• Home
  • Blog
  • Testing the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F processor without a graphics core for the AM5 platform

Testing the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F processor without a graphics core for the AM5 platform

30.01.2024 08:43

AMD's Ryzen 7000 processors were introduced in September of the year before last, and since then there have been several models released, including flagships with additional cache, mid-range and dedicated options such as the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which became the best gaming processor. The new Ryzen 7000 line promises strong performance, but even base models like the Ryzen 5 7600 and Ryzen 5 7600X are priced at over $200.

The market situation shows that many companies avoid releasing budget solutions, providing consumers with outdated models of previous generations. This applies not only to processors, but also to video cards. Initial Ryzen 7000 models for the Socket AM5 platform cost over $200, which led to the need to offer more affordable options.

With the introduction of the Ryzen 5 7500F, AMD is addressing this issue by offering a more affordable processor to experience with the new Socket AM5 platform. This processor does not have a built-in video core, which may not be significant for users using additional graphics solutions. The price difference between the Ryzen 5 7500F and the next closest model, the Ryzen 5 7600, is about 20%, making the Ryzen 5 7500F an attractive choice for those who don't need maximum power.

AMD took a similar naming approach to Intel, adding an F suffix to denote the lack of an integrated GPU. However, unlike Intel, AMD didn't just add an F to the model number, but made small changes to the specifications, such as reducing the base and turbo frequencies by 100 MHz.

Key benefits of the Ryzen 7000 line include a multi-chip layout, an improved branch predictor, larger buffers and register files, and support for the AVX-512 instruction set. All of these factors contribute to improved performance over the previous generation, and the Ryzen 5 7500F looks like a winner in its price segment, providing access to the new Zen 4 architecture at a more affordable price.

Ryzen 5 7500F processor and competitors

The Ryzen 5 7500F has only one immediate predecessor — the Ryzen 5 5500. Both processors are based on the same eight-core chiplet, where two cores have been deactivated. The production of the Ryzen 5 7500F may use defective chips with low frequencies or even I/O chiplets with a non-working video core. However, in other aspects there are no differences from other processors: the Ryzen 5 7500F has a full 32 MB of third-level cache and the same memory controller with an ideal DDR5-6000 frequency, like older models.

The base frequency of the new processor is slightly higher than the Ryzen 5 5500, being 3.7 GHz, and the maximum frequency has been increased to 5.0 GHz and even higher in practice. This is a noticeable improvement over the Ryzen 5 5500 model, which had a base frequency of 3.6 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.2 GHz. However, when multi-threaded, the Ryzen 5 7500F can drop to 4.8 GHz, which is still lower than the more powerful models in the lineup.

When compared to the older Ryzen 5 7600X, the Ryzen 5 7500F has a slightly lower turbo frequency. Despite this, the 7500F's power consumption limit is lower, resulting in reaching that limit faster. As a result, the older processor sometimes runs at higher frequencies than the Ryzen 5 7500F. However, the ability to set the power limit to the same level as the 7600X provides some customization for users.

Comparing the characteristics of the Ryzen 5 7500F with other six-core Ryzen models of previous generations and with similar Intel processors from the last two generations demonstrates the competitiveness of the model in its price segment.

ModelTechnical process, nmCores
Base frequency, GHzTurbo frequency, GHzL2+L3 cache, MBMemoryEnergy consumption, WRec. price, $
Ryzen 5 7600X5/66/124.75.36+32DDR5-5200105/142299
Ryzen 5 76005/66/123.85.16+32DDR5-520065/88229
Ryzen 5 7500F5/66/123.75.06+32DDR5-520065/88179
Ryzen 5 5600X7/126/123.74.63+32DDR4-320065/88299
Ryzen 5 56007/126/123.54.43+32DDR4-320065199
Ryzen 5 55007/126/123.64.23+16DDR4-320065159
Core i5-13600K(KF)106+8/203.55.120+24DDR5-5600/
125/181319 (294)
Core i5-13400(F)106+4/
65/154221 (196)
Core i5-12600K(KF)106+4/
125/150289 (264)
Core i5-12600106/
Core i5-12400(F)106/
65/117192 (167)

While a few years ago AMD processors stood out for their large number of cores and superiority in multi-threaded tasks, in the latest generations of Core processors, Intel introduced a hybrid architecture with efficient small cores, offering even more cores. The six-core Ryzen 5 7500F is up against the Core i5-12600K and the Core i5-13400(F) with ten cores. The main competitors for the Ryzen 5 7500F are the Core i5-12400F and Core i5-13400F, with the former being more affordable and the latter being slightly more expensive.

Intel processors may offer more cores, but their multi-threaded frequencies are relatively low, around 4 GHz. This gives the Ryzen 5 7500F an advantage in low-threaded applications and games where higher frequencies can make a difference. The Core i5-12600K(KF) is also a strong competitor, although it is closer in price to the Ryzen 5 7600. In any case, the Ryzen 5 7500F stands out with a higher maximum clock speed.

When it comes to cache, 13th Gen Core processors such as the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400(F) have limited cache capacity due to the Alder Lake architecture. While each Zen 4 core in the Ryzen 5 7500F has its own 1 MB L2 cache, having access to a shared 32 MB L3 cache. This advantage in overall L2 and L3 space makes the Ryzen 5 7500F a viable choice, especially in gaming scenarios.

The Ryzen 5 7500F processor only supports DDR5 memory, unlike the last three generations of Intel solutions, which also support DDR4. Officially, the Ryzen 5 7500F is compatible with DDR5-5200 memory, which is better than the 12th generation Core processors, but inferior to the 13th generation with its stated support for DDR5-5600. However, Zen 4 processors demonstrate good compatibility with modules operating at an effective frequency of 6000 MHz and having EXPO or XMP profiles. The above values have limited meaning, as higher frequencies will force the memory controller into 2:1 mode, negatively impacting performance and not compensating for the increase in DDR5 frequency.

Unlike the higher-end Ryzen 5 7600X, low-profile integrated coolers come in the box with lower-end variants, including the Ryzen 5 7500F, to ensure adequate cooling. AMD also claims that the new AM5 platform processors can safely reach temperatures up to 95 degrees Celsius, which does not pose a threat to their performance even during long-term use. However, air cooling is not considered in this context, so as not to introduce processors into unequal conditions.

The main question facing us today is whether to choose the Ryzen 5 7500F over other six-core AMD models like the 7600X or 7600, their competitors? This is interesting because there are virtually no differences between the Ryzen 5 7500F and 7600, and the Ryzen 5 7600X is not far behind them. If you compare the most expensive and cheapest models with a six-core configuration, the difference in turbo frequencies is only 300 MHz, which is slightly more than 5%. The cache and memory modules supported are the same, and the same external devices are supported, including PCIe 5.0 devices. Let's move on to comparing the performance of the Ryzen 5 7500F with the results of other AMD and Intel processor models that are in a similar price range.

Performance testing

Test systems and conditions

  • Processors:
    • AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (6 cores/12 threads, 3.7 — 5.0 GHz)
    • AMD Ryzen 5 7600X (6 cores/12 threads, 4.7 — 5.3 GHz)
    • Intel Core i5-12600K (6P+4E cores/16 threads, 3.7—4.9 GHz)
    • Intel Core i5-13400F (6P+4E cores/16 threads, 2.5—4.6 GHz)
  • Cooling system: AeroCool Mirage L360 (LCS 3×120 mm, 2300/1800 rpm)
  • Motherboards:
    • Gigabyte X670 Aorus Elite AX (AM5, AMD X670)
    • ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Hero (LGA1700, Intel Z790)
    • ASRock Z790 LiveMixer (LGA1700, Intel Z790)
  • RAM:
    • 32 GB (2x16 GB) DDR5-5200 CL40 G.Skill Ripjaws S5 (F5-5200U4040A16GX2-RS5W)
    • 32 GB (2x16 GB) DDR5-6200 CL40 Patriot Viper Venom (PVV532G620C40K)
  • Video cards:
    • Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 6800 XT (16 GB)
    • Palit GeForce RTX 4090 GameRock OC (24 GB)
  • Drive: Kingston KC2000 SSD 2 TB (SKC2000M8/2000G)
  • Power supply: Chieftec Polaris Pro 1300 (PPX-1300FC-A3) (80 Plus Platinum, 1300 W)
  • Operating system: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro (22H2)

To test the processors, several high-performance motherboards were selected for each platform. Each of them was equipped with a sufficient amount of RAM operating at the optimal frequency officially supported by all processors — in this case DDR5-5200. However, for specific testing in games, a more powerful memory kit with a DDR5-6000 XMP profile and CL36 latencies was chosen.

The most interesting is a comparison of the Ryzen 5 7500F with a processor from the same family that has similar characteristics — the Ryzen 5 7600X. These models differ in frequency and maximum power consumption parameters that limit performance. Among Intel processors of similar price and class, the comparison considers the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F, which are quite close to each other in terms of characteristics. Memory settings for all systems were taken from XMP/EXPO profiles, and the power limits of the processors correspond to their specifications, and not the settings of the motherboard manufacturers.

In most tests, we continue to use the previous generation AMD video card, since at the time of the tests we did not have access to the new Radeon and GeForce. The Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers plenty of performance and renders fast at low resolutions compared to its Nvidia competitors. However, in the new gaming tests discussed in this material, we have already used the more powerful GeForce RTX 4090 graphics card to achieve the maximum level of performance.

Synthetic tests

Memory and caching performance

The performance of the cache system and DDR5 memory on modern Ryzen processors is noticeably lower compared to the Intel processors presented in this test. Competing processor models in this scenario demonstrate higher performance in all key parameters, especially read and copy speed. It was already mentioned earlier that the efficiency of the DDR5 memory controller in AMD processors clearly leaves much to be desired. These findings are based on the results of memory and cache tests conducted using the AIDA64 and Sandra software packages. It is important to note that all processors were set to the same conditions, including DDR5-5200 mode.

