Do you really need a CPU with 8+ cores for gaming? Probably not. But the new 12-core AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is still very attractive.
The big difference from the existing Ryzen 9 7900X 12 core model is the price.A full-fat ‘X’ chip is a $549 monster, while the new 12-core Lite Ryzen 7 7900 non-X is just $456 (opens in new tab)And, as we’ll see later, it’s not all that “lightweight” after all.
But its price is worth a little more discussion.The Ryzen 7 7700X weighs in at $399, while another new non-X model, the Ryzen 7 7700 (opens in new tab) is $329. Compared to the 7700X, you pay very little for extra cores.
Even compared to the non-X 7700, you get 50% more cores for 30% more cash. It’s not supposed to work this way, is it? Generally, the higher the CPU or GPU range, the worse the value proposition. But not here. These new non-X Ryzen 7000 series chips are true value champs.
Price aside, there are a few other things to keep in mind. In terms of features, the Ryzen 7 7900 mirrors the existing 7900X model very well. It’s two 5nm CCDs each containing 6 CPU cores with 6nm I/O dies and a fun sized mini GPU that can keep working in a pinch but remotely It is not intended to do serious 3D rendering work.
Ryzen 9 7900 Specs
core: 12
thread: twenty four
socket: AMD AM5
CCD lithography: TSMC 5nm
CCD die size: 70mm²×2
Number of CCD transistors: 6.5 billion x 2
IOD lithography: TSMC 6nm
IOD die size: 122mm²
Number of IOD transistors: 3.4 billion
Max Boost Clock: 5.4GHz
Base clock: 3.7GHz
L2 cache: 12MB
L3 cache: 64MB
Memory support: DDR5-5200 (non-OC)
TDP: 65W
price: $456 (opens in new tab)
Both models also have matching 12MB L2 and 64MB L3 cache memory pools. In other words, you get the same silicon either way. Power consumption has been tweaked for newer non-X chips as it is simply clock speed.
In terms of frequencies, we’re looking at the new non-X 7900’s 3.7GHz base and 5.4GHz boost from the 7900X’s 4.7GHz base and 5.6GHz boost.
Similar to the Ryzen 7 7700 vs 7700X comparison, it looks like the clock speeds have dropped significantly. But these base clock numbers are just backstops and absolute minimums you can expect. Rest assured that the new non-X7900 does a lot more than 3.7 GHz without giving up too much too soon.
What it can’t do is not draw as much power as the 7900X. The X model has a TDP rating of 170W, while the new 7900 is just 65W. This is the same number as the 7900X’s rating in “eco” mode.
We’re also a little more concerned about the limitations of this 12-core CPU than the 8-core Ryzen 7 7700. The 7900 adds 4 more cores but doesn’t give it an extra power budget. Hold on to that idea.
image 1 of 2
In gaming, you’d really have a hard time telling the difference between a full 170W 7900X and this 65W eco-warrior. 6.1 vs 6.2 seconds per turn in Civilization VI? What’s the difference between 206 fps and 204 fps in Total War: Three Kingdoms? 134 fps and 131 fps in Metro Exodus? Never will.
OK, there are some titles where the gap is a little bigger. But likewise, the fact that you’re using a slightly newer graphics driver on a non-X chip also means that it’s actually faster. In other words, in gaming terms, this low-power option basically offers nothing.
Broader computing and productivity is a slightly different story. For example, in Cinebech’s multi-threaded rendering, 7900 scores 25,366 points and 7900X scores 27,450 points. In Blender, 120 samples per minute versus 132.
game performance
image 1 of 9
Computing and system performance
image 1 of 7
PC gamer test rig
AMD
Motherboard: ASRock X670E Taichi
memory: G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo DDR5-6000 CL30 2x 16GB
intel
Motherboard: Asus ROG Z690 Hero
memory: G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-5600 CL36 2x 16GB
Graphics card: NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB
Storage: 1TB WD Black SN850
cooler: Corsair H100i RGB
Power supply unit: NZXT 850W
Chassis: DimasTech Mini V2
These aren’t big rips, but they do reflect the fairly limited wattage of a simple non-X7900 running in factory settings. Of course, these constraints lead to excellent low power consumption. OK, the regular 7900 is a bit slower than the X model, but at its 90W peak it consumes less than half the 7900X’s 182W. Incredible.
Additionally, AMD doesn’t lock down their chips from overclocking, so you can decide for yourself how efficient this chip is. After all, the standard AMD Wraith cooler that ships with the 7900 can crank it up to 5.3 GHz very easily. At that speed, in Cinebench he would be looking at over 30,000 points. More chunk than stock scored 7900X.
So, much like its 8-core sibling, the Ryzen 7 7700, the new Ryzen 9 7900 is a no-brainer compared to the 7900X. I don’t understand why I pay the extra $120. Very little in return.
I don’t understand why you pay the extra $100.
That said, as expected, the fiercest resistance to this lean, ie 12-core, Ryzen comes from Intel, with the Core i7 13700K usually going a bit cheaper, so there’s nothing on the price.
image 1 of 2
But the 13700K tends to dominate both multi-threaded productivity tasks and games. The gap isn’t huge, but it’s fairly consistent. As we mentioned with the Ryzen 7 7700, the AMD platform has certain features like better PCIe 5.0 support and sockets that have a longer upgrade path with AM5.
So it’s not an Intel optional slam dunk. You can make AMD’s case, especially if you care about power consumption. At stock settings, the Ryzen 9 7900 is much more efficient than the Intel option.
So you pay your money and you make your choice. For most gamers, the Intel option makes more sense most of the time. But this new lower power consumption from AMD makes it the most compelling Zen 4 based CPU ever.
