Intel won't launch a Nova Lake-S SKU with 12 Xe3P graphics cores, according to tipster Jaykihn, who originally flagged a beefed-up APU design with the Nova Lake architecture. The original SKU was said to come with 4 P-cores, 8 E-cores, and 4 LPE-cores, along with the 12 Xe3P cores, presumably offering an inexpensive onramp to a gaming desktop without a discrete GPU. Now, the leaker says that design is cancelled, and Intel intends to pick it back up with Razor Lake, the generation that will follow Nova Lake.

Originally, Intel's 12 Xe3P Nova Lake SKU was said to require 65W of dedicated power to drive the iGPU, necessitating the use of two VCCGT phases on the motherboard for integrated graphics. Intel's Arc B390 GPU, which is the 12 Xe3-core model available in Panther Lake and Arc G-series processors, has a thermal design that can sustain up to 80W. However, it's currently being used in Panther Lake machines and handhelds like MSI Claw 8 EX AI+ that have lower power targets.

The Xe3P architecture is slotted for use in Intel's Crescent Island AI accelerator, but it hasn't been announced for any other products yet. Xe3P supports a wide deployment of Xe cores (up to 32), a deeper XMX engine with support for low-precision data types like FP8 and FP4, an increased 512KB L1 cache per Xe core, and a new unified L2 cache (32MB on Crescent Island).

Even by desktop APU standards, an 80W iGPU is a beefy accelerator to have on the same package. In addition, Intel's Nova Lake stack is said to extend up to a 175W TDP with the rumored top-end 52-core SKU, meaning the full 12 Xe3P iGPU would likely only be possible lower down the stack (and maybe only in the 4 + 8 + 4 + 12 Xe design originally suggested).

Earlier in the year, rumors suggested Intel was working on a mobile APU to counter AMD's Strix/Gorgon Halo products, featuring a large pool of unified memory and a large iGPU, dubbed Nova Lake AX. Now, the rumor mill suggests Intel will recycle the Nova Lake CPU cores for Razor Lake AX on mobile while pushing a larger iGPU.

*Specs rumored, unconfirmed by Intel

Intel has told us that Nova Lake is one of the most important desktop CPU launches for the company ever, following on the heels of the mediocre Arrow Lake rollout. Perhaps the biggest addition to the lineup is rumored to be bLLC, or big last-level cache, which is said to show up on select SKUs to counter AMD's X3D assault among the best CPUs for gaming. The company has yet to confirm that bLLC is even possible with its current packaging capabilities, though enthusiast channel VP Robert Hallock hinted to Tom's Hardware that Intel has plans to address X3D in the next generation.

The main stack is rumored to climb up to 28 cores, with two additional dual-tile SKUs that can go as high as 52 cores. The dual-tile models look like a bid for HEDT, perhaps competing with AMD's Threadripper CPUs, though it's not clear how Intel will position its dual-tile models yet.

Earlier this month, a leaked slide gave us a glimpse into Intel's launch plans for Nova Lake. The slide suggested Intel will announce the main stack (up to 28 cores) in Q4 of this year, with the chips arriving in Q1 2027. Intel will apparently follow up later in the year with the 52-core model. This aligns with what we've heard from our sources about Intel's Nova Lake rollout.

Alongside Nova Lake, Intel will introduce the new LGA1954 socket, along with the flagship Z990 chipset. We've already seen multiple Z990 motherboards in the flesh, suggesting Intel is preparing for a Nova Lake release in short order.

For those seeking the highest performance for gaming, AMD’s Ryzen 7 9850X3D is currently the best CPU money can buy. If you’re planning to upgrade or build a new PC, now might be a good time to pick one up, as Newegg is selling the 9850X3D for $484, around $15 less than its launch price. The deal also includes a 240mm Cooler Master AIO liquid cooler, valued at $79.99, along with a copy of Onimusha: Way of the Sword worth $69.99, both included as free gifts.

• Check out the deal on Newegg

Announced at CES 2026, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is essentially a higher-binned version of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. It retains the same 8-core, 16-thread configuration and 4.2 GHz base clock as its predecessor, but gets a higher 5.6 GHz boost clock. The chip comes with the same 104MB of total cache, including 96MB of 3D V-Cache, which is the key ingredient behind its strong gaming performance. It also shares the same 120W default TDP and uses the AM5 platform with DDR5 memory support, making it compatible with a wide range of existing 800- and 600-series AMD motherboards.

In our in-depth testing of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, we found that it was only 3.3% faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. But a win is a win, and that performance edge puts the CPU at the top of our 16-game 1080p FPS performance geomean, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 9900X3D and 9950X3D. Although it loses out to Intel in some productivity workloads, the less complex 8-core configuration packed into a single CCD results in lower power draw. As you can see from our results, the peak power consumption is around 170W, making it much easier to cool.

With the included 240mm AIO liquid cooler, you should be able to keep the Ryzen 7 9850X3D well under control during gaming and moderate workloads, although it may run warmer under heavy multi-core workloads. At its sale price of $484, you’re paying less than its actual launch price while getting two useful extras at no additional cost. That makes this a worthwhile deal for anyone looking to build a high-end gaming PC around AMD’s gaming-focused platform.

AMD has officially launched the Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500, two strong contenders for the best CPUs on the market if you're on a budget. Both are hexa-core chips, with the Ryzen 5 5500F featuring AMD's Zen 3 execution cores and the Ryzen 5 7500 using the newer Zen 4 execution cores. The Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500, priced at $99 and $189, respectively, are available at U.S. retailers starting today.

The Ryzen 5 5500F, despite its similar model name to the Ryzen 5 5500, belongs to a different family in AMD's portfolio. The Ryzen 5 5500F hails from the Ryzen 5000 series (codenamed Vermeer), which uses a multi-chiplet architecture. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 5500 comes from the Ryzen 5000G series (codenamed Cezanne), which uses a monolithic die design.

Therefore, it is more sound to call the Ryzen 5 5500F a lower-binned version of the Ryzen 5 5600, rather than an iGPU-less variant of the Ryzen 5 5500, which lacks integrated graphics to begin with. The distinction matters because the Ryzen 5 5500F is closer to the Ryzen 5 5600, albeit with a 500 MHz lower boost clock speed and half the L3 cache.

The Ryzen 5 5600, which launched at $199, now retails for around $159, making the new Ryzen 5 5500F approximately 38% more affordable. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 5500, which debuted at $159, has lost substantial value over the years. OEM tray versions of the Ryzen 5 5500 now start at just $74, so it is still the most cost-effective entry point into the AM4 ecosystem. Compared to the Ryzen 5 5500, the Ryzen 5 5500F carries a 34% price premium. The latter justifies its higher cost with a slightly higher boost clock speed, which translates to better gaming performance, and support for PCIe 4.0, unlocking faster SSDs and graphics cards.

Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500 Specifications

When it comes to the Ryzen 5 7500, little mystery surrounds its place in AMD's product stack. True to its name, the Ryzen 5 7500 is the same processor as the Ryzen 5 7500F, which launched three years ago, but with integrated Radeon graphics. This small addition suits users who need basic display output and do not plan to spend money on a discrete graphics card. Apart from the integrated graphics, all core specifications remain identical between the two models.

As a result, the difference between the Ryzen 5 7600 and the Ryzen 5 7500 stands. The former boasts a 100 MHz higher base and boost clock, so performance is somewhat better in certain processor-intensive workloads or gaming scenarios. However, most users may not notice the difference.

The Ryzen 5 7500F hit the market at $179, but over time its retail price has dropped to about $157. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 7600 has held its value over the years, falling only slightly from its original MSRP of $229 to around $226. As a result, the Ryzen 5 7500 positions itself as a mid-point option, priced 16% lower than the Ryzen 5 7600 and 20% above the Ryzen 5 7500F.

The Ryzen 5 7500 makes sense in this market because not everyone is a gamer, so integrated graphics mean you do not have to spend a fortune on a discrete graphics card at today's ridiculous prices. However, because it runs on AMD's AM5 platform, the Ryzen 5 7500 is still bound by the sky-high cost of DDR5.

We reported on the new Apple A20 Pro system-on-a-chip (SoC) for smartphones yesterday, an integral attraction within Apple’s first foldable, the iPhone Duo, and in the iPhone 18 Pro devices. Now the first A20 Geekbench 6 benchmark results are starting to pop up online, and they’re very impressive, particularly in single-core performance. If the result spotted by Longhorn is a typical one, the 4,719 single-core and 12,677 multi-core scores mean the new A20 is around 25% faster than its predecessor. Its single-core score can also make some of the best PC CPUs look anemic.

Apple’s official performance claims are interesting, as usual, but we’re always happy to see the third-party performance indicators start to emerge ahead of independent reviews. Heralding its new 2nm silicon yesterday, Apple might have actually understated the boost the A20 can deliver, with the official line about this “desktop-class” processor being the “fastest CPU in a smartphone,” and a claim that it is ‘just’ 20% faster than the previous gen. However, Geekbench isn’t the best indicator of real-world performance, and this is just a sample of one to sprinkle salt upon.

What are numbers without relevant comparisons, though? For more perspective on Apple’s newest silicon, which might also be thrown into a new Neo laptop (or desktop) in the coming months, check out the table below.