Ryzen 5 7500F
Ryzen 5 7600X
Core i5-12600K
Core i5-13400F

As can be seen from the AIDA64 benchmark results, the pair of Intel processors demonstrate an advantage over both six-core Ryzen models in the area of memory bandwidth. Both Core i5s perform more efficiently in this parameter. In relation to RAM access latencies, the difference is already insignificant; they are close for the Core i5 pair and both Ryzens, although a slight advantage can be noted for AMD processors. Moving on to visualizing the results in a convenient graphical format:

Ryzen 5 7500X and 7600X using DDR5-5200 demonstrate the same speed in three subtests, indicating the identity of the memory controllers. Read speeds for AMD processors were approximately 58 GB/s, which is slightly faster than the previous generation of Ryzen using DDR4 memory. However, this also differs from Intel processors, where with the same memory and similar settings, read speeds reach 76-77 GB/s. AMD's DDR5 memory controller may not be the best at the moment, which may be why Zen 4 processors don't perform as well as they could in some tests.

For many years, increases in computing power have outpaced increases in memory performance. Processors have resorted to using more complex caches to provide performance improvements without being limited by relatively slow memory. Both Intel and AMD use a three-level caching scheme: each core has a small L1 cache and its own larger L2 cache to reduce L3 cache latency. The L3 cache, in turn, is shared by multiple cores. Cache latency and bandwidth are important parameters in this context.

In our study, the latency of the Ryzen 5 7500F cache subsystem turns out to be almost the same as that of the older 7600X model. However, there is a slight difference in favor of the latter. The L1 data cache latency of the six-core Ryzen 5 7500F is quite low — 0.8 ns, and the L2 cache has a latency of 3.0 ns. Zen 4 also reduced the latency of the L3 cache, and in the 7500F this value was higher than in the older model — more than 11 ns. Across all cache memory levels, AMD processors demonstrate approximately one and a half times lower latencies compared to Intel Core i5. Memory latency for both Ryzen processors is identical and slightly lower than Core i5 when using the same memory kit with the same parameters.

In addition to access latencies to cache levels, throughput is also important, especially for vectorized code. Despite the architectural changes in Zen 4, the core caches remain largely unchanged, and their throughput also remains at the level of Zen 3 and Zen 2. The improvements in L1 and L2 cache throughput come down to increased clock speeds. L3 throughput has improved slightly, likely due to an increase in queue size between L2 and L3. Let's look at the results of the throughput test of all levels of cache memory from AIDA64.

The Zen 4 architecture's cache memory is faster at all levels compared to the previous generation, especially the L3 cache. Increasing the operating frequency of new processors also improves the overall cache bandwidth. In particular, the Ryzen 5 7500F has a total bandwidth of all cache memory levels in the test that is slightly lower than the older version of the Ryzen 5 7600X, which is quite logical. While competing products such as the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F are close to each other and have better L1 cache performance, they are noticeably inferior in terms of L2 and L3 cache throughput.

Synthetic tests Sandra

Performance tests conducted using purely synthetic benchmarks from packages such as Sandra and AIDA64 provide the ability to evaluate low-level performance on specialized tasks. Although somewhat general, these tests can be useful for evaluating performance in certain scenarios. Due to unknown reasons, the Sandra test refused to work on a system with a Core i5-13400F processor. Instead, we used the more powerful and expensive Core i5-13600K in these tests, which, however, is not a price competitor to the AMD processor in question.

The first group of tests shows the relative performance in various tasks, and also calculates the overall CPU Overall score obtained from all the results. The Ryzen 5 7500F is 5% inferior to the older 7600X model, which corresponds to the difference in maximum clock speeds. The comparatively more powerful Core i5-13600K, although a relative choice for comparison, is also ahead of the 7500F in almost all subtests, with the exception of neural networks.

One of the direct price competitors, the Core i5-12600K, is inferior in half of the tests and superior in cryptography and scientific computing. In general, the result for the processor in question is expected: it is close to one of its main competitors in price. In other subtests of the same package, AMD shows an advantage, especially in multimedia tasks:

These tests reflect media processing performance, and in this case the budget six-core Ryzen 5 7500F lags even further behind the 7600X, by about 7%. It can be seen that it lacks frequency and reaches its energy consumption limit earlier. In these tests, increasing the number of cores does not bring significant benefits to Intel processors: even the Core i5-13600K is faster than today's processor in only one of the tests. The outdated Core i5-12600K from the generation before last turns out to be the slowest in this context. However, it should be noted that these tests are purely synthetic and specialized, which makes them preferable for AMD processors. Let's look at tests from another universal package, where the Core i5-13400F will again compete with the Ryzen 5 7500F.

Synthetic AIDA64 tests

These tests are also purely synthetic and are designed to demonstrate performance on tasks with a specific specialization. For example, the CPU Queen test uses integer operations to solve a classic chess problem, and the AES test measures the encryption speed using the cryptographic algorithm of the same name:

Support for DDR5 memory, increased clock speeds, and optimization of power consumption significantly contributed to the high results of the current generation Ryzen processors. Despite the slight lag in the total number of processing cores from similar Intel processors, Ryzen performs very convincingly and exceeds our expectations. The Ryzen 5 7500F being reviewed today is about 7% inferior to the 7600X, which is in line with our assumptions. While the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F's results were a little less impressive, perhaps the Core i5-13600K could come closer to the Ryzen 5 7600X.

The first two tests in the diagram also involve integer operations for image processing and information compression, and SHA3 is a cryptographic algorithm. In these specific tests, Intel processors typically perform better than comparable Ryzen models. This is especially noticeable in the image processing test, where both Core i5s significantly outperform both Ryzens. The Ryzen 5 7500F, introduced today, is almost as good as the 7600X in the first two subtests, but loses to the older model in the third subtest, as expected, by 7%. The advantage of this six-core processor over Intel processors can be seen only in one of the subtests — the encryption algorithm, and when it comes to information compression, it is close to the Core i5-13400F.

The third and most extensive set of tests in AIDA64 includes testing of floating point performance, including instructions for all SSE and AVX/AVX2 variants. AMD processors typically perform well in these tests, and although the Ryzen 5 7500F is inferior to the higher-performing Ryzen 5 7600X, the difference is only about 5%. While the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F are noticeably behind, significantly losing to today's AMD processor in all subtests.

Benchmark CPU-Z

The CPU-Z test, another synthetic benchmark that we included in this category, is close to the rendering tests and provides an opportunity to effectively compare single-threaded and multi-threaded processor performance. For Ryzen 7000 processors, a variant of the AVX-512 test was used, which allowed for a slight increase in performance compared to other processors.

In the area of peak single-threaded performance, AMD processors were again inferior to their competitors. The results of the CPU-Z test confirm this: both Core i5s, when using AVX instructions, proved to be faster than even the Ryzen 5 7600X, while without using this set of instructions they were inferior only to the older six-core model. It is obvious that the Ryzen 5 7500F does not reach the higher frequencies characteristic of the 7600X, and the low-end model lags significantly behind in this aspect. Let's take a look at how processors handle multi-threaded workloads, where even more interesting features can emerge.

In the area of peak single-threaded performance, AMD processors were again inferior to their competitors. The results of the CPU-Z test confirm this: both Core i5s, when using AVX instructions, proved to be faster than even the Ryzen 5 7600X, while without using this set of instructions they were inferior only to the older six-core model. It is obvious that the Ryzen 5 7500F does not reach the higher frequencies characteristic of the 7600X, and the low-end model lags significantly behind in this aspect. Let's take a look at how processors handle multi-threaded workloads, where even more interesting features can emerge.

As expected, the results of multi-threaded tests are close to the older six-core Ryzen 5 7600X model. In the normal test without and with AVX instructions, the Ryzen 5 7500F shows noticeable convergence with the Ryzen 5 7600X, trailing by 8%. Compared to multi-core competitors from Intel, the performance of the six-core processor in multi-threaded tasks is not so impressive. The processor we are reviewing today is inferior to everyone, including the Core i5-13400F. Test results using AVX clearly demonstrate that Intel's hybrid strategy with a large number of heterogeneous cores in multi-threaded tasks has its justification.

General tests

Let's move on to more specific tests that evaluate system performance in various application tasks. One example of such tests is PCMark 10. This approach has its advantages (easily assessing a single value for the entire spectrum of software) and disadvantages (trying to cover too wide a range, which may not be entirely ideal), but nevertheless it is widely used for testing processors.

The Ryzen 5 7500F processor shows results almost on par with the Ryzen 5 7600X in the PCMark 10 test, despite the lower clock speed of the latter. Many subtests in this test do not use a significant number of threads, which means that performance is weakly dependent on the number of cores. The main improvement in performance is observed in the gaming subtest, as well as in applications for processing digital content, while office workloads, as a rule, are not highly multi-threaded. Intel's Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F also perform close to both Ryzen processors in this test, with the exception of the legacy gaming subtest, which doesn't take full advantage of all of the Intel processors' compute cores.

In the second benchmark test, 3DMark CPU Profile, which is more focused on gaming performance, the Ryzen 5 7500F is expected to underperform the Ryzen 5 7600X by more than 10% due to its lower clock speed. However, the processor performs better in multi-threaded mode. Overall, the results are good for a budget six-core processor, but there is a slight lag in single-threaded tasks, which is important, especially for games.

Comparing with Intel processors, it is not surprising that the Ryzen 5 7500F processor being reviewed today loses in single-threaded computing to everyone — both the Core i5-12600K and the Core i5-13400F, although the lag in the latter case is small. However, in multi-threaded tasks, the Ryzen 5 7500F turns out to be the least productive in this comparison, significantly lagging behind its competitors. When the load is distributed across all cores, the 7500F lags behind the Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F, which, in addition to six physical cores, also have four effective threads, which brings additional benefit in such use cases.

Additional 3DMark CPU tests often include physics calculations that are capable of multi-threading, although with varying degrees of efficiency. As a result, the Ryzen 5 7500F loses too significantly to the older 7600X model in two tests that can be considered single-threaded, but in other, more multi-threaded tests, the lag is not so great. As for the Intel processors, they were faster than the Ryzen 5 7500F in all tests, indicating that Intel processors have an advantage in these types of tasks, especially due to their hybrid architecture with more processing cores.

Concluding the section with tests, let's look at the results of the JetStream 2.0 benchmark, which measures the performance of executing JavaScript and WebAssembly code in the browser. To conduct the tests, we used an updated version of Microsoft Edge running on the Chromium engine. This benchmark does not rely heavily on multi-threading, but is still not purely single-threaded. The Ryzen 5 7500F is slightly inferior to the 7600X, but the difference is small. Intel processors with multiple cores do a little worse at this task, but you probably won't notice much of the difference during everyday web surfing. The Core i5-12600K and 13400F are close to each other and both are slightly inferior to the budget Ryzen processor in question.


Rendering benchmarks are challenging for modern processors due to the multi-threaded nature of the ray tracing workload. Modern processors, trying to maintain the highest possible frequencies, consume a significant amount of energy and are subject to high heat. In these tests, deficiencies in the cooling or power system (for example, an unsatisfactory motherboard or power supply) are most evident. During testing, it is necessary to maintain a stable ambient temperature to ensure a fair comparison, as high-end processors quickly reach their thermal limits, which can lead to lower frequencies.

AMD and Intel often use Cinebench to benchmark the performance of their processors against competitors, as similar rendering workloads are handled efficiently by having more cores and threads. Historically, Ryzen processors have excelled in this test, allowing AMD to demonstrate the benefits of its solutions. Then, when Intel processors began to outperform competitors in the number of processing cores and threads, this company also began to actively use Cinebench results to highlight the merits of its products.

Three Blender test scenes showed minor differences between the Ryzen 5 7500F and Ryzen 5 7600X, with the 7600X's overall advantage being only 1%-3%, consistent with previously seen results in multi-threaded workloads. Compared to its Intel competitors, the Ryzen 5 7500F performed close to the Core i5-13400F in terms of rendering speed in this test, while the lag behind the higher-end and cost-effective Core i5-12600K was significant. Considering the budget price of the Ryzen 5 7500F, its rendering performance is quite acceptable.

In the Corona rendering test, which measures the time it takes to render a single frame, the Ryzen 5 7500F was slightly slower than its larger six-core sibling, the 7600X, with a lag of only 4%. It's remarkable that the 7500F turned out to be the slowest among the processors in this test, and even the Core i5-13400F was ahead of the new product by 5 seconds, which may be due to the large number of cores in the latter. On the other hand, the Core i5-12600K showed even better performance, and in particular in the rendering area, Intel processors were preferable.

In the VRay benchmark, which measures image rendering performance across three 3D rendering scenes, the Ryzen 5 7500F was only 2% behind the 7600X, which is to be expected under multi-threaded workloads. AMD's relatively affordable six-core processor slightly outperformed the Core i5-13400F, while the Core i5-12600K was ahead of both Intel processors.

Working with photos and videos

Now let's move on to the testing section, which includes several programs for processing media data such as photos and videos. This context covers practical tasks such as exporting hundreds of high-resolution RAW images totaling approximately 3 GB in Adobe Lightroom Classic. Many professional photographers perform similar tasks regularly.

Traditionally, Intel processors demonstrate better performance in this test compared to competitors from AMD. However, in this case, the results of the pair Intel Core i5-12600K and Ryzen 5 7600X were similar, while the Core i5-13400F was only a second behind both models, losing to our today's hero — the Ryzen 5 7500F. This analysis confirms that in the case of Adobe Lightroom, multi-threaded performance is not a determining factor, since the difference between AMD processors is only 6%. It's probably more like a single threaded or weakly parallel task. Let's also look at the results in the video editor from the same company.

Let's move on to the next test, Handbrake, which is a package for converting video data to other formats. In this case, we took the original H.264 video and re-encoded it to H.265. The Ryzen 5 7500F processor in question showed results almost on par with its older model, losing only 3%. However, competitors from Intel, Core i5-12600K and Core i5-13400F, are located on different sides: the first one turned out to be faster, and the second one was the slowest.

Let's continue with the second video transcoding test — SVT-AV1, which uses the AV1 format — a relatively new open standard. This time, the Ryzen 5 7500F processor showed itself to be 5%-7% slower compared to its older counterpart, the 7600X, which indicates a lower number of active threads. In this task, optimization for a specific architecture plays a decisive role, and the project used was compiled without optimization for the new AMD processors. This explains why the 7500F was beaten not only by the more powerful and expensive Core i5-12600K, but also by the 13400F. However, there is reason to believe that the situation will change in the next test.

The final step in this section is the Topaz Video Enhance AI test. This application is used to improve video quality using artificial intelligence capabilities. The challenge involves high-intensity computing, including high-quality resolution upscaling using the Artemis High Quality algorithm from Full HD to 4K resolution. In this test, Ryzen 7000 processors demonstrate their Zen 4 capabilities using AVX-512 instructions. The budget six-core AMD processor, despite being 7% behind the older Ryzen 5 7600X model, demonstrated an impressive advantage over Intel processors. The direct competitor, the Core i5-13400F, is almost one and a half times behind.

Cryptographic tests

Let's move on to another important section dedicated to testing processor performance — cryptography tasks. Modern CPUs are capable of encrypting large amounts of data on the fly, with some even supporting special instructions for popular algorithms such as AES. In the first test, we will look at John The Ripper — this is a free software for recovering passwords using hashes that can take advantage of all the capabilities of modern processors.

