AMD Ryzen 5 9600X review - now my favorite budget gaming CPU

I can't fathom what AMD was thinking when it gave this CPU a bizarrely inflated $279 price tag when it first launched in 2024, but I'm very glad to see that the price has now plummeted to a much more sensible level. Not only that, but you can also now give the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X a power boost, as long as you have a decent CPU cooler. As such, I thought it was about time I put it through its paces in our benchmarks, in a full 9600X review, to see if it's now worth buying.

This AMD Zen 5 CPU picks up from where the Ryzen 5 7600X left off, and while it only has six cores, that's still plenty for most games, and those cores are also full-fat ones based on AMD's latest Zen 5 architecture. There's no 3D V-cache, as you'll find on AMD's pricier X3D chips, but at $192.99, this still looks like a decent foundation for a new gaming rig if you don't have huge amounts of cash to splash. Is this sub-$200 chip a new contender for our guide to buying the best gaming CPU? Let's find out.

Why you can trust our advice ✔ At PCGamesN, our experts spend hours testing hardware and reviewing games and VPNs. We share honest, unbiased opinions to help you buy the best. Find out how we test.

Specs

While it might not have any 3D V-cache, the 9600X still has a healthy 32MB allocation of L3 cache, which is double the 16MB you get on some budget AMD CPUs, and it also has a healthy 5.4GHz boost clock speed. That's a good 200MHz higher than the 9800X3D's peak clock speed, and it's also a 100MHz boost over the 7600X's 5.3GHz as well.

Meanwhile, its six Zen 5 cores support Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), meaning that this CPU can handle 12 concurrent threads. Nevertheless, this chip's specs are still at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to multi-threading power.

Comparatively, the Intel Core i5 14600K has six full-fat P-Cores that can also handle 12 threads with Hyper-Threading, but it also has another eight power-efficient E-Cores. As such, the Intel chip has the upper hand if you're looking for a budget CPU that's good for multi-threaded software, such as video encoding and 3D rendering, as well as games.

When it first came out, the Ryzen 5 9600X had a thermal design power (TDP) of 65W, meaning you would only need a modest CPU cooler to keep its temperature in check, with a corresponding drop in power draw. Comparatively, its predecessor, the Ryzen 5 7600X, has a TDP of 105W. On the one hand, thermal efficiency and low power draw are good news for the new CPU, but on the other hand, it was clear that there was untapped potential in the chip.

This led to the unlocking of a new 105W mode for the 9600X on some motherboards, which gives the CPU more thermal headroom and should enable it to maintain higher clock speeds when all its cores are engaged. I've tested it with both modes in this review to see what difference it makes. I found it made no difference whatsoever in our game tests (apart from increasing the peak temperature), but it had a significant impact in heavily multi-threaded application tests, such as Cinebench.

How we test

I've benchmarked the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X in our MSI X870E Carbon WiFi test motherboard, and I've also retested all the other current CPUs we've got in the PCGamesN lab, in order to make sure the comparison results are up to date. All the CPU test rigs use the same 32GB of (2 x 16GB) G.Skill TridentZ 5 Neo RGB 6,000MHz, CL28 RAM, as well as a 2TB WD Black SN850X SSD, Corsair H100x 240mm AIO cooler, Corsair RM1000x Shift PSU, and an Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Founders Edition graphics card.

All our tests were conducted using Windows 11 24H2, and with the latest BIOS version of the motherboard, which was version 7E49v1A64, with AGESA PI 1.2.0.3g, at the time of testing. The comparison Intel CPU tests in the graphs below were conducted using an Asus Z790 Dark Hero motherboard for LGA1700 CPUs, and an Asus TUF Z890-Plus WiFi for LGA1851 chips.

Game benchmarks

Let's start with Far Cry 6, which responds really well to extra CPU power and is a good showcase for this budget AMD gaming CPU. As you can see in the graph below, when running this game with the Ultra graphics preset at 1,920 x 1,080, its average is a good 14fps quicker than the Ryzen 5 7600X, and its minimum of 132fps is much more solid than the 109fps from the 7600X.

It can't catch the X3D CPUs with 3D V-cache, of course, but its performance is decent for the money. It's in a similar league to the competing Core i5 14600K in this test (the average is quicker, but the minimum is slower), and it's also faster than the pricier Core Ultra 7 265K from Intel's new Arrow Lake lineup.

Dropping this game's settings to High, which magnifies the difference between CPUs as the GPU isn't being challenged so hard, shows this CPU in an even better light. Unsurprisingly, it's still behind the X3D CPUs, but it's otherwise on top, with its 182fps average being well in front of the 165fps from the 7600X and the 14600K's 170fps.

Next up is a more challenging test for this six-core CPU, in the form of Total War: Warhammer III. The benchmarks for this game are now dominated by one of Intel's latest CPUs, following my recent Core Ultra 7 265K retest. In the Battle benchmark for this game, the 265K leads the pack, followed by the X3D CPUs, but the 9600X isn't far off the 7800X3D at all here, and it's a little ahead of the Core i5 14600K too.