Above, we’ve pitted the Apple A19 Pro from last year’s iPhone 17 Pro as the second comparison column entrant. Apple has worked on multiple angles to deliver improvements over last year. It says that it has both new super-cores and efficiency cores in play. Then there’s the refined 2nm process and the faster clocks, too.

For some wider context, we’ve also tabulated one of Apple’s newest M5 computer chips, a modern Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite X2 laptop chip, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, for a fun desktop PC angle. Less fun is the comparison with the Asus Zephyrus G16 2024 laptop I’m using now, with an AMD Ryzen AI HX 370 chip. Its Geekbench 6 scores of roughly 2,800 / 14,500 are easily outclassed by Apple’s new smartphone processor in 1T tests, but retain a little dignity by winning by ~1,800 points in nT tests.

Apple is opening up pre-orders for its new iPhones with A20 silicon shortly, with retail release on Friday, September 18. It usually lifts review embargoes a few days before retail. We should therefore see a broader range of benchmarks and tests from good sources in the coming week.

Apple has a new top system-on-a-chip for smartphones, the A20 Pro. The new processor debuted at Apple's iPhone event today — the first event led by newly minted chief executive officer John Ternus — alongside a new in-house modem (the C2).

The A20 Pro is Apple's first 2-nanometer chip in an iPhone. (Its first-ever 2 nm chip is the M6, which the company announced in August and which will debut in the Mac Mini later this month). Like the M6, the A20 features dual neural engines, new CPU and GPU cores.

The A20 Pro will power the new foldable iPhone Duo, along with the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max.

The new SOC boasts a 6-core CPU with two of the company's super-cores (20% faster than last generation), and there are also four efficiency cores with neural accelerators. Apple is calling this a "desktop-class" processor and the "fastest CPU in a smartphone."

The 7-core GPU has a 40% boost gen-over-gen with increased bandwidth, along with new neural accelerators that the company says allows for twice-as-fast FP8 compute.

The two neural engines have a combined 32 total cores. There's a 50% increase in memory bandwidth on the chip, which Apple says is the widest memory interface in an iPhone.

Apple has also changed the packaging, with the silicon dies placed in a way that removes memory from the thermal path of the SOC, allowing the silicon to attach directly to the vapor chamber. That vapor chamber has a three times larger surface area over the 17 Pro, and also includes more graphite and copper along with 80% recycled stainless steel.

The company claims that this will allow for up to 40% sustained performance over the iPhone 17 Pro and 2x sustained performance over the 16 Pro.

Apple says that A20 Pro's efficiencies and new battery designs allow for better longevity. The company claims the Pro will get 36 hours of video playback, and 45 hours on Pro Max video. Using a proprietary test based on data from how people use their phones, Apple claims 24 hours per charge on the 18 Pro and 30 hours on the Pro Max.

Beyond the SOC, Apple is also using a new C2 cellular modem, replacing Qualcomm. Apple claims that C2 "delivers meaningfully faster uploads when compared to C1X while consuming 15 percent less energy," and also adds mmWave support in the United States. Both phones also feature the N1 networking chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread.

The iPhone 18 Pro will start at $1,199, while the Pro Max will start at $1,299. The phones will be available on September 18. The phones also feature an updated Dynamic Island and a 48-megapixel fusion camera with a variable aperture, plus customizable settings such as white balance and cinematic effects that can be added after capture.

Apple's other new silicon was the S11, a chip for the Apple Watch Series 12 and Ultra 4.

iPhone Duo

The iPhone Duo, Apple's long-awaited foldable phone, will also use the A20 Pro.

The foldable will be Apple's first phone with a FaceTime camera behind the display, and Apple detailed the hinge and aerospace-grade titanium construction. The Duo is IP68-rated for dust and water resistance. It comes in "star white," as well as "night sky" (a dark blue).

The OS, iOS 27, will allow for docks and controls to live on the sides of the system, putting them near your hand. When opened, it's the thinnest iPhone ever and has the largest screen on an iPhone at 7.6 inches. Later this year, Apple Pencil will be supported on the Duo on both screens.

Apple will use Touch ID for biometrics, jettisoning the Face ID from more recent slab-style phones. Apple said this is the best way to go because it's available whether open or closed, and you can enroll multiple fingers.

The phone supports multiple "poses," including partial folds, and a standby mode when used in a tent-style pose — even when it's not charging.

Apple's internal display has an anti-glare display to "minimize crease visibility," which the company also claims feels premium under your fingers, with a titanium plate supporting the panel, along with a hinge with over 100 components. Samsung also released a phone with a minimal crease in the Galaxy Z Fold 8 earlier this year, but we'll have to see how reviewers compare the two screens.

A20 Pro has a new display engine that supports both displays. Like the 18 Pro and 18 Pro Max, Apple is using the C2 cellular modem over Qualcomm's in the iPhone Duo.

The iPhone Duo is eSIM-only everywhere in the world, maximizing battery space. Each side of the phone has its own battery, which operates as one with software. Apple is claiming up to 31 hours of video playback on the inner display and 44 hours on the outer display. Using its own model, Apple claims 24 hours when using "both screens equally."

The phone has a two-camera system. The main camera is a 48MP lens with up to 2x telephoto, while the other is an ultrawide lens. The 48MP camera is the same one on the 18 Pro, though without the variable aperture. The center-stage camera on the front is a 12MP camera. The inner display has an under-screen FaceTime camera.

The iPhone Duo starts at $1,999 for 256GB, and goes up to 2TB. Pre-orders start on October 16, and the phone will launch on October 23.

Following an early access period that included over 60,000 participants, auto-overclocking tool Hypertune has released its Gaming Performance Engineering platform, which is built on top of Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) SDK and developed in partnership with Intel. The company claims the utility can boost frame rates by up to 60%, though you shouldn't expect that as the norm. The tool includes automated CPU and GPU overclocking, as well as customizable Windows features, network optimization, and game-specific optimizations.

Hypertune partnered with Intel to build the tool, which the company says "evaluates each supported system individually" before optimizing rather than relying on generalized profiles. In its press release, Hypertune says it collaborated with famed overclocker SkatterBencher (Pieter Plaisier) to refine the software. We've reached out to Plaisier to confirm their involvement.

Automated tuning programs usually don't work as well as advertised, and we haven't had the chance to test Hypertune ourselves yet. Especially on more recent hardware, expect performance gains to be minor. Hypertune shared some of its internal benchmarks to back up the claim, showcasing the actual test systems it used, the numbers it gathered, and what each step of Hypertune contributed to the performance increase.

Hypertune tested two systems: one with a Core Ultra 9 285K and an RTX 5090, and another with a Core i7-14700K and an RTX 3080. For the 285K system, the team saw an 18.9% improvement in Homeworld 3 and a 28.2% improvement in Tomb Raider. For the 14700K system, the boost was up to 9.8% in Rainbow Six Siege and 4.3% in Marvel Rivals.

Notably, these results are with Hypertune's Game Hub disabled. Game Hub automatically applies a graphics settings profile to select games, leading to massive increases in performance. Naturally, tweaking your own graphics settings in the same way leads to the same result.

In Homeworld 3, you can see how each step in the process impacted performance, with CPU tunning contributing the single biggest increase in performance. As shown by Marvel Rivals in Hypertune's data, some games will see little to no benefit from Hypertune, though select titles with certain hardware may see a significant performance increase. In this case, the Core Ultra 9 285K has plenty of room for overclocking, and Homeworld 3 is particularly sensitive to the CPU, so the uplift makes sense.

Elsewhere, the gains aren't as pronounced. In Rainbow Six Siege, you can see that Hypertune contributed about a 9.8% jump in performance, though the vast majority of the improvement comes through Game Hub, where Hypertune changes in-game settings.

In a press release, Hypertune founder Austin Copeland wrote that the team was "not trying to build a tool for overclockers," suggesting it's aimed toward users who may not know about specific settings (i.e., the Balanced power plan on dual-CCD X3D CPUs, or HAGS for DLSS Frame Generation). Copeland was previously a coach for eSports organization TSM, coaching Valorant teams under the name "Apex."

Hypertune works through Intel's XTU SDK, and the company says its optimizations are non-destructive and fully reversible. The software is mainly targeted toward competitive titles (naturally, given Copeland's background), but it can apply optimizations globally across the system. Hypertune says it's safe to use with anti-cheat software, including Riot Vanguard, Easy Anti-Cheat, and BattlEye.

Although there are plenty of free tools that claim to optimize your system, Hypertune isn't among them. It's a subscription service, available for either $9.99 per month or $59.99 per year. In addition to software, Hypertune offers its "expert tuning" service for $80, where a technician will remote into your machine and manually tune it. On the subscription front, Hypertune offers a 7-day free trial.

Hypertune looks like one of the more robust automated overclocking tools we've seen, but it's worth highlighting that, in most cases, these tools don't do anything you can't accomplish yourself. If you're looking for a starting point, make sure to read our guides on how to overclock your graphics card and how to overclock your CPU.

Intel is reportedly set to hike CPU prices by 10%, according to a new Digitimes report. Citing supply chain sources, the outlet says the increase follows two others, one in the first quarter of 2026 and another in July, among some server and client CPUs. Notably, the sources didn't say which products the price increase applies to, though presumably, the increases would come through Intel's mobile and server businesses before desktop client. Citing industry sources, DigiTimes also reports that Intel is set to launch "major annual products" in March 2027, with AMD following up with launches of its own between June and July.

The increases come on the back of Intel seeking higher gross margins for its products as the PC market shrinks. This is a story we've heard directly from Intel in the past. In its most recent earnings call in July, Intel chief financial officer David Zinsner attributed a 13% YoY increase in Intel's client revenue to higher average selling price, not a higher volume of sales.

Although the Digitimes report doesn't clarify which products will see a price increase, server and mobile seem like the most likely candidates. Intel's most recent Panther Lake calls for high-speed LPDDR5X-7467 memory as a minimum, and last-gen Lunar Lake CPUs have on-package memory. Naturally, higher memory prices put more pressure on fully built systems like laptops more so than socketed, standalone desktop processors.

On the server end, there's been an unprecedented increase in demand for server CPUs on the back of agentic AI workloads. That demand led to several consecutive records for Intel's share price, even without any major product announcements. Earlier in the year, Wall Street estimated the server CPU market would rise to around $120 billion by 2030 (currently around $30 billion). Now, those projections go up to as high as $220 billion.

According to the report, Intel is set to launch a major new annual product in March 2027, followed by AMD between June and July. Last week, a leaked Intel roadmap showed the company's next-gen Nova Lake desktop CPUs entering mass production in Q4 2026 with a release in Q1 2027, lining up with DigiTimes' report.

Although the timelines line up, the rumor mill has suggested an early Q1 launch for Nova Lake. It's worth noting that the DigiTimes report doesn't make mention of which product Intel will launch in March. This year, for instance, Intel launched its Xeon 600 CPUs for HEDT in March.

Perhaps more interesting is the AMD timeline. We already know of one major AMD product launch in the second half of 2027, which is Venice-X. Those are Zen 6 server CPUs with AMD's 3D V-Cache, packing up to 1,152 MB of L3 cache on the chip. Otherwise, that timeframe seems to point to AMD's next-gen desktop CPUs with the Zen 6 architecture, codenamed Olympic Ridge.

AMD launched its Venice server CPUs earlier this year, the first sporting the Zen 6 architecture. We haven't heard anything official about Zen 6 in the desktop yet. That's strange given AMD's last several releases. There was about a two-year gap between Zen 3 and Zen 4, as well as Zen 4 and Zen 5, on desktop. We've just crossed the two-year mark for Zen 5, so assuming AMD keeps a similar launch cadence, we'd expect to hear something sooner than June or July or next year.

That same explosive demand in server CPUs could have changed AMD's launch plans, however. Given that we haven't heard anything official about Olympic Ridge at this point, a launch in June or July isn't out of the question.

Arm is bringing its next-gen Neoverse CSS N4 platforms to the cloud, sporting up to 128 cores per die, built on TSMC’s N3P process. Arm’s Compute Subsystem, or CSS, is a semi-custom program that allows customers to design a chip based on Arm’s IP, configuring components like core count, cache size, I/O, and connectivity to fit their specific needs. It’s the same platform we’ve seen at work everywhere from CPUs at Azure and Google Cloud to DPUs at Nvidia and Intel.

Arm says Neoverse CSS N4 supports between eight and 128 Neoverse N4 cores, running up to 3.8 GHz. Presumably, the clocks drop as the core count rises; Arm didn’t clarify the maximum clocks for each possible configuration. At a system level, Neoverse CSS N4 can scale beyond 128 cores, with support for multi-chiplet and multi-socket designs, and with support for UCIe through chip-to-chip interconnects, as well as “partner-specific PNYs.”

The platform supports either DDR5 or LPDDR6, and features up to 256 MB of L3 cache per die. For local cache, Arm includes up to 2 MB of L2 per core, as well as 64 KB of L1 instruction cache and 64 KB of L1 data cache per core. For I/O, Arm supports up to 128 lanes of PCIe 7/6 and CXL 4.0.

It’s a significant upgrade over the Neoverse CSS N2 platform, which topped out at just 64 cores, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache, paired with either DDR5 or LPDDR5 and 64 PCIe 5.0/CXL lanes.

With 128 cores running at 3GHz and 2MB of L2 cache per core, Arm says Neoverse CSS N4 delivers twice the socket performance of Neoverse N3, 1.25x performance per watt, and 1.75x the memory bandwidth.

Arm’s N-series cores are optimized for performance per watt, while its V-series cores are targeting maximum performance. For instance, Arm used the Neoverse CSS V3 building blocks for its own AGI CPU, and Nvidia used Neoverse V2 for its last-gen Grace CPU (the Vera CPU uses a custom core). AWS has also used Neoverse V-series cores for its own Graviton chips, as does Google Cloud for Axion.

N-series cores aren’t usually deployed in high-performance CPUs. Rather, they fit into less-performant accelerators, such as Intel’s IPU Adapter E2100, which is built on Neoverse N1 cores. We’ve also seen it deployed in less-demanding, cloud-based workloads, such as through Microsoft’s Azure Cobalt 100, which is built on Neoverse N2. Cobalt 200 moved onto Neoverse V3.

We don’t know much about the Neoverse N4 cores, codenamed Dionysus. Arm’s 2024 roadmap indicated we’ll see Arm Neoverse CSS V4, as well, codenamed Vega.

Unlike a traditional announcement from Intel, AMD, or the various partners that build on Arm, we won’t see Neoverse N4 cores in the wild for a while. The announcement Arm is making is for those who are building on the CSS platform, leveraging Arm’s validated building blocks to create semi-custom silicon quickly. Arm has yet to announce any partners, though traditionally, only a few large CSS contracts are needed.

Additional Arm AGI CPU deployments

Alongside the announcement of Arm Neoverse CSS N4, the company revealed additional deployments of its own AGI chip, which is built with Neoverse V3 cores. The company revealed that Oracle and ByteDance will deploy AGI chips, alongside previously announced deployments at Meta, Lenovo, SAP, OpenAI, Cloudflare, and others.

Although Arm has talked a lot about AGI, including a deep dive into the chip’s architecture at Hot Chips, we’ve yet to see real-world performance numbers. That’s not uncommon, especially among more recent Arm-based chips. For instance, we only have gen-on-gen comparisons for Microsoft’s Azure Cobalt 200 and AWS’ Graviton5. Arm has vaguely referenced performance by saying AGI offers “more than 2x the performance per rack compared to the latest x86 systems,” though those claims are based on internal estimates, not real benchmarks.

AGI is a dual-die CPU with up to 136 Neoverse V3 cores and up to 272 MB of L3 cache that can clock up to 3.7 GHz. It has the specs to match any high-end x86 design currently on the market, built on a 3nm node and packing up to 6TB of memory capacity per chip, running at up to DDR5-8800. Perhaps the biggest difference compared to AMD and Intel was Arm’s decision to include the memory and I/O on the same die as compute, which it says leads to sub-100ns memory latency.

It’s Arm’s first attempt at its own production silicon, though it’s also been positioned so far as a vehicle for the broader applications of Arm in the data center. Microsoft, Nvidia, Meta, Google Cloud, and others build custom chips based on Arm IP, which still seems to be the primary goal, even with AGI in the mix.

The AMD BC-250 has taken on a new life. It’s a PS5 APU that was repurposed for mining during the crypto boom, and now it’s being repurposed once again as a Linux gaming board. The BC-250 has seen some coverage in years past. It was originally a board you could pick up for less than $100, but now you’ll likely spend over $200 on one. We’re taking a closer look at the board and the performance it offers now for a few key reasons.

First, we have the Steam Machine. Valve’s long-awaited console-like PC is here and much more expensive than anyone expected at over $1,000. You can easily put together a BC-250 build for around $400 or $500, and even less if you have a power supply and SSD lying around. If you can get in the realm of Steam Machine performance for half the price (and the BC-250 can, based on our testing), that’s pretty compelling.

There have also been some significant developments among the BC-250 community. The board only works in the first place due to a community-developed BIOS and GPU driver, and developers have continued to experiment with what’s possible with the hardware. Now, there are tools that enable all 40 Compute Units (CUs) on the board (it defaults to 24 CUs), as well as tools to enable the two disabled Zen 2 cores, taking the six-core CPU to an eight-core CPU.

Now, the BC-250 isn’t a cut-down PS5 APU, at least from a hardware perspective. It actually patches two more graphics CUs compared to the PS5. Though, as should become clear throughout this story, relating the BC-250 to the PS5 on anything but the silicon on the board isn’t the best idea.

All in, we spent about $350 on the BC-250, with around $200 of that going toward the board (it’s currently listed for around $175 on eBay) and the additional budget going toward a 3D-printed case, fans, and a power supply. You could spend as little as the cost of the board if you can 3D print a case, bring your own fans, and repurpose an old PSU and NVMe SSD. If you’re starting from scratch, you’ll spend between $400 and $500.

Even for “full” price, the BC-250 is significantly cheaper than what you can get elsewhere. The PS5 digital edition is now $600, while the Pro will run you $900. The newly-released Steam Machine starts at $1,050, and that’s with just 512 GB of storage. The BC-250 is significantly cheaper and offers performance that can rival these platforms. What you save in money, however, you spend in time.

The BC-250 is a great project if you like tinkering, but it’s not a set-it-and-forget-it gaming device, even after the initial setup. After a few weeks of using the board, that much became clear.

A PS5 APU, not a PS5: BC-250 specifications

The BC-250 is described as a cut-down PS5 APU, and that’s exactly what it is, but the “cut-down” portion of the description carries a lot of weight. It comes with eight Zen 2 cores, but two of them are disabled, and a 40-CU RDNA 2 GPU, though only 24 of those CUs work out of the box.

The community has been able to unlock all 40 CUs with good success. Ultimately, your mileage with unlocking all 40 CUs will vary; some boards will work just fine with all 40, others with 32 or 36, and some with the base 24. As I’ll dig into more later, I was able to unlock all 40 CUs and run them stably up to 1,850 MHz, much higher than the recommended 1,500 MHz max frequency.

Out of the box, both the CPU and GPU run at locked frequencies of around 3.5 GHz and 1,500 MHz, respectively. You’ll need to separately install a GPU and CPU governor for dynamic frequency scaling (a necessity in the case of the GPU, though optional for the CPU). Achievable frequency on the CPU and GPU is entirely determined by your thermals. Both governors allow for overclocking, but the BC-250 is thermally constrained, even with active airflow, so don’t expect to push far beyond the stock frequency, particularly on the CPU.

Unfortunately, storage is a big bottleneck for the BC-250, and one of the biggest points of divergence compared to a PS5. The M.2 runs at just PCIe 2.0 x2 speeds, delivering about 1 GB/s of maximum performance with an NVMe SSD. The good news is that, due to how slow the interface is, you can save some money and get a less-performant but larger drive for storage.

As of a few days ago, at the time of writing, some initial fixes to unlock the extra two CPU cores have rolled out, which I was able to get working after a bit of trial and error. Outside of the GPU and CPU, the BC-250 has a bit less L3 cache. The APU, from a hardware perspective, is very similar to the PS5. Though that ignores the complex I/O system present in the PS5, not to mention the various layers of software that Sony runs on the APU.

Given that the BC-250 wasn’t designed for gaming, it’s important to keep that context in mind. You could just as easily describe it as a crypto mining board that’s been repurposed for gaming as you could a PS5 APU that’s been repurposed for mining. The BC-250 is a mining board, and the only reason it works is due to a large number of enthusiasts trying to get the damn thing to work and sharing their advancements along the way.

Although Linux gaming broadly has made a ton of advancements over the past few years, the BC-250 has unique hurdles you need to overcome. It needs fixes to scale the frequency on both the CPU and GPU; otherwise, it’s locked at a fixed frequency. It needs a custom BIOS image to even boot, and a specific configuration in the BIOS to avoid immediately crashing. Those are all steps you need to take to get the BC-250 to work in the first place, let alone start optimizing it to squeeze out the best performance.

There is extensive community documentation for the BC-250, which I referenced ad nauseam throughout this process. It’s an excellent resource, but even still, I had to search out solutions outside of the documentation. This is cobbled together from community fixes, and the documentation seeks to cover as many distros as possible. But it’s nigh impossible to have complete documentation on the BC-250, as valiant as the effort linked above is.

Expect a bumpy (but rewarding) road. It’s better to think of the BC-250 as a project, rather than a commodity like the PS5. Yes, you can play games on it and get surprisingly good performance, but you’ll spend a good amount of time simply tinkering with the machine, at first to get it to work, and later to optimize it. And you will inevitably run up against games that either don’t work or have poor performance, prompting another investigation and optimization cycle. I find the process rewarding; others will find it frustrating.

Setting up and configuring the BC-250

Getting the BC-250 is only one part of the process here. At the least, you need a power supply that can deliver at least 20A on the 12V rail. A standard PSU will work, but FlexATX power supplies are a better fit. I ended up purchasing a 3D-printed case, along with a power supply, from eBay. The BC-250 documentation includes several PSU recommendations, along with case designs, if you want to go about choosing your parts piecemeal.

Here’s what I’d recommend at minimum:

• BC-250
• 300W+ PSU (at least 20A on 12V rail)
• 2x Arctic P12 high-pressure fans (if using CU unlock)

Regardless of the route you choose, double-check fan mounting points (there aren’t any mounts on the BC-250 itself) and case/PSU compatibility. Many small form factor BC-250 designs you can 3D print are designed around a FlexATX PSU. Before booting, verify your 8-pin pinout against the community documentation. If the 12V pins are in the wrong position, you can fry your board.

With the board ready, the first step is to flash a new BIOS from the shell. It’s straightforward enough, though without the modern conveniences of firmware flashback in the event of a failure. If you lose power, you’ll brick your board and need a hardware controller to reset it, so I recommend connecting to a UPS during the flashing process. You can grab the correct files from the documentation.

From there, you need to clear your CMOS by removing the battery and configure a few BIOS options to force the integrated graphics, set the UMA frame buffer size, and disable IOMMU. From there, you need to choose which Linux distro you’re going to use, which is very important. I’d recommend experimenting with a few different distros, especially if you’re new to Linux.

For gaming, the go-to options are Bazzite and CachyOS, the former of which I originally went with. There are some “optimized” images floating around for the BC-250 that supposedly rope in all of the configuration and fixes you need into a fresh OS image. I wouldn’t recommend using those. Setting up the BC-250 is getting easier by the day (I have found new fixes and scripts that automate installing several fixes just in the time I’ve been testing the board), so these optimized images are, at best, out of date, and at worst, not actually optimized at all. Tread carefully.

You don’t need an optimized image because, at least for Bazzite and CachyOS, scripts exist that can automate the entire setup process. Strictly speaking, the only thing you need is the GPU governor. Previously, you would need a kernel patch, but a GPU governor via an SMU now exists and is what I used. The governor is what allows dynamic frequency scaling on the GPU, as well as overclocking.

You’ll also need a compatible kernel, which is easier to manage on rolling distros like CachyOS. 6.18.18 LTS is the recommended kernel at the time of writing, but 6.17.11+ works, along with 6.12.x to 6.14.x LTS. Other kernels may work, though some (such as 6.15.0) are broken and will trigger a kernel panic.

With your distro chosen and a correct kernel working, here are the optimization steps I took:

• Install GPU and CPU governor
• Unlock 40 CUs
• Setup Zswap with 32GB swap page
• Install ACPI fix
• Configure PWM sensors

Again, scripts exist for these patches, the most critical of which don’t even require kernel patching any longer. The exact fixes you need and the method to install them will depend on the distro you choose, however, so make sure to keep the setup documentation handy.

The list above is in order of importance. Once you have the GPU governor, the next step is to try to enable the full GPU. Previously, you would need a kernel patch, but the bc250-cu-live-manager utility can enable the CUs via a User Mode Register (UMR) without the need for a kernel patch. Not only is this easier to do, but it also persists across updates, unlike a kernel patch, where new kernels will force you to go through the unlock process again. The end result is identical regardless of the path you choose.

I spent a good deal of time testing the 40 CUs before doing any other optimizations, and I’d recommend you do the same. Just because the board has 40 CUs doesn’t mean you can use all of them. I was able to unlock all 40, though not at the frequencies some others have reported. And some users aren’t able to use all 40, rooting out bad clusters for a 32-CU or 36-CU configuration. Overclocking-like trial and error is necessary here, though, as we’ll get to in the performance section later, experimenting is worth the hassle. Using all 40 CUs, even at suboptimal clock speeds, offers much better performance.

Although setting everything up on Bazzite should be easy, I ran into issues numerous times. It’s an immutable OS image, which can cause problems depending on the fixes you’re trying to apply. It’s a great choice if you want to quickly set up the BC-250, but it became clear that an immutable image isn’t optimal if you want to get the best performance. Further, some newer fixes simply wouldn’t work, such as unlocking the extra two CPU cores.

The CachyOS pivot

After a few days of optimizing, testing, and troubleshooting Bazzite, I made the hard decision to wipe the machine and start fresh with CachyOS. In hindsight, I should have started with CachyOS from the beginning for numerous reasons, but mainly because it’s a rolling Arch-based distro. Bazzite is a Fedora Atomic-based distro. It’s immutable, adding guardrails to make it difficult to break anything, but in the process, making it much more difficult to apply low-level changes like kernel patches.

If you’re not familiar with Linux and don’t care to become familiar, Bazzite is your best bet. It’s convenient, and it includes a ton of small community fixes right in the startup menu, such as the LSFG-VK project for Lossless Scaling. It became clear, however, that you’re trading performance for convenience with Bazzite. CachyOS is more hands-on, but it’s much easier to actually accomplish what you need to with the BC-250.

Most notably, CachyOS (and other rolling release distros) allow you to easily manage your kernel. There are alternative methods for critical setup items like the GPU governor and CU unlock that don’t require a kernel patch. However, having the ability to easily patch your kernel helps when you run up against compatibility or performance issues, allowing you to try alternative installation methods or community fixes.

Further, CachyOS has access to yay, or Yet Another Yogurt, the simple command-line call to search and install packages from the Arch User Repository (AUR). It takes some time getting used to living in the command line as often as you do on any Arch-based distro. But even knowing just a few basic commands allows you to accomplish what you want much faster than fumbling around with flatpaks, at least in my experience.

Getting set back up was simple thanks to a community script that automates nearly all of the configuration and optimization for the BC-250. The BC250-Toolkit script brings together all of the various community patches, including optional optimizations, and it just worked. Coming off of Bazzite, it was a treat to run up against the immutable walls of the distro. I was able to accomplish in a few hours what took me more than a day with Bazzite.

CachyOS specifically has a few optimizations for gaming, as well. First, there’s the BORE, or Burst-Oriented Response Enhancer, scheduler that, as the name implies, is optimized for bursty workloads (Michael Larabel over at Phoronix has a great writeup on that). CachyOS also includes packages for x86-64 v3 and v4, the latter of which is relevant to the BC-250.

These optimizations represent a substantial performance improvement. In Forza Horizon 6, for example, I went from 61 FPS at 4K with the Low preset to 72 FPS on CachyOS after it was configured properly (with 40 CUs in both cases). In Cyberpunk 2077, I went from 74.7 FPS on Bazzite to 82.2 FPS at 1080p with the Steam Deck preset, and perhaps more impressively, from 47.8 FPS to 56.5 FPS at 1440p.

I saw higher peak performance on Bazzite in Unigine Superposition, though that’s likely due to more thermal headroom for the GPU, as I wasn’t able to enable the extra CPU cores on Bazzite. I mainly wanted to show this chart to bring the “optimized” Bazzite image into the fold, which was supposedly an image that was already configured for the BC-250. Using a script to automate the installation of several tools (like the one available for CachyOS) is one thing. Using an entirely custom image is another. I’d suggest starting with a clean, official image regardless of the distro you choose.

Testing performance on the BC-250

The best touchstone for comparisons with the BC-250 is the Steam Machine. The Steam Machine is more powerful simply based on the spec sheet. I ran a truncated list of benchmarks to see how the BC-250 stacks up, as well as several additional benchmarks on the BC-250 alone. Performance here is tough to compare fairly. Even just with CachyOS and Bazzite above, we see large performance differences. And, as will become clear in this section, there were numerous tests that either showed performance issues inconsistently or simply failed to run at all.

Our best point of comparison between the Steam Machine and BC-250 comes in Cyberpunk 2077. Neither machine is capable of achieving a playable frame rate at 4K, but the fully-optimized BC-250 is just 6.7% behind at 1440p. At 1080p, however, the performance drop is 16.1%, exposing perhaps the biggest performance issue with the BC-250.

Forza Horizon 6 also highlights this issue; the CPU in the BC-250 is very weak. It’s not only weak because it’s using the aging Zen 2 architecture, but it also has only six cores (or eight, if you can enable them). It’s such a hurdle because the clock speed is severely limited to just 3.5 GHz, the same as the PS5. We are completely CPU-bound at 1080p and even 1440p in Forza Horizon 6, and then miraculously, at 4K, the larger GPU of the BC-250 is able to take over and actually beat the Steam Machine.

A system so hamstrung by the CPU makes sense in the context of a console. Sony has a performance target, and it makes sense to opt for a weaker CPU and a more powerful GPU. The CPU can reach that performance target. But in the context of a PC where you’re given more options, resolutions, and performance-enhancing features, the limitation of the CPU becomes clear. There’s an obvious performance wall you’ll run into with the BC-250 that no amount of tweaking can solve.

For a clear view of the CPU limitation here, look at the Forza Horizon 6 benchmark above. Running at 1080p with Low graphics is going to induce a CPU bottleneck in most systems, but the gap between GPU render performance and CPU render performance here is massive. According to the game’s benchmark, we were bottlenecked by the CPU entirely throughout the run.

Even at 4K, you can see that the CPU is still a significant influence on performance in this game, showcasing just how unbalanced this system is. Again, that imbalance makes sense for the PS5, but it’s a critical caveat with the BC-250.

In the gallery above, you can browse our other comparative results to get an idea where the BC-250 lands. I’m going to move past comparisons and look at the BC-250 in isolation. An apples-to-apples comparison really isn’t possible (nor fair) with the BC-250. That’s not only due to the wide performance window depending on your specific board and software stack, but also the clear performance limitations of the BC-250 that require certain workloads that wouldn’t make sense with other machines.

Chief among those limitations is VRAM, and memory in general. You have just 16 GB of GDDR6 for the whole system, which is much less of an issue on the PS5 where there’s careful memory management. As you can see in the chart above, I don’t have 4K results for Spider-Man 2 or Doom: The Dark Ages, and that’s due to a lack of VRAM.

In both cases, the games crashed at 4K, but worse, they wouldn’t start back up. I made the mistake of flipping to 4K before turning FSR on, which locked me out of starting the game until I manually edited the settings file prior to launch. 4K is possible on the BC-250, though it has a very narrow performance window considering the VRAM limitations and CPU performance.

Although FSR Performance mode is ideal for 4K (50% scaling, 1080p input resolution), I opted for Balanced to avoid the CPU bottleneck we can see present in other games (you can even see it here in some games, such as Spider-Man 2). However, turning up the input resolution also puts a greater strain on VRAM. You’ll need time and patience to experiment with these more demanding titles to find the ideal balance of settings on the BC-250; of course, if you’re just playing Silksong, none of this matters much.

The VRAM limitation is also relevant for frame generation. With such a narrow memory footprint, you’ll struggle to use frame generation at 4K if you’re already pushing the VRAM to its limits (those buffered frames need to live somewhere). Thankfully, Lossless Scaling is an option on Linux with LSFG-VK, which doesn’t strain your VRAM like in-engine tools.

An important aspect of performance with the BC-250 is cooling. Most governor profiles cap temperature at 80 degrees for multiple reasons. First, the heatsink of the BC-250 is closed on top. You can sit and rip apart the top of the heatsink for direct airflow with a pair of tweezers, but I left the heatsink on my board intact for now, using two Arctic P12 fans to assist with cooling.

Cooling is all the more important with the 40CU unlock and enabling the extra two Zen 2 cores. Stress-testing in Furmark over a 20-minute run, you can see how quickly the GPU throttles from 1,850 MHz back down to 1,500 MHz as it reaches the temperature cap of 80 degrees.

Remember, however, that Furmark is a stress test. I wasn’t thermal throttling in games, with the CPU and GPU settling around 70 degrees in Doom: The Dark Ages. I’ve included CPU and GPU power in the chart above, as well, and you can see that, combined, they rarely poked over 100W. Keep in mind that we’re exclusively looking at GPU and CPU power here, not whole system power. Whole system power can peak above 225W.

The stock heatsink and dual Arctic P12S do a good job keeping the BC-250 chugging along, even with all of the silicon unlocked and a moderate overclock on the GPU. However, Furmark makes it clear that this current iteration of the system can’t sustain its performance over long periods of time. It would take longer for that drop to show up in the most demanding games, unlike in Furmark, where we can see the drop in just 20 minutes. But I plan on revisiting the cooling solution in this BC-250 build. Maybe I can even raise the temperature limit closer to the 100-degree TJmax.

The bad and the ugly of BC-250 gaming

Although the BC-250 offers compelling performance for the price, I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight the numerous quirks I ran into while testing. There are performance issues and limitations with the board that you can explain with hardware, and further compatibility issues that you can explain away with Linux. Then, there’s everything else: the weird bugs, quirks, and oddities that pop up when running a largely community-developed software stack on unofficial hardware that wasn’t built for this purpose.

The above image of Resident Evil 9 is a microcosm of what I’m talking about. The RE Engine is remarkably scalable, and that was on full display with my BC-250 testing. Requiem offered excellent performance, even all the way up to 4K. It didn’t feel like I was compromising much of anything with the BC-250. But then I turned on the “hair strands” setting, and the result is what you can see above.

No, it’s not due to the CU unlock, any overclock, or even the overlay you can see. It’s just something with this set of hardware, this software stack, and the hair strands setting in Resident Evil Requiem.

Similarly, in Doom: The Dark Ages, any resolution change I would apply necessitated a restart of the game. Otherwise, I’d get the ghostly streaking you can see in the image above. On one of these reboots, the game suddenly stopped rendering reflective surfaces, resulting in the strange black voids you can see below.

This isn’t a criticism of the BC-250, and certainly not of the remarkable work of the passionate developers and enthusiasts who’ve created fixes and workarounds for the hardware. The fact that this board boots at all and runs games is a minor miracle. The context of what the board is, however, is important.

You will, inevitably, run into strange issues that aren’t documented anywhere. These are two examples, but I also ran into strange problems elsewhere. The widely used MangoHUD overlay, for example, didn’t pull in my GPU’s clock speed correctly after an update, even after ensuring I applied the community fix through the GPU governor to map the reporting correctly. And once you add external devices, compatibility gets even more complex. The board doesn’t have Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, for example, and an external adapter should work (this UGreen Wi-Fi 6 adapter I purchased does), but it’s just as likely that a driver for another adapter doesn’t work or isn’t available.

I don’t have an issue with these quirks, but the BC-250 also isn’t my primary gaming machine. You should just be aware of them. And, if you’re going to invest in a BC-250 build of your own, be ready to encounter some strange issues that you might not be able to easily troubleshoot.

What’s next?

The BC-250 is a project, and like any good project, it isn’t done here. Now that I’ve messed around with the configuration, tried out different distros, got the critical mods working, and measured performance, I want to actually use the BC-250 long-term. Maybe I can find some additional optimization steps I can take, or workarounds for some of the strange issues that I noticed during testing. Regardless of what it is, I’m confident that I’ll mess around with the BC-250 more outside of just playing games on it.

My clear next step is to work on cooling. I kept things conservative here in order to get valid data in a timely manner, but I want to dig deeper into what I can do on the thermal front, not only to raise the temperature limit, but also to push the GPU overclock further. That may involve some CU tinkering, as well; if I can get similar performance at 36 CUs and better thermal headroom, I may be able to push higher overall performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is down to its lowest price ever, with Amazon slashing 30% off the list price to bring it down to $154. That's even cheaper than the lowest price we've seen on the Core Ultra 5 250KF, which sells for about $20 less. Despite being priced like an entry-level CPU, the 250K Plus ranks among our best CPUs for gaming.

• Check out this Core Ultra 5 250K Plus deal on Amazon

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus originally launched for $200, but it didn't take long for its recommended price to climb to $220. That's because it punches far above what its price would suggest, even at full MSRP. It, along with the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, was framed as a last-ditch effort to bring Arrow Lake to the masses after the failed launch of the original range.

And the refresh worked. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is a 18-core CPU with a split between six Lion Cove P-cores and 12 Skymont E-cores. As with all Arrow Lake CPUs, the 250K Plus doesn't have Hyper-Threading, so it comes with 20 threads, as well. The chip comes with a maximum boost clock of 5.3 GHz, and a PL1/PL2 power of 125W/250W. As it's an unlocked K-series processor, you can overclock the chip, though you'll need to pair it with a Z-series chipset.

Although we almost always recommend a Z-series chipset with a K-series SKU, there actually isn't a locked version of the 250K Plus. Further, many of the OC improvements are baked into the chip, including a 900 MHz bump in die-to-die frequency and a 400 MHz increase in memory fabric speed. Overclocking is a big upside, though it's not strictly required, especially when we're looking at a $154 CPU.

Although the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is priced like an entry-level CPU, it performs much better than its current sales price would suggest, particularly in productivity workloads. You can see the results for the 250K Plus from our CPU benchmark hierarchy in the gallery below.

The 20 cores and threads help it to punch up in multithreaded performance. The chip is 33% faster in our multithreaded geomean compared to AMD's competing Ryzen 7 9700X, despite Team Red's chip costing twice as much right now. Compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X that's around the same price, Intel is a massive 80% ahead.

The multithreaded performance isn't a result of simply throwing a ton of weak cores at the problem. As you can see from our single-threaded rankings, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus came out ahead of every AMD offering we tested, including the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X. Last-gen's Core i9-14900K is slightly faster, though it also costs nearly three times as much.

Gaming is where Intel has started to take a backseat to AMD, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus slips some rankings. On average, the chip is about as fast as the Core i5-14600K. That's marginally faster than the Ryzen 5 9600X and about 3% behind the Ryzen 7 9700X. AMD's Ryzen 5 7600X3D is about 10% faster, though in this current Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sale, Intel's CPU is about $100 cheaper.

At $150, just getting a competent CPU is tough — just see our list of the best budget CPUs — and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is more than competent. Don't miss this deal on Amazon.

If you're looking for more savings, check out our Best PC Hardware deals for a range of products, or dive deeper into our specialized SSD and Storage Deals, Hard Drive Deals, Gaming Monitor Deals, Graphics Card Deals, gaming chair, or CPU Deals pages.

Two new Geekbench listings for Nvidia's upcoming RTX Spark laptop superchip have surfaced, confirming a second, cut-down SKU exists with 18 CPU cores, at least in the testing phases. Both parts score remarkably close to each other, posting impressive multi-core numbers, but their single-core performance isn't special. Still, these are preliminary results on unreleased hardware, so take these numbers with a grain of salt.

The model name for the 20-core (10+10) SKU was shown as "OEMQAJ 766_MIS Product Name DV" with its clocks reported at 4.0 GHz. This chip scored 2,570 points in the single-core test and 23,126 points in the multi-core test. The second listing showed up as "OEMQAJ OEMQAJ Product" with this SKU's 18 cores divided across 10+8 core clusters, clocked at 3.9 GHz. It scored 2,541 points in the single-core test, so within 1% of the 20-core part, while the multi-core was 21,776 points, which is about 6% faster than the full-fat chip.

When you compare these numbers to other Windows-running SoCs on the Geekbench database, these multi-core numbers are among the best. The Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme currently holds the record for the highest multi-core score with 25,075 points, so both SKUs of the RTX Spark lose to it. But when we switch to the AMD AI Max+ 395, which scores 20,609 on average in the same test, even the 18-core Nvidia chip is 5.6% faster here, and the 20-core variant is about 12% faster.

Compared to Apple's lineup, the 20-core RTX Spark is 3.3% faster than the 14-core variant of the M3 Max, which scores 22,385 points in the multi-core bench. Considering that this is pre-release hardware with unoptimized drivers, we can expect it to even beat the maxed-out M4 Pro and the base M4 Max (which hover around 25,000 points) when it officially launches. Moreover, the 18-core SKU's 21,776 points are equal to, if not more than, the base M4 Pro, which also nets around 21,700 points in the multi-core test.

That being said, the swan song falls apart when we bring up the single-core numbers. Every Apple Silicon chip from the base M3 onwards beats the 2,570 points the 20-core RTX Spark achieved in this run. Only the M2 Max with its 2,477 points is bested by the Nvidia offering, and that too by just 3.75%. Apple's current-gen base M5 is a whopping 41% faster here. On the Windows side, the Snapdragon X2 Elite and X2 Elite Extreme score roughly 3,000 points, but AMD and Intel's top-end models take a beating.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 only achieves 2,429 points in the single-core test, making the 20-core RTX Spark 5.8% faster, and the 18-core variant 4.6% faster. The same goes for the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 because its 2,432 points are within the margin of error of the Strix Halo chip. Intel's highest single-core score is achieved by the Core Ultra 9 275HX at 2,467 points, making it 3% slower than the 18-core RTX Spark and 4.2% slower than the 20-core SKU. However, Intel's actual fastest chip, the Core Ultra X9 388H, scores 2,767 points, making it about 7% faster than even the 20-core RTX Spark.

All in all, this is a much better showing for Nvidia's upcoming laptop Superchip than previous leaks. It's clear that driver optimization is slowly unlocking the full potential of the silicon, and by the time RTX Spark is in the hands of reviewers, we expect it to compete fiercely with every Windows machine. Nvidia is working hard to ensure a proper launch with a commitment to making DRM and anti-cheat work on day one.

The mid-range CPU segment has become more competitive than ever, with both Intel and AMD refreshing their lineups and pushing aggressive pricing. In one corner, we have the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, an important reset for Intel that prioritizes class-leading productivity performance over efficiency, while also offering solid value. In the other corner is AMD's newly launched Ryzen 7 7700X3D, a more affordable, slightly lower-clocked alternative to the 7800X3D.

This faceoff is particularly interesting because the two chips take very different approaches despite costing about the same price. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus packs 24 cores and excels in productivity workloads, while also delivering Intel's strongest gaming performance in years. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D, meanwhile, relies on AMD's proven 3D V-Cache technology to deliver gaming performance within 5% of the 7800X3D, although it trails significantly in single- and multi-threaded workloads.

While the Ryzen 7 7700X3D is aimed at gamers looking for X3D performance at a lower price, it faces stiff competition from Intel's aggressively -priced Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, as well as its own sibling, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which is often available for only a little more.

So, is AMD's gaming-focused approach enough to beat Intel's well-rounded Arrow Lake Refresh processor, or has Intel finally found the right balance of price and performance to reclaim the mid-range crown? In this six-round faceoff, we compare these two sub-$350 CPUs to find out which one comes out on top.

Features and Specifications: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

Taking a look at the technical specifications, it's clear that each chip adopts a distinct strategy for the mid-range market. While Intel has optimized its architecture for a higher core and thread count along with improved interconnect speeds, AMD continues to leverage its stacked cache to maintain gaming dominance on a long-lived platform.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is based on the original Arrow Lake-S family, utilizing the same microarchitecture that we saw on the 265K, built using TSMC’s 3nm process. It matches the flagship 285K with a 24-core configuration (8 Lion Cove P-cores and 16 Skymont E-cores) and operates with a 125W TDP. The chip can scale to a 250W Maximum Turbo Power (MTP), which is the maximum power limit that this CPU can consume for short periods when running at maximum turbo boost frequencies

Intel has also standardized several enthusiast-level performance tweaks for Arrow Lake Refresh, most notably a 900 MHz increase in die-to-die frequency and a 400 MHz fabric speed boost. It also officially supports faster DDR5-7200, along with 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 5 and 76MB of total cache. Possibly the only major concern with the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the LGA 1851 platform. With Intel's next-generation Nova Lake processors expected to launch later this year, the current platform will have a relatively short lifespan, restricting any future upgrade options.

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D serves as a more affordable, lower-clocked variant of the 7800X3D, featuring the same eight Zen 4 cores with a peak boost clock of 4.5 GHz. Its primary architectural strength is its 104MB of total cache including 64MB of vertically stacked L3, which is specifically tuned to eliminate memory latency bottlenecks.

The chip is rated at a 120W TDP with a 162W Package Power Tracking (PPT) limit, though it frequently operates well below these levels during gaming. A major selling point for Team Red is motherboard flexibility as the 7700X3D can be used with existing AM5 motherboards (600 and 800-series chipsets), and AMD has committed to supporting the socket through at least 2029.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

While AMD offers a more stable platform and superior gaming efficiency thanks to its large cache size, Intel’s hardware package is more comprehensive for the price. The 270K Plus offers triple the core count, significantly higher frequencies, and faster memory support.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

To evaluate the gaming performance of these two chips, we conducted our testing at 1080p resolution using an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090. We used this setup to prevent the GPU from becoming the bottleneck, allowing each CPU's gaming performance to shine through. By removing the graphics card as a limiting factor, we can see exactly how the 7700X3D’s 3D V-Cache stacks up against the higher core count and clock speeds of the 270K Plus.

We used identical systems for testing. You can read more about our full system configuration in our Ryzen 7 7700X3D review and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus review.

Across a comprehensive 16-game geomean, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D holds its position as the superior gaming chip, delivering a 174.3 FPS average. This represents a 5.3% performance lead over the 270K Plus, which produced a 165.6 FPS average. While Intel's latest flagship has significantly narrowed the gap compared to the original Arrow Lake silicon, AMD’s 3D V-cache architecture continues to provide a higher performance in the majority of tested titles.

Even when examining the 1% low frame rates, which is the perceived smoothness while gaming, the 7700X3D maintains a slight edge with a 118 FPS average compared to the 115 FPS from the 270K Plus.

AMD's stacked cache gives the 7700X3D a clear edge in games that are sensitive to memory latency. For instance, in Minecraft RT, the 7700X3D delivered 144.5 FPS average, dwarfing the 89.7 FPS produced by the 270K Plus for a massive 61.1% performance advantage. We see similarly dominant leads for AMD in F1 2024, where it leads by 30.4% (201.8 vs. 154.7 FPS), and in Final Fantasy XIV, where it holds a 21.7% lead (177.7 vs. 146.0 FPS). Even in esports titles like Counter-Strike 2, the 7700X3D maintains a comfortable 7.3% lead with 707.9 FPS over Intel’s 660.0 FPS.

Intel’s Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is no slouch, however, as it leverages its higher boost frequencies and the new iBOT runtime translation layer to take the lead in several games. Intel manages a win in Hogwarts Legacy, producing 135.3 FPS for a 9.1% advantage over AMD’s 124.0 FPS, a result directly attributed to iBOT. Team Blue also edges out victories in The Last of Us Part 1 with 175.6 FPS (6% lead) and Spider-Man 2 with 207.2 FPS (5% lead).

In many other modern titles, the two processors are essentially locked in a dead heat. For example, in DOOM: The Dark Ages, the 270K Plus delivers 200.4 FPS while the 7700X3D is right beside it at 200.0 FPS. The story is similar in Flight Simulator 24, where Intel's 120.5 FPS and AMD's 114.9 FPS result in a negligible difference during actual gameplay. These results indicate that while the 7700X3D is the more consistent gaming choice, especially in cache-heavy titles, the 270K Plus is a highly competitive gaming chip that delivers impressive results for its $300 price tag.

The biggest difference between these two architectures is noticeable when analyzing power consumption and efficiency metrics. Based on our 16-game CPU power geomean, the 7700X3D is clearly way more efficient, drawing an average of just 60.9 watts while gaming. In comparison, the 270K Plus consumed 107.3 watts on average, which is a significant 76.2% increase in power. This results in a massive gap in gaming efficiency where the 7700X3D delivers 2.86 FPS per watt, making it roughly 85.7% more efficient than the 270K Plus, which trails at 1.54 FPS per watt.

Intel does take the lead when it comes to raw frequency, with the 270K Plus maintaining an impressive 5,247 MHz average clock speed across our gaming suite. This is over 700 MHz faster than the 7700X3D, which averaged 4,505 MHz. Despite the much higher clocks and power draw of the Intel chip, its thermal management remains surprisingly competitive when paired with the right cooling solution. The 270K Plus averaged 59°C during gaming, though it still runs warmer than the 7700X3D, which stays at a cooler 55°C average.

When factoring in the cost of the silicon, the competition for the best bang for your buck is incredibly tight. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D provides a value of 0.53 FPS per dollar, narrowly edging out the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which sits at 0.52 FPS per dollar.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

The 7700X3D’s overall higher average frame rates and excellent efficiency makes it the more attractive option for a dedicated gaming build. Since raw gaming performance, efficiency, and thermals all favor Team Red in this category, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D takes the win for this round.

Productivity Performance: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

AMD's X3D processors are widely known for their gaming prowess. However, they have historically struggled to maintain the same level of dominance in productivity performance. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D is no exception, as its cache-focused architecture and lower clock speeds result in relatively weak single- and multi-threaded results.

In contrast, Intel has managed to maintain its standing in the productivity segment even when its gaming performance faced challenges. The 270K Plus is a productivity workhorse that is capable of delivering excellent productivity performance making it a standout choice for users who need a balanced system for both work and play.

In multi-threaded workloads, the performance gap between these two processors is pretty massive, primarily driven by Intel's higher core count advantage. Across our multi-threaded performance ranking geomean, the Intel chip delivers a score of 626 compared to the 272 produced by the 7700X3D, representing a staggering 130% performance lead for Team Blue. This level of parallel processing power places the 270K Plus in a completely different performance tier, making it more comparable to much more expensive flagship processors.

Individual benchmarks further highlight this lopsided victory for Intel across various professional tasks. In Cinebench 2024’s multi-core test, the 270K Plus scores 2,509 points, which is roughly 135.6% faster than the 1,065 points achieved by the 7700X3D. This trend continues in POV-Ray, where Intel leads by approximately 169.5% (15,697 vs. 5,823 PPS), and in V-Ray 6, where it maintains a massive 129.5% advantage (45,016 vs. 19,615). Even in intensive video encoding tasks via HandBrake x265, the Intel chip more than doubles the performance of its AMD rival, delivering 29.9 FPS compared to just 14.3 FPS for the 7700X3D. These results demonstrate that for heavy rendering or data-crunching workloads, Intel is the undisputed leader in this price bracket.

A similar trend can be seen when examining single-threaded performance, a crucial metric for general system responsiveness and applications that do not scale across multiple cores. In our single-threaded geomean, the 270K Plus scores 278 points, which is 42.5% faster than the 195 achieved by the 7700X3D. Specific tests like Cinebench 2024’s single-core benchmark show the 270K Plus maintaining a 39.7% lead over the 7700X3D (145 vs. 103.8 points), while the lead grows to a staggering 82.6% in POV-Ray’s single-core test (1,138 vs. 623 PPS). Even in audio encoding, the Intel chip finishes the Lame Extended task in 68.61 seconds, whereas the 7700X3D trails at 91.53 seconds.

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Ultimately, the 270K Plus simply blows the competition out of the water when it comes to productivity. While the 7700X3D is a highly efficient and specialized CPU for gaming, it cannot match the raw horsepower that Intel offers. For any user whose daily routine involves video editing, 3D rendering, or heavy multitasking, the 270K Plus is the obvious choice and should be the clear favorite for a multi-purpose system.

Overclocking: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

While both manufacturers provide tools to squeeze extra performance from their silicon, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is built as an enthusiast-friendly, fully unlocked processor. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D, on the other hand, is a more restricted processor designed primarily for out-of-the-box gaming efficiency.

For the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, overclocking is a centerpiece of the experience. As a fully unlocked K-series SKU, it offers users granular control over per-core voltages, power limits, and clock speeds via an unlocked multiplier. While these changes can be done by entering the BIOS, one can also download the Intel XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility) software to fine tune the CPU.

One of the most significant changes seen on Arrow Lake Refresh is that Intel has standardized several high-end performance tweaks including the 900MHz die-to-die frequency bump and the 400MHz fabric speed increase. This means users receive enthusiast-level interconnect performance without necessarily needing a premium Z-series motherboard. That said, Z890 boards are still necessary as they offer sophisticated tools for manual tuning and pushing the CPU to its limits.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D follows the same path as previous Zen 4 X3D processors including a locked multiplier, which prevents traditional manual overclocking. Users are instead limited to automated and semi-automated features like Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) and Curve Optimizer. PBO2 allows the CPU to dynamically adjust its frequencies based on available power and thermal headroom, while Curve Optimizer enables more advanced fine-tune voltage offsets for each of the eight Zen 4 cores.

While these tools can lead to sustained higher boost clocks, the sensitive nature of the 3D V-Cache stack leads to thermal challenges that limit frequency headroom. Thus, overclocking gains on the 7700X3D are often minimal compared to the flexibility offered by the Intel chip.

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

The 270K Plus is a far more overclocking-friendly product. It offers a vast suite of features that AMD simply cannot match due to its architectural restrictions and locked multiplier.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

This is a crucial section of the faceoff as it highlights the most significant architectural divide between these two processors. While the 270K Plus prioritizes raw performance throughput, the 7700X3D focuses on extreme efficiency. This is immediately evident in their official power ratings where Intel specifies a 125W TDP with a massive 250W Maximum Turbo Power (MTP), while AMD utilizes a 120W TDP with a 162W Package Power Tracking (PPT) limit.

In synthethic multi-threaded workloads, the difference is quite evident. While running HandBrake x265 10-bit encode, the 270K Plus consumes an average of 226W, which is more than triple the 72W required by the Ryzen 7 7700X3D. A similar trend appears in VP9 encoding, where Intel draws 184W compared to AMD’s efficient 65W. Even in lighter tasks like single-threaded y-cruncher AVX workloads, the Intel chip requires 55W while the AMD chip stays at a modest 32W. Idle power consumption also favors Team Red where the 7700X3D idles at 19W and draws 22W during YouTube playback, whereas the 270K Plus sits higher at 29W and 38W, respectively.

When we translate these power figures into efficiency metrics, AMD’s lead tends to stay ahead in most traditional benchmarks. In Cinebench 2024, the 7700X3D produces 14.4 points per watt, significantly outperforming the 10.4 points per watt from the 270K Plus. In HandBrake x265, AMD achieves a superior efficiency rating of 5W per FPS , while Intel trails at 7.56W per FPS.

However, the efficiency scatter plots provide a more nuanced look at how performance scaling impacts total energy consumption. In the Blender Classroom scatterplot, the 270K Plus delivers a much higher performance of roughly 135 samples per minute, but it consumes over 33,000 kJ of task energy. In contrast, the 7700X3D finishes with only around 60 samples per minute but uses significantly less total energy at roughly 4,500 kJ.

The HandBrake x265 scatterplot shows a similar trade-off where Intel reaches 30 FPS but consumes over 55 kJ, while AMD provides 14 FPS at roughly 36 kJ. Interestingly, the Linpack scatterplot shows the 270K Plus reaching over 850 GFLOPS with roughly 11WHr of energy, making it slightly more efficient in terms of performance-per-energy than the 7700X3D, which delivers roughly 340 GFLOPS for 10Whr.

From a cooling perspective, the 250W MTP on the 270K Plus means that it requires a robust cooling solution, like a 360mm AIO, to avoid thermal throttling during extended all-core loads. The 7700X3D is far easier to manage, remaining remarkably efficient and manageable with a mid-range air cooler. While the 270K Plus delivers class leading performance, it does so by significantly compromising efficiency in heavy workloads compared to AMD.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

Pricing: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus was initially introduced with a justified $300 price tag, but you'll now find it between $300 and $320. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D made its debut just last month and carries a $330 MSRP, placing it right under the 7800X3D. Essentially, there is not a major difference when it comes to the chips themselves, however, the true financial divide becomes apparent when we look at the total platform cost.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus demands a more substantial investment to reach its full potential. While one can opt for a B860 motherboard, a compatible Z890 motherboard is necessary in order to access premium overclocking and tuning features. These typically start around $150-$200, and can go as high as $600 packed with premium features. To handle the processor′s 250W Maximum Turbo Power(MTP) during heavy productivity tasks, a high−end 360mm AIO liquid cooler ($100-$150) or a dual-tower air-cooler ($50-$100) is recommended.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D offers a much more budget-friendly entry point. A solid B650 motherboard can be found for around $120-$150 and the chip can be effectively cooled with a modest $50 air cooler.

Unfortunately, both platforms are held back by the ongoing global shortage of memory, which has caused prices to shoot up significantly. Since both CPUs require DDR5 RAM, builders are stuck in a RAMpocalypse where a basic 32GB kit costs over $400. This extra cost is bad news for both sides as it cancels out any price advantage.

Overall, the lower upfront platform cost makes the 7700X3D a slightly more attractive option for users prioritizing their budget. Furthermore, the AM5 socket offers a clear upgrade path through at least 2029, ensuring that your motherboard investment remains viable for future CPU generations. That is not the case with Intel, as the LGA 1851 socket is expected to be replaced once the next-generation of Nova Lake CPUs arrive.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

Ultimately, while both the chips are available at a very similar price range, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D is the smarter financial play for a majority of users. Its significantly lower platform costs, superior gaming efficiency, and guaranteed platform longevity provide a level of value that the more power-hungry Intel refresh cannot quite match.

Bottom Line: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

The Ryzen 7 7700X3D and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus are designed for very different users, even though they sit in roughly the same price range. Like previous X3D chips, AMD's latest processor is built with gaming in mind, using its large 3D V-Cache to deliver excellent frame rates while keeping power consumption impressively low. Intel, on the other hand, combines a 24-core design with higher clock speeds and platform improvements to create one of the strongest productivity processors in its class without giving up much gaming performance.

The final score is tied at three rounds apiece. AMD comfortably wins gaming performance, power efficiency, and platform value, three factors that matter a lot for buyers shopping in this price segment. The AM5 platform also provides a significantly longer upgrade path, allowing users to drop in future processors without replacing their motherboard.

Intel, however, deserves recognition for what it has accomplished with the 270K Plus. It delivers outstanding single- and multi-threaded performance, offers a fully unlocked overclocking experience, and narrows the gaming gap to just a few percentage points in many modern titles. If your workload includes video editing, software development, 3D rendering, or other heavily threaded applications, the 270K Plus is the obvious choice and justifies its higher power draw.

For everyone else, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D is the more compelling CPU. It offers faster gaming performance, exceptional efficiency, lower platform costs, and a future-proof AM5 ecosystem. Unless your workload regularly extends beyond gaming into demanding productivity applications, AMD's latest X3D chip is the easier processor to recommend.

⭐ Winner: Tie

More CPU Faceoffs

• AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D
• Intel Core i5-14400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X
• AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K
• AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Ryzen 7 9800X3D

The owner of what is claimed to be “the original engineering copy of the Intel 8080 rubylith mask” has shared a social media shout-out, looking for a skilled restorer. From the shared photograph, this important artifact from the history of computing looks like it would benefit from remounting and reframing. Hopefully, the hand‑crafted, large‑scale sheet of red film (Rubylith) has remained in good condition under glass, though. The framed artifact is likely genuine and original, as its current owner is thought to be related to Internet Hall of Fame inductee Dan Lynch, a pivotal figure in the early Internet’s success.

In you unfurl the tweet above, you can see Tom Lynch, a self-described arborist and the owner of an AI infrastructure startup, standing behind the framed chip artwork. Folks comment on the Rubylith looking just like the one that the Intel Trinity: Andy Grove, Robert Noyce, and Gordon Moore, were photographed beside in 1978.

Rubylith is simply an adhesive, peelable red film that found favor in graphic arts and chip design before designers went digital. Engineers could cut away parts of the film to define where light would be exposed during photolithography processes. Rubyliths would often be marked with pens, tape, and overlays, especially as designs were iterated and refined ahead of tape-out.

The Intel 8080’s primary architect was Federico Faggin, and it was manually drafted in the age before modern CAD. This human-scale draft is likely 100x magnification compared to the finished processor die. Even scaled this large, it would still be quite an intricate drawing as it had to map around 5,000 transistors, traces, etc., into an approximate 20- x 16-inch sheet. The commercial Intel 8080 release ended up being manufactured on a 6 μm silicon gate process. It originally ran at 2.0 MHz clocks, but later revisions would boast clock speeds up to 3.125 MHz.

Intel’s 8080 was an important 8-bit microprocessor for both the company and the advancement of personal computing. This 8-bit CPU was the one chosen for the Altair 8800, was the original target architecture for the CP/M operating system, and would be a big influence on the later x86 architecture. We also recently wrote how the 8080 bottlenecked the Space Invaders arcade design, unintentionally resulting in the space shoot-em-up’s thrilling increase in pacing as aliens were zapped from the sky.

A powerful processor is at the heart of every exceptional gaming PC, and nothing rivals the performance of AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D. If you are building a new system or updating an existing one, this Ryzen 7 9800X3D bundle, which includes an MSI B850 Gaming Plus WiFi motherboard and an MSI MAG Coreliquid A13 240 AIO liquid cooler, is for you. This curated package is available for $458.99, a massive $160 off the regular price of purchasing the components separately.

• Check out the Ryzen 7 9800X3D bundle deal on Newegg

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is the best gaming processor that money can buy right now. With an octa-core, 16-thread design and a massive 96MB of L3 cache, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D not only delivers top-notch gaming performance, but it also excels in productivity tasks. Whether you are assembling a system for gaming or serious work, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D provides a rock-solid platform for your build.

While the exclusive bundle does not include any DDR5 memory, it is not a big drawback. Thanks to its design, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D maintains stellar gaming performance regardless of whether you pair it with slow memory or even a single memory module. Therefore, you do not need to spend a fortune on premium memory, which is a big plus in this ongoing memory shortage.

On the motherboard side, Newegg's premium bundle includes a feature-rich MSI B860 Gaming Plus WiFi motherboard. It boasts a 12+2+1-phase power delivery subsystem that maximizes the Ryzen 7 9800X3D's performance while also offering ample headroom for overclocking for those who want to extract extra performance.

The B860 Gaming Plus WiFi comes equipped with four DDR5 memory slots that can accommodate up to 256GB of memory with blazing data rates up to DDR5-8200. Meanwhile, storage options arrive in the shape of three high-speed M.2 slots (one at PCIe 5.0 and two at PCIe 4.0) and four standard SATA III ports. The motherboard also has a PCIe 5.0 x16 expansion slot for pairing the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with one of the best graphics cards.

While the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is not a processor that runs very hot, you can never have too much cooling. The MSI MAG Coreliquid A13 240, a solid 240mm AIO liquid cooler, uses a high-performance pump, a thick radiator with wider water channels for a higher flow rate, and two pre-installed 120mm PWM fans that are quiet and performant.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D bundle will be available on Newegg for the entire month. The massive 26% discount translates to real, tangible savings, bringing the bundle down to just $458.99. It is a rare opportunity to secure the best gaming processor with a very decent motherboard and 240mm AIO liquid cooler at a price that you probably will not find elsewhere. Given the popularity of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the bundle will likely sell out very fast, so do not think too much before swiping your credit card.

If you're looking for more savings, check out our Best PC Hardware deals for a range of products, or dive deeper into our specialized SSD and Storage Deals, Hard Drive Deals, Gaming Monitