Do you need 6 or 8 CPU cores in your next PC?
I’ve compared AMD’s 6 core Ryzen 5 7600X against the 8 core Ryzen 7 7700X in both applications
and 25 games at 3 resolutions to find out!
Both processors are based on AMD’s latest Zen 4 architecture and use the latest DDR5
memory.
As mentioned, the 7600X is a 6 core 12 thread part, while the 7700X has 8 cores 16 threads.
There’s also a difference when it comes to cache.
Just like the core counts, the 7700X has 33% more L1 and L2 cache compared to the 7600X.
The 7600X actually has a higher base clock, but we’ll be running our tests in the boost
clock range as we’re not subject to power or thermal limits.
At the time of recording in October 2022, both CPUs are available for their MSRP launch
prices, so $300 USD for the 7600X and $100 more for the extra 2 cores with the 7700X,
so is it worth paying more?
To find out, I’ve compared both CPUs in this system.
So the exact same hardware for both chips, literally all that’s changing between tests
is the processor.
I know that most people buying these CPUs won’t be running with graphics this high,
the point of that is to try and reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as possible, so we can
truly focus on the CPU differences.
Just before the 25 games, let’s start out with Cinebench R23, as it’s an easy way
to get a general idea of where single and multi threaded performance are at.
I’ve got the 7600X below the 7700X, and we can see that the extra cores and threads
with the 7700X are giving it a 31% higher multi core score, though the single core score
difference is much smaller, with the 7700X just 3% ahead.
The 7600X was actually hitting higher clock speeds during this test, but the difference
wasn’t that big.
The 57MHz higher clock speed with the 7600X clearly can’t compete against having two
additional cores.
Despite the 7700X scoring 31% higher in Cinebench, it’s only drawing about 7% more power from
the wall compared to the 7600X.
This results in the 7700X being more power efficient in terms of performance per watt.
The 7700X is using more power, but you're getting more from that power.
More power means more heat.
The 7700X was running about 6 degrees Celsius warmer compared to the 7600X, but this isn’t
a problem.
AMD have said that these Zen 4 processors have no risk of damage or deterioration running
at 95 degrees Celsius 24/7, they're designed to do this, so this is fine, but yeah the
7600X with fewer cores was a bit cooler.
If you’re super paranoid about it though, you could always enable Eco mode which doesn’t
lower performance much, but reduces power draw and heat.
So the 7700X does run a little warmer, but by using just 7% more power it can perform
31% better in multicore workloads.
And that’s thanks to the extra two cores.
Different applications do perform differently though, so let’s check out the rest of them
before we get into the 25 games.
Oh, and just quickly, all of the upcoming application tests were done with an RTX 3090
Ti graphics card, as I did them before the 4090 came out.
But the upcoming game tests were all done on the 4090.
Blender was tested with the Open Data benchmark, and I’ve included all three different workloads
that it tests.
This test relies on multi core performance, and like Cinebench, there are some nice gains
with the 7700X, which was also scoring around 31% higher compared to the 7600X.
The V-Ray and Corona benchmarks also use the processor to render out a scene, and the 7700X
was around 32% faster in these tests.
The differences aren’t quite as big when comparing Linux kernel compile times, which
was done under Ubuntu 22.04, whereas all other tests were done with Windows 11.
The 7700X was around 24% faster here, so still an improvement, just not quite as big of a
gain compared to the rendering workloads earlier.
LLVM compilation is the last test I’ve run under Linux, and the margin between both processors
was basically the same here too.
Compilation tends to prefer more cache, which the 7700X certainly does have, but the performance
boost from the 7700X wasn’t as big as it’s cache increase.
Handbrake was used to convert my 4K 60FPS review video of the Legion 7i gaming laptop
to 1080p h.265.
Lower times are better here too, but the 7700X was just 20% faster now.
The gap between them gets smaller in Adobe Premiere.
I’ve used the Puget Systems benchmark which tests things like video exporting, playback
and more, and the 7700X was scoring just 12% higher than the 7600X in this one.
The differences seen in Adobe Photoshop were even smaller.
I’ve found this test generally likes having more single core performance, and as we saw
in Cinebench earlier, the 7700X was only 3% better in that regard.
Here in Photoshop, the 7700X just had a 7% lead over the 7600X.
DaVinci Resolve is a video editing program, and again the 7700X was just scoring 7% higher
compared to the 7600X here as well.
This test seems to do better with more GPU power, so you might be better off with the
7600X and instead putting the extra money into a better graphics card.
The differences in Microsoft Excel were extremely small with the 7700X scoring just 3% better,
while Microsoft Word had a 25% lead on the 7700X, so I guess consider the 7700X if you’re
doing heavier office work.
You know, like clip art.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression.
The 7700X was 26% faster when it came to compression, and 31% faster in decompression, a bigger
and similar gap to what we saw in the rendering workloads earlier.