Where this CPU doesn't cope quite so well is in this game's Mirrors or Madness benchmark, which sees loads of characters being chucked around in the air. With its 101fps average, the 9600X is definitely stronger than the 7600X on 90fps, but it lags behind the other CPUs in the graph below. In particular, the Core i5 14600K is a fair bit stronger in this test, as are the X3D chips.

These places were swapped in our Cyberpunk 2077 benchmarks, however. I ran this game at two settings, both using 1,920 x 1,080 as the resolution. The first test just runs the game at the High graphics preset, with no ray tracing or DLSS, and the 9600X copes really well here, despite having just six cores. As in the other tests, it's a fair way behind the X3D CPUs, but its 211fps average is quicker than the 186fps from the 14600K, and it's 5fps in front of the old 7600X as well.

The second test in this game runs it with the Ultra ray tracing preset, with DLSS upscaling on the Quality setting (but no frame gen), and again, the 9600X was strong for its price. Of course, it can't catch the X3D CPUs, but it's quicker than the Core Ultra 7 265K and the older 7600X, and its average is a good 8fps ahead of the 14600K, although its 97fps minimum is 4fps slower.

While the above three games do demonstrate differences between CPUs when it comes to frame rates, it's worth noting that, in many games, performance is mainly determined by the GPU, with the CPU having a minimal impact. This is demonstrated in our F1 24 benchmark, run at 1,920 with the Ultra graphics preset (but with DLSS disabled). Only 4fps separates the top and bottom CPUs in the graph below, and the 9600X's average of 154fps is solid, being only 3fps off the 9800X3D.

Application benchmarks

Of course, most people don't buy a desktop CPU just for gaming, and there are other areas of PC performance where the CPU has a massive impact. One of them is multi-threading, where all of a CPU's cores work hard together in parallel. Video encoding software, such as Handbrake, and 3D rendering software, such as Maxon Cinema 4D, make good use of multi-threading, and you really benefit from having lots of cores here.

I put the 9600X to the test in Cinebench R23 and R24 to see how well it can cope with these demands with just six cores, so let's start with the former. As you can see in the graph above, the Ryzen 5 9600X is a long way behind the CPUs with more cores in this test. This test also demonstrates a benefit of enabling the 105W TDP mode, which you should be able to unlock in your motherboard BIOS.

Running with its default TDP of 65W, the 9600X gets a score of 16,286, which is a good step up from the 7600X (despite the latter having a higher TDP), but the 23,990 scored by the Core i5 14600K is a good 47.3% faster, thanks to those eight extra E-Cores. If you up the TDP to 105W, this score then jumps to 17,437, which isn't far off the 17,990 from the eight-core Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Watching the clock speed, you could see that the 9600X was able to regularly boost all its cores to 5.25GHz using the 105W TDP, while it was regularly dropping to the 5GHz level (and below) with just the 65W TDP.

It's worth noting that the 9600X is strong for a six-core CPU here, thanks to the Zen 5 architecture. Comparatively, the six-core Intel Core i5 12400F only scores 12,371 in this test, with no E-Cores to help it along. The problem is that the 12400F is dirt-cheap, while the 9600X still costs nearly $200.

Cinebench R24 told a very similar story, with the Core i5 14600K scoring a solid 1,411, while the 9600X only scored 962 at 65W and 995 at 105W. The 9600X is definitely better than the 7600X when it comes to multi-threading, but there's no getting away from the fact that it's still just a six-core CPU, even if its six cores are very powerful.

The other important area to test, of course, is single-threaded performance, which largely stresses just one CPU core. Many games still rely on single-threaded performance for the most part, as do several applications. Not all workloads can be happily split across several CPU cores, and the 9600X is a strong single-threaded CPU, thanks to its Zen 5 architecture and 5.4GHz boost clock. As with the game tests, I saw no difference in performance in single-threaded application tests between the 65W and 105W modes.

As you can see in the Cinebench R23 single-core graph above, the Ryzen 5 9600X is second only to the Core Ultra 7 265K, with its score of 2,157, trouncing the X3D CPUs with their lower clock speeds, and also being a fair bit quicker than the Core i5 14600K. The same is also true in the newer Cinebench R24 benchmark, where the 9600X's score of 133 is exceptional for such a cheap CPU.

Power draw

Running at its default 65W TDP, the Ryzen 5 9600X is really power-efficient, with our system drawing just 183W from the mains while running the Cinebench R24 multi-threaded test. That's a good 29W less than the 7600X. It's also 119W less than the Core i5 14600K, although that's no surprise when you consider that the Intel chip has more cores and is also much faster in this test.

