On the surface, there is a great deal to like about the new AMD Ryzen 7 7700 as a proposition. First, the 8-core, 16-thread chip is more than capable of handling almost everything except gaming and professional-level content creation.

What's more, like its sibling, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X (opens in new tab), it is a single-die, 8-core chip without any of the performance compromises associated with AMD's more expensive 12- and 16-core CPUs and their dual-die configurations.

It is also significantly cheaper than the existing Ryzen 7 7700X, ostensibly much more efficient, with little or no reduction in speed. And by significantly cheaper, we mean that: the 7700X costs $399, whereas the existing 7700 costs $329. What's more, this $329 price includes the AMD Wraith CPU cooler, which is not included with the 7700X. Excellent.

Even better, unlike Intel processors, all AMD chips are unlocked. This means that there is an attractive prospect of running this inexpensive 7700 chip at 7700X speeds. What's not to like?

That's what we're here to find out. But first, let's discuss speed and feeds. Architecturally, the AMD Ryzen 7 is a melon with the 7700X model: the same 8-core CPU die manufactured with TSMC 5nm technology, plus a 6nm I/O die, and a mini-GPU that is a perfect backup in case of a temporary shortage of suitable graphics cards On-board.

It plugs into the same AM5 socket, has 8MB of L2 and 32MB of L3 cache memory, and supports the same DDR5 memory at speeds up to 5200. The difference is in two aspects: clock and power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 7700X has a base clock of 4.5 GHz and a boost clock of 5.4 GHz, while the Non-X 7700 has a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a boost clock of 5.3 GHz. If these base clock numbers seem like a big step down, it is worth remembering that these chips rarely run at these low numbers under load.

As for power consumption, the TDP of the Full Fat X models is 105W, while the rated power consumption of the newer non-X chips is 65W. This is a big difference. But if this 65W figure looks familiar, that's because the 7700X also runs at 65W when switching to Eco mode. And, as we found with the 7700X, Eco mode works surprisingly well, producing significant power and heat savings at a fraction of the performance cost.

If you have high hopes for this new chip, spoiler alert, the new 65W Ryzen 7700 non-X will live up to those expectations in a big way. In a series of benchmarks we ran, this new low-power 65W CPU performed nearly as well as its 105W sibling.

In pure CPU tests such as Cinebench 3D multi-core rendering, the more expensive "X" model is no more than 5 percent faster; when Cinebench is limited to a single core, it is only 0.25 percent faster. Similarly, x264 video encoding is only 1.5 percent faster on the more expensive 7700X.

All of this is roughly consistent with the fact that the 7700X runs at about 5.15 GHz with a full multicore load, whereas the newer non-X 7700s typically run at 4.9 GHz. Of course, there are some outliers. For example, Blender rendering is about 9% faster on the 7700X.

As for games, if anything, the gap is even smaller. In fact, thanks to running slightly newer Nvidia drivers on our RTX 3080 test rig GPU, we saw better frame rates on the newer, cheaper chip.

Of course, it's not faster for gaming, but it's almost certainly closer to the point where choosing the graphics driver version is more important than whether you have a Ryzen 7 7700 or a 7700X. The difference is very small.

Either way, of course, you get a great gaming chip. In fact, if we were to limit our comparison to AMD's choices, we would definitely choose this non-X model. Even more so considering that it is fully unlocked.

Gaming Performance

Compute and System Performance

We had no problems overclocking to 5.3GHz all-core with the included AMD Wraith cooler. This is faster than the factory-clocked 7700X. Similarly, when run at factory clocks, the new non-X is very efficient; it can get nearly all the performance of the 7700X with less power consumption.

At all-core load, the new non-X 7700 consumes only 90 watts, compared to 143 watts for the 7700X. A slight increase in clocking offers little performance benefit.

Of course, an easier choice than the X model does not make this the best CPU in the $329 price range; there is the problem of the Intel Core i5 13600K (open in new tab) monitor. As a gaming chip, the 13600K will generally be faster.

To give you an example, the 13600K records 171 fps on Far Cry 6 compared to 140 fps on the Ryzen 7 7700. However, the difference is generally smaller than that.

Where the Intel chip's 14-core hybrid architecture really comes into its own is in more traditional multi-core loads like Cinebench and Blender. 13600K scored 24,051 points in Cinebench R23, beating 7700's 18,591 points over the 7700's 18,591 points. This is a huge advantage for Intel CPUs.

Looking purely at CPUs, we would take Intel's choice. It gets a bit more complicated when we look at the broader platform issue; AMD's current desktop platform, with its extensive support for PCIe 5.0 peripherals, definitely favors AMD in the long run.

The rest will largely come down to personal needs and issues such as motherboard prices. This new AMD CPU is indeed a great gaming chip. In fact, in-game, you won't even notice the difference compared to the slightly faster Intel options. But as an all-around CPU, that tricky Intel hybrid architecture still has the edge.