In such tests, it seems that the number of processing cores should be of decisive importance, but not only that, an efficient architecture with a high clock frequency is also important. However, our six-core processor under review today is inferior to the Ryzen 5 7600X by too much, up to 10%, which likely indicates its earlier focus on power consumption. Compared to a couple of competitors from Intel, the Ryzen 5 7500F outperformed both in the first pair of subtests and only lost to them in the case of the Blowfish algorithm.

VeraCrypt is on-the-fly data encryption software that uses a variety of encryption algorithms and can take advantage of hardware-accelerated encryption on the processor. In our tests with a 1 GB buffer, the older Ryzen 5 7600X showed an advantage over the Ryzen 5 7500F in question by only 4%, which indicates a multi-threaded load. When compared against the Core i5-12600K and 13400F, AMD's budget processor came close to the latter, but fell short of the 12600K in both tests.

The latest cryptographic test is cpuminer-opt. This is a CPU mining program that also includes cryptographic calculations. It is well optimized for execution on modern CPUs. For tests, we chose the x25x algorithm, used in some cryptocurrencies. For comparison, we used the best result from several optimized miner options using instruction sets: SSE2, AVX2, AVX-512, as well as hardware support for AES and SHA.

The Ryzen 5 7500F processor logically demonstrated more modest results, inferior to the 7600X by about 3%-5%. Intel processors were also ahead of the model in question, although the Core i5-13400F was not so different. This is understandable, since the number of processing cores plays a key role in such tests, and Intel processors have additional efficient cores. The older Intel processor in comparison demonstrated excellent performance in all modes, becoming the leader in the comparison.

Compression and decompression

The processes of compressing and decompressing data in archives are widely known to most users, as well as popular archivers, among which one of the most common is WinRAR. To evaluate performance, we used the archiver's built-in benchmark, which measures the maximum data compression speed.

In previous WinRAR tests, the results also indicated that AMD processors exhibit excellent performance in information compression tasks. The Ryzen 5 7500F processor was no exception and demonstrated outstanding performance. Its performance is significantly superior to similar priced Core i5 solutions from Intel, and here the difference is not limited to a few percent — Intel processors are inferior by more than 25%! When compared to the higher-clocked Ryzen 5 7600X, the older processor is a whopping 8% faster, which represents a significant advantage, especially in the multi-threaded test.

The second archiver, 7-zip, although less popular, provides an interesting feature in the form of support for more efficient and demanding compression methods. In the graphs we see similar trends as in the previous test, but the relative results of AMD processors have worsened slightly. Still, the Ryzen 5 7500F shows good results, despite the lack of a clear victory. The six-core 7600X performs better in both decompression and compression, but the difference is only 3%. When unpacked, it has an advantage over the Core i5, but when compressed, the AMD processor in question is slightly inferior to the Core i5-12600K, perhaps due to the latter's higher core count.

Math tests

We'll look at a section on conventional math problems, starting with Y-Cruncher, a program for calculating the number π. Of particular interest is this program's support for AVX-512 instructions, as well as optimization for the Zen 4 architecture in the latest version, which we used for testing. Let's check how successfully the authors managed to carry out optimization.

We conducted a test of calculating a billion digits of the number π in single-threaded and multi-threaded modes. In the first task, the Ryzen 5 7500F performed significantly worse than the 7600X, exceeding the difference of 11%. This is due to the noticeable difference in turbo frequency in single-thread mode, while the consumption level is not limited. Intel processors performed even worse in single-threaded mode, with the Core i5-13400F performing the worst and the 12600K tied with the 7500F.

However, in such applications, multi-threaded mode is more interesting, where AMD processors retain the advantage. The Ryzen 5 7500F, a budget six-core processor, was inferior to the older model 7600X by only 6% in multi-threading, which is considered normal. Intel processors, despite a nominally larger number of processing cores, showed weaker performance, and the Core i5-12400F even lost to today's hero in multi-threading, while the Core i5-12600K turned out to be very close to the Ryzen in question.

The Matlab benchmark built into the system is difficult to consider as a comprehensive test due to its outdated nature and fast execution on modern processors. The results of this test can vary significantly between runs. However, it demonstrated that the Ryzen 5 7500F is quite close to the performance of the 7600X with a similar architecture and core count. The six-core processor performs well in this test, but comparisons with Intel processors such as the Core i5-12600K and 13400F are difficult because Intel has the advantage in some subtests and AMD in others. For a more objective assessment of the results, it is recommended to pay attention to the scientific calculations section in the previous 2020 test methodology, which includes a longer test in Matlab.

Gaming Performance

A separate detailed study is planned to examine gaming performance. In this review, we provide geometric average results for several modern games (Cyberpunk 2077, Forza Motorsport, Hitman 3, F1 2022) that support ray tracing and also include built-in benchmarks. Results are provided for three screen resolutions and three levels of graphics settings: Medium, Ultra and Ultra settings with ray tracing enabled (Ultra RT). The latter option is also of interest because ray tracing increases the load on calculations, including the CPU.