Increasing the TDP to 105W has a notable impact here, with our system then drawing 225W from the mains in the same test - an extra 42W. With this in mind, you can see why AMD originally set the TDP to 65W - the extra thermal headroom has a negligible impact on gaming, and it significantly increases the power draw in multi-threaded work. There is a performance gain, of course, but it's only worth it if multi-threaded performance is a priority.

Meanwhile, in games, our system drew a peak of 426W from the mains with the 9600X running Cyberpunk 2077. That's 27W less than the Core i5 14600K in the same test, but it's also more than the 415W with the lower-clocked 7600X or 7800X3D installed. Either way, it's about the level to be expected from a modern budget gaming CPU. It's certainly a long way off the sky-high results from the highly clocked Core i7 14700K and 14900K.

Temperature

As with the power draw, the surprisingly low temperature of the 9600X at its default 65W TDP gives you an insight into why AMD put this limit in place. Its peak of just 68°C while running Cinebench shows a super-cool chip that could be tamed by even a modest CPU cooler, but this goes all the way up to 81°C when you unlock the 105W TDP.

The peak of 66°C in our Cyberpunk 2077 gaming test is also a surprisingly low result, and this climbs to 72°C with the 105W TDP enabled. Basically, if you run this chip with its default TDP, it will stay really cool and still offer decent gaming performance.

Price

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X price is $192.99 at the moment, after tumbling from its original $279.99 MSRP at launch. At this price, it offers decent value for money for the gaming performance on offer, although the Core i5 14600K price is in a similar ballpark, with the 14600KF (which doesn't have an integrated GPU) undercutting it at $184.99 right now. If you want an all-rounder that can do gaming and multi-threading, then on the face of it, the 14600K is a better buy.

However, the 9600X is arguably a better investment than the 14600K, as you also need to consider the surrounding ecosystem, including the cost and lifespan of a new motherboard. If you already own an LGA1700 system, perhaps based on a Core i5 12400F, then it makes sense to flash the BIOS on your motherboard and buy the Core i5 14600K.

However, if you're planning to buy a whole new motherboard from scratch, then the Socket AM5 platform used by the Ryzen 5 9600X has a lot more life left in it than the Intel LGA1700 socket, which Intel is no longer supporting.

Alternatives

Intel Core i5 14600K

With its eight E-Cores providing vastly superior multi-threading performance to the Ryzen 5 9600X, the Core i5 14600K is a better all-arounder at this price if you want to run multi-threaded application software as well as games. The Ryzen 5 9600X is stronger when it comes to single-threaded and gaming performance, as well as the upgrade potential of Socket AM5, but the 14600K is still a great option, especially if you already own an LGA1700 system.

Read our full Intel Core i5 14600K review.

Intel Core i5 13400F

If you're looking to build a gaming PC on a really tight budget, then this ten-core gaming CPU is remarkably potent for the money. Unlike its predecessor, the 12400F, it comes with four E-Cores to give it a leg-up in multi-threaded software, while its six P-Cores cover the basics in games. Unlike the 14600K, it can't be overclocked, and its top boost clock of 4.6GHz isn't that high, but it's surprisingly capable for the money, especially in games.

Best of all, it's extremely cheap, with prices often below the $129.99 mark. Meanwhile, the later Core i5 1400F is basically the same chip, but with a slightly higher 4.7GHz clock speed.

Read our full Intel Core i5 13400F review.

Verdict

Thanks to a hefty price drop, the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is now a great budget gaming CPU. For under $200, it gives you six powerful Zen 5 cores with a peak 5.4GHz boost clock, giving you strong frame rates for a surprisingly low price. You can also now unlock its TDP to improve its multi-threading performance, although I personally wouldn't bother. If you want better multi-threading performance, you'd be better off buying the Intel Core i5 14600K, or an eight-core Ryzen chip, and keeping this CPU's TDP at 65W still gives you decent gaming performance, along with low temperatures and power draw.

The main problem for this chip, of course, is its comparative lack of cores. It only has six of them, while Intel's competing Core i5 chips have many E-Cores helping to improve multi-threading performance. The situation is made more complicated by the fact that Intel isn't producing any new LGA1700 gaming CPUs, though, and its latest Arrow Lake chips aren't great for gaming. Buying a new LGA1700 CPU and motherboard now would be investing in a moribund ecosystem, and it looks as though Intel's forthcoming Nova Lake CPUs will yet again use another new socket.

As such, if you're looking to build a new budget PC and gaming is your top priority, the Ryzen 5 9600X is the better choice, as it gives you a clear upgrade path and stronger gaming performance. However, if you already own an LGA1700 board, I'd instead buy the 14600K, as you then won't need to buy a new motherboard, and the 14600K is a better all-rounder, especially if you regularly run multi-threaded software.

If you're planning to upgrade, check out our guide to buying the best gaming motherboard so you can find a good home for your 9600X, as well as our best CPU cooler guide - you won't need to spend big to keep this super-cool chip under control.