Geekbench tests a bunch of various workloads, and the single core score was just 1% higher
on the 7700X, though the multi core score was 24% higher due to those additional cores.
On average out of all applications tested, the higher tier and more expensive 7700X was
21% faster in these specific workloads.
Of course this number alone doesn’t mean much as I’ve got a random combination of
both single and multi threaded workloads, but this gives you an idea of what sort of
an overall improvement can be expected by spending the extra $100 on the 7700X.
Rendering workloads in particular seem to be the best use case for the extra cores.
So what about gaming?
I’ve also compared both processors in 25 different games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions
to find out what the differences are.
Let’s start out with Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom, 1440p in the middle, and 4K up the top, with
the 7600X underneath the 7700X, just like before.
This is more of a CPU heavy game, and there’s not really much of an FPS difference between
the different resolutions.
The 7700X was around 9% faster at 1080p and 1440p, and then 6% faster at 4K.
Halo Infinite was performing the same on either CPU at 4K, as most games end up so GPU bound
at this point that processor selection really doesn’t matter.
The 7700X was still able to offer a 7% boost to average FPS at 1440p, and 6% at 1080p,
at least with the RTX 4090.
I’ve tested The Riftbreaker with the CPU benchmark option, so it’s probably no surprise
that this had the biggest improvement in favor of the 7700X out of all 25 games tested, coming
out around 9 to 10% faster compared to the 7600X.
Watch Dogs Legion also had above average gains, with the 7700X reaching an 8% higher average
FPS at 1080p, though at 150 FPS on very high settings, it’s not as if the 7600X is unusable
or anything, not to mention in games like this we could further boost FPS with features
like DLSS.
Call of Duty Warzone had basically no practical differences between both CPUs.
The differences are within the margin of error range and essentially the same.
The fact is, this is how most of the other games tested behaved, so rather than spend
time talking about the other 20 games tested I’ll just briefly flick through the results,
but of course feel free to pause the video if you want a closer look at any specific
game.
For the most part though, the general trend is that we’re only seeing very small performance
boosts with the Ryzen 7 7700X compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X, and this is simply because
most titles aren’t seeing a benefit from the additional cores and threads on offer.
On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080p the higher tier Ryzen 7 7700X was performing
just 3% faster compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X.
We can see that results vary by game, from basically no difference to up to a 9 to 10%
improvement in CPU heavier titles like Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered and The Riftbreaker.
Stepping up to the higher 1440p resolution and we’re just looking at a 2% average lead
with the 7700X in our 25 game selection now.
Again the CPU heavier games had more of a boost, but on average higher resolutions are
more GPU bound, so CPU selection starts to matter less.
This is further demonstrated at 4K, where the 7700X was now just 1% faster than the
7600X on average, which is basically nothing.
Again some games had more of a boost with the 7700X, even at this higher resolution,
but for the most part, if you’re gaming at 4K CPU choice matters much less compared
to lower resolutions.
Here’s what we’re looking at when we take the average frame rates from all 25 games
tested to try and spot some overall trends.
This really shows just how close both processors are.
At 4K the 7700X was less than 2 FPS ahead, and even at 1080p where CPU difference might
matter more we’re only seeing a 3 FPS gap.
Considering the 7700X is an extra $100 more expensive compared to the 7600X, it should
come as no surprise to see that the 7600X is offering far better value when it comes
to gaming at all three resolutions tested.
The FPS in most games is quite close, so you might as well just save the money and get
the 7600X if gaming is the focus.
The extra budget would be better spent on a higher GPU.
Both processors basically offer the same value in terms of multi core performance.
The 7700X costs 33% more money, but as the 7700X was also offering 31% more performance
in this multi core workload, it’s more reasonable to spend the extra money on if this is something
you need.
And don’t forget, the 7700X was more power efficient in this workload too.
So basically to summarize, if gaming is your focus, it’s not really worth spending the
extra $100 to get the 7700X.
Especially if you’re gaming at higher resolutions.
The 7700X does start to make more sense over the 7600X if you do need multi core performance,
but the gains to single core workloads were fairly small.
I don’t think there’s much of a “future proofing” argument in favor of the 7700X
when it comes to gaming either.
Our 25 game test shows that in most cases, the differences between 6 and 8 cores just
aren’t that big.
Maybe this might change a bit more in the future, but by the time it does if you’re
getting one of these CPUs you’ll have an AM5 motherboard, and by that point you’d
get far bigger gains by upgrading to, say, Zen 5.
So I would only really consider the 7700X if I needed the extra multi core performance,
say for streaming.
Or perhaps if time is money and you need it for work.
Though if that’s the case, chances are something else like a 7900X or 7950X will be a better
option, and I will be comparing those very soon, so make sure you’re subscribed.
For now, you can see how both of these CPUs we’ve tested in this video compare against
their older versions in these videos next, which will definitely show you that the gains
in gaming come from newer generations rather than adding on more cores.