It is in Full HD resolution (1920×1080) that the differences between processors with different powers become most noticeable. The best-in-gaming Ryzen 7 7800X3D demonstrates a noticeable advantage, achieving 20%-25% faster performance than the Ryzen 5 7500F reviewed today (as well as the Core i5-13400F). This difference is not limited only to average settings (25%), but also appears at maximum settings, including ray tracing (albeit slightly less — 20%), which additionally loads the video card.

The processor tested today reaches over 280 frames per second at this resolution, requiring displays with high refresh rates of hundreds of Hz for the full experience. Compared to the Core i5, the model in question may be inferior to the more expensive Core i5-13600K, but it is worth noting that the latter is not a direct competitor in price. More importantly, the budget Ryzen 5 turns out to be 8% faster than the Core i5-13400F at medium settings and, although it is a couple of percent behind this Intel processor in ray tracing, it remains very competitive.

Resolution 2560×1440

As GPU resolution increases, the differences between processors of different power and price ranges are reduced significantly. At medium settings the difference remains, but at maximum settings with ray tracing enabled it almost disappears. For example, the difference between 136 FPS and 146 FPS in the most demanding mode becomes unnoticeable. This raises the question of whether it is advisable to choose high-end processors such as the Ryzen 7 7800X3D if you plan to play at a higher resolution with maximum graphics settings.

The Ryzen 5 7500F processor reviewed today under these conditions demonstrates speeds ranging from 7% to 22% lower than the more powerful Ryzen 7 7800X3D gaming processor, depending on graphics settings. Compared to its Intel competitors, the 13400F lags behind by 5%-6%, while the more expensive 13600K shows noticeably better performance. However, at the highest resolution there is almost no difference between the processor models we are considering today.

Resolution 3840x2160

The differences between all the reviewed processors become almost unnoticeable, especially when using medium graphics settings. At the average frame rate there is a slight scatter, varying from 220 FPS to 250 FPS. However, at maximum settings with ray tracing enabled, all processors in our comparison achieve approximately the same 90-91 FPS. Thus, for such conditions, processors such as the Ryzen 5 7500F, Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 7 7800X3D can be considered almost equal, the latter of which is the fastest gaming processor overall.

The budget Ryzen 5 7500F processor turned out to be marginally slower than the top-end gaming processor Ryzen 7 7800X3D in the new test set. The difference between them was observed only in conditions where the graphics subsystem was under light load. It's important to note that the Ryzen 5 7500F was slightly slower than the more expensive Core i5-13600K processor with more cores, while its direct competitor Core i5-13400F was behind. This highlights the versatility and good performance of the new budget model from AMD. Even when comparing gaming performance using the powerful GeForce RTX 4090 graphics card at low resolutions, at 4K resolutions and at high graphics settings in games, the difference between all modern AMD and Intel processors becomes noticeable.

Power consumption and temperature

Assessing the power consumption of modern processors is a complex and controversial exercise. Manufacturers define the peak power consumption of processors in terms of thermal power (TDP or PL1), but for high-end models these values can be exceeded thanks to various overclocking features. Turbo modes may allow power consumption to exceed rated power consumption for a certain period of time depending on various factors.

Comparing the Ryzen 7000 family of processors with previous models, we see an increase in performance, but also an increase in power consumption and temperatures. The transition to the Zen 4 architecture and the new AM5 platform has increased performance, but this is accompanied by high power consumption, despite the improvement of technical processes.

The budget AMD Ryzen 5 7500F processor in question exceeds its rated power consumption of 65 W, reaching around 80 W in extreme scenarios, which is close to its maximum value. This is a level similar to the Ryzen 5 5600X, despite being in different performance classes.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Ryzen 5 7500F can drop to around 4.8-4.9 GHz, while for lightly threaded workloads it reaches around 5.05 GHz. These numbers are lower than the older Ryzen 7 7600X with its maximum frequency of 5.45 GHz, which explains the performance difference between the two. But at the same time, the budget processor maintains a stable frequency during long-term testing.

Let's look at the power consumption of processors in three different scenarios: idle, when gaming, and in maximum consumption mode, where Cinebench and Y-Cruncher applications were used to create the load, choosing the option that most noticeably loads the processor, most often associated with performing mathematical tasks. The game Hitman 3 was launched in game mode with the Dartmoor test scene, which intensively uses both the video card and the system's central processor.

The Ryzen 5 7500F consumes significantly less power compared to its older brothers. With a noticeable multi-threaded load, its power consumption was up to 80 W, not reaching the maximum limit of 88 W. Compared to 120 W for the older model 7600X, this is one and a half times less. Intel's mid-range processors also exhibit moderate power consumption; The Core i5-13400F consumes 104 W in its most intensive mode, while the Core i5-12600K consumes slightly more than 130 W. Thus, the energy efficiency of competitors is not that bad, although it is far from the level demonstrated by the CPU model we are reviewing today.

In game mode, the power consumption of all processors is reduced. Even in a CPU-intensive game like Hitman 3, they did not consume more than 80 W. The power consumption of the Ryzen 5 7500F decreased to 46 W, which is significantly less than almost 70 W for the 7600X, again by one and a half times. This makes the Ryzen 5 7500F a very power-efficient and cool processor, especially compared to the Core i5-12600K, which consumes up to 80 W in this mode, and the Core i5-13400F, which consumes 58 W. Considering the lack of an integrated graphics core in the two processors with the F index, it is worth noting that in terms of energy consumption, the Ryzen 5 7500F and Core i5-13400F are close to each other, but the AMD processor still proves to be a little faster and more energy efficient.

When idle, the temperatures of all processors remain at a low level. The Ryzen 5 7500F runs slightly cooler than the 7600X, but Intel processors run cooler temperatures, making it easier for the same cooling system to dissipate heat. The trend continues in gaming conditions — although all processors heat up moderately, Ryzen is the warmest. Note that thermal management is not a strong point of the entire Ryzen 7000 line, and the processor cover, designed to dissipate heat from small chiplets, introduces additional difficulties.

Higher-end CPU models quickly reach their temperature limits with any cooling system, but they have higher consumption limits (120W or even 170W) than the Ryzen 5 7500F, which consumes between 65W and 88W and runs at lower frequencies. This leads to the fact that with effective cooling it does not exceed 70-75 degrees under multi-threaded loads and barely reaches 50 degrees in games. Against this background, the Ryzen 5 7500F remains cool, especially compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X, which in similar conditions heats up to almost its maximum 94 degrees, even when using a liquid cooling system with a 360 mm radiator and three powerful fans. Note that the boxed version of the Ryzen 5 7500F includes the Wraith Stealth air cooler, which is quite sufficient for typical home and gaming workloads. Unlike the Ryzen 5 7600X, which is less suitable for air cooling.

This raises the question of whether the Ryzen 5 7500F can improve its performance given its low temperatures and power efficiency. Is it possible to increase the frequencies and power consumption limit of this model to the level of the Ryzen 5 7600X? To do this, you can use the Precision Boost Overdrive option, removing power consumption restrictions and increasing the limits. In this case, the processor will automatically operate at higher frequencies, without being limited by the consumption limit of 88 W. To increase the maximum frequency of the Ryzen 5 7500F, you can also use the CPU Boost Clock Override option, but only by a small amount, a couple of hundred megahertz.

Thus, the Ryzen 5 7500F will not reach the level of the Ryzen 5 7600X, but increasing the frequency from 4.8-5.0 GHz to 5.0-5.2 GHz will result in a performance increase of 4%-5% in single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. It's not much, but it's still noticeable. It is worth noting that at this

This processor will become similar to the accelerated 7600 (without X) not only in performance, but also in power consumption and heat dissipation. As consumption and heating increase, the demands on the cooling system increase, and it may be necessary to replace the Wraith Stealth's built-in cooler with a more efficient solution. It is also possible to reduce operating voltage using Curve Optimizer for air-cooled operation.


The new member of the Ryzen 7000 family that we tested is a budget six-core processor. It promises to be an excellent choice for general home use, especially in the context of gaming tasks. The performance of the Ryzen 5 7500F is close to that of the Ryzen 5 7600X, delivering a smooth gaming experience and handling everyday applications. The Zen 4 architecture brings noticeable performance gains, and the new platform with support for DDR5 memory makes this processor faster than the previous generation of six-core Ryzen 5000.

This processor initially appeared on the Chinese market, but then quickly spread throughout the world, including our region. It is available on sites such as Aliexpress, Avito and others, and its price ranges from 15-16 thousand rubles, which may be slightly lower, depending on the place of purchase. Although the price difference with the Ryzen 5 7600 is small, it is worth considering that the Ryzen 5 7500F lacks an integrated graphics core and is slightly lower in frequency. When choosing between it and an older model, you need to weigh these trade-offs.

Comparison with the Ryzen 5 7600X is relatively relative, given that the 7600X was expensive at launch, but AMD later lowered its price. However, the Ryzen 5 7500F, despite a slight drop in performance compared to the 7600X, is a more attractive option considering the price/performance ratio. The average performance difference between these models is around 5%-6%, making the Ryzen 5 7500F more attractive considering the cost.

When looking at competition from Intel, especially the Core i5-13400F, the Ryzen 5 7500F performs well. In games, they are close in performance, and at the same price, the Ryzen 5 7500F becomes a better choice. Applications that use multi-threading also show similar results, sometimes even in favor of the Ryzen 5 7500F. Considering more expensive options, such as the Ryzen 7 7600X or Core i5-12600K, only makes sense if you need additional performance in multitasking applications.

Interestingly, the Ryzen 5 7500F is easily overclocked, albeit by a small amount of 5%. However, for those looking for maximum power efficiency, the 88W limit may be preferable. In this case, the processor remains cool even under load, which allows the use of simpler cooling systems, including the Wraith Stealth air cooler built into the package.

Given the long-term lifecycle of the new AMD platform, which supports all modern technologies, including DDR5 and PCIe 5.0, the Ryzen 5 7500F becomes an attractive choice for those who plan to use the system for several years. Upgrade support until 2025 adds long-term value. This processor fits perfectly into low-cost systems based on the AMD A620 chipset, delivering high performance at a reasonable price.