AMD’s decision to refresh the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X is no coincidence. Mid-range processors are strong sellers for AMD, and the chipmaker seeks to maintain and increase its market share in the highly competitive segment. The original Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X debuted in 2024 with MSRPs of $359 and $279, respectively, but their prices have since dropped to $307 and $184. The pricing strategy for the upcoming Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X will be especially important, as Intel has already positioned the rivaling Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at aggressive price points of $199 and $299, respectively. The stage is set for a fascinating showdown, if AMD's rumored refreshes actually make it to market.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News , or add us as a preferred source , to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom\u2019s Hardware. Although he loves everything that\u2019s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-18/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Zhiye Liu News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
darylzero Can most 9700x chips be over-clocked to the same frequency? Twice the power for such little gain, doesn't seem like it will be a good chip Reply
VizzieTheViz Too bad they used xx50 for the top tier models earlier, otherwise this naming scheme would be fine. I’d have preferred if they’d gone xxx5 (if the must have a five somewhere) for refreshes, so you’ll get 9605, 9705 and so on. Probably not an option because marketing likes higher numbers. I don’t really see the benefit for consumers here, but the cpus will probably not use much more power than the non refresh models unless stressed fully all the time. Reply
usertests Intel's refresh is interesting because they possibly "fixed" Arrow Lake by raising the D2D clock. This isn't. Interesting from AMD would be releasing the 9950X3D2 (confirmed in EEC filing but not launched alongside the 9850X3D), and Strix Point desktop APUs, which will end up in OEM PCs like the 8700G does (only Krackan-based Zen 5 desktop APUs are confirmed so far). Reply
DS426 darylzero said: … Twice the power for such little gain, doesn't seem like it will be a good chip Can't tell at face value as the higher TDP's should result in higher sustained clocks under heavy loads. This is very important in gaming as it can make fps spikes less drastic, improve 0.1% and 1% fps lows, and overall result in smoother visuals. When the top-end performance isn't needed, power draw should be very similar to their outgoing counterparts. One issue that I see is that this changes system design; previous PC parts inventories/sourcing might need changed for some builders and OEM's if marginal fans, motherboards, PSU's, etc. are used on cheaper 9600X and 9700X PC models that won't suffice for successor 9650X and 9750X models; in other words, system cost will be higher as better system components will be necessary. It's not a big issue, especially since 65W TDP mode can be enabled in BIOS . Reply
Gururu So Intel refresh actually puts more cores but AMD just adds more power and frequency. Intel’s refresh doesn’t really bring them to AMD gaming level, and AMD’s won’t bring them to Intel productivity level. I think I like having more cores in a refresh though than just a power up. Reply
thestryker Here's hoping this leak is incorrect. While the 9850X3D is somewhat questionable due to blowing the power budget there is no question that those chips are better binned. In this case it sounds more like turning on PBO and barely increasing the core clock which most, if not all should be able to do already. No 9600X/9700X in the DIY space is ever running at base clock under load (they shouldn't in the SI space either, but I never want to underestimate their corner cutting capacity). In the end this would make these less of an upgrade than Intel 13th to 14th Gen was. Reply
usertests Gururu said: So Intel refresh actually puts more cores but AMD just adds more power and frequency. Intel’s refresh doesn’t really bring them to AMD gaming level, and AMD’s won’t bring them to Intel productivity level. I think I like having more cores in a refresh though than just a power up. Intel had the flexibility to add more cores because they have an 8P + 16E die, and left a conspicuous gap they could fill with the 6P + 12E 250K. Then the 270K acts as a price cut of the full fat 285K, except that the 270K might be better than it from the D2D increase. AMD could technically do the same by launching 7-core and 14-core chips, but don't want to have odd core counts and compact segmentation. What they should do is let prices fall. If the 270K at $300 ends up faster than the 9900X in multithreading, then a 9900X shouldn't be $370 anymore. Reply
thestryker usertests said: Then the 270K acts as a price cut of the full fat 285K, except that the 270K might be better than it from the D2D increase. … If the 270K at $300 ends up faster than the 9900X in multithreading, then a 9900X shouldn't be $370 anymore. Jaykihn reporting P-core boost clocks for >2 core load are the same as the 285K which will make the 270K faster any time the E-cores are also engaged since they're 100 MHz faster. Reply
usertests thestryker said: Jaykihn reporting P-core boost clocks for >2 core load are the same as the 285K which will make the 270K faster any time the E-cores are also engaged since they're 100 MHz faster. I already expected the 270K to be faster than the 285K most of the time, but that's funny. Is it crazy for me to say that the 9900X should be as low as sub-$300? I checked Tom's and TPU initial reviews of the 285K, and it was already on par or faster than the 9900X in gaming. A 270K should be beating the 9900X in most multithreaded/productivity situations, with the exception of AVX-512 workloads. Reply
Skramblr usertests said: AMD could technically do the same by launching 7-core and 14-core chips, but don't want to have odd core counts and compact segmentation. I think what is apparent here is AMD could not launch an all new processor with more cores in time to meet the Intel launch, as that requires designing a new processor. Instead, they did a knee jerk reaction and appear to have simply overclocked an existing chip. Very little effort, but seems crazy to double a chip's power like that. That seems like a fall back to the failing Bulldozer strategy. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-reportedly-strikes-back-with-zen-5-refresh-to-counter-intels-latest-arrow-lake-refresh-cpus-65w-ryzen-supercharged-with-400-mhz-base-clock-uplift-and-almost-double-the-tdp#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/subscription
- Corsair's new 3200D mid-tower case redefines airflow and component compatibility — the case perfectly pairs with rear-connector motherboards
- North Korean fake IT army of 100,000 nets Kim Jong-Un a cool $500 million a year — NK-aligned workers infiltrated in IT companies worldwide, feeding the nation'
- As Open Models Spark AI Boom, NVIDIA Jetson Brings It to Life at the Edge
- Cyberpunk 2077 runs on MacBook Neo at over 30 FPS — PC gaming is possible with A18 Pro iPhone chip
- Arctic's $1,400 AMD Strix Point fanless mini-PC hides under your desk — Senza AI 370 features Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 CPU, 32GB RAM, and 1TB SSD
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.