the ryzen 7700 is so efficient im actually wondering how it would fair against the M1 and M2 processors. Do you think that comparison might be interesting?
reply
Am I the only one that is falling in love with the little guy 7700 non X? In my country electricity increased by 200% 2 years ago, the another 400% on top of that last year. And the year that just ended had a further 200%ish increase. People here are spending up to 500-800 every month betwen heating and electricity. The Intel alternative is just crap that will cost more in the not so istant future. BTW since the ryzen 7700 is so efficient im actually wondering how it would fair against the M1 and M2 processors. Do you think that comparison might be interesting?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
