AMD Ryzen 5 9500F Review: Affordable Zen 5 CPU Tested in Gaming and Performance

The Ryzen 5 9500F brings Zen 5 performance to budget systems with slightly reduced clocks and no integrated graphics.

Hardware by RereRara on Nov 11, 2025

Many people have been discussing the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F recently. Currently, it's only available in select areas. Still, like other F-series chips, it is expected to be available worldwide soon.

The processor is designed to deliver good Zen 5 performance at a lower price, but it lacks built-in graphics. It is designed for gamers and builders who want to upgrade their CPUs without incurring significant expenses.

AMD, Ryzen 5 9500F Review, Affordable Zen 5, CPU Tested in Gaming, Performance, NoobFeed

First Impression

The Ryzen 5 9500F is basically a smaller version of the Ryzen 5 9600X. The main difference is that the built-in RDNA2 GPU is no longer there. This makes it similar to the 7500F and 7600X in terms of their functionality.

The base clock decreases from 3.9GHz to 3.8GHz, representing a 2.5% reduction, and the boost clock drops from 5.4GHz to 5GHz, which is approximately a 7% decrease.

The 9500F retains most of the 9600X's design, except for a few minor clock adjustments and the removal of integrated graphics. It still features a single CCD with six cores and twelve threads, a full 32MB of L3 cache, and 28 PCIe 5.0 lanes (four of which are dedicated to the chipset).

The 9600X currently costs around $200 in the US, so the 9500F should be priced lower than that. Availability is limited, but early pricing suggests a discount of approximately 12%. However, buyers may lose the iGPU and possibly the included box cooler, depending on the seller.

Test Setup and Methodology

The tests were conducted on a standard AM5 platform, featuring the Gigabyte X670E AORUS Master motherboard and DDR5-6000 CL30 memory. We compared several six-core, twelve-thread AM5 CPUs to ensure consistent testing conditions.

Cinebench 2024 Performance

When running Cinebench multi-core workloads, the Ryzen 5 9600X achieved an average all-core frequency of 5GHz. It reached a maximum temperature of 74°C, with a package power consumption of 88W.

The 9500F ran at an average of 4.75 GHz under the same conditions, so the 9600X was approximately 5% faster. The highest temperature dropped a little to 70°C, and the average package power was 86W.

The 9500F reached 5.05GHz in single-core tests, which was about 8% slower than the 9600X. These results are very close to what I expected, given the differences in clock speed.

Gaming Benchmarks

Baldur's Gate 3

The Ryzen 5 9500F was 7% slower than the 9600X on medium settings and 4% slower on ultra settings. The performance was comparable to that of the 7600X and approximately 6–7% better than the 7500F.

Cyberpunk 2077

Compared to Zen 4, Zen 5 architecture doesn't do as well in this title. The 9500F achieved the same results as the 7400F, but it was 7% slower than the 9600X at medium settings and 5% slower with ray tracing enabled.

Counter-Strike 2

In this case, the 9500F performed significantly better than the 7600X, outpacing it by 8% at medium settings and matching it at ultra settings. As expected, it was still 7% slower than the 9600X.

Marvel Rivals

The 9500F got 173 frames per second (fps) at medium settings, which was about 8% slower than the 9600X. Under ultra settings with a limited GPU, performance was nearly the same as that of the 9600X and slightly better than the 7600X.

AMD, Ryzen 5 9500F Review, Affordable Zen 5, CPU Tested in Gaming, Performance, NoobFeed

Rainbow Six Siege

The Ryzen 5 9500F achieved 469 frames per second at medium settings, which is 16% higher than the Ryzen 5 7500F and 10% higher than the Ryzen 5 7600X. It was only 6% slower than the 9600X. The 9500F stayed 6% ahead of the 7600X even at ultra settings, and it beat it by 10%.

Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2

At medium settings, the 9500F was 4% slower than the 9600X, and at ultra settings, it was only 2% slower. It performed almost identically to the 7600X, which is a commendable result overall.

Assetto Corsa Competizione (ACC)

The 9500F did very well, being only 2% slower than the 9600X at medium settings and 14% faster than the 7500F. The margin grew to 16% faster than the 7500F at the epic preset.

Shader Compilation Tests

The performance of shader compilation was consistent. The 9500F finished the job in 332 seconds, which is 5% slower than the 9600X and the same speed as the 7600X, but 2% faster than the 7500F. The 9500F was 5% behind the 9600X in Stalker 2 and The Last of Us Part I, which had similar margins.

Average Game Performance

The Ryzen 5 9500F was about 5% slower than the 9600X on medium settings and about 3% slower on ultra settings in twelve tests. Overall, it was about 5% faster than the 7500F, which is what you would expect based on its specs and clock speeds.

Value and Cost-Effectiveness

At the current prices, the 9500F isn't a particularly good deal. It's only about $45 less than the 9600X, which isn't enough to make up for the loss of an iGPU, box cooler, and local warranty. It costs 55% more than the 7500F, which is available for about $200, and it only saves 8–9% on cost per frame compared to the 9600X.

For that much money, it makes more sense to buy the 9600X from a trusted retailer or consider the 7600, which offers similar performance and comes with a box cooler and full warranty.

AMD, Ryzen 5 9500F Review, Affordable Zen 5, CPU Tested in Gaming, Performance, NoobFeed

Final Thoughts

The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F functions as intended: it's a slightly underclocked 9600X with no integrated graphics. It maintains the same thermals, power draw, and overall behavior, indicating that AMD hasn't cut corners on materials or hidden features.

The 9500F isn't worth buying right now because the 9600X or 7600X offer better overall value. But if its price drops to around $200, it could become the best value for AM5 users. For now, the 7500F is still the better choice for builders on a budget who want good Zen performance.

Also, check our other AMD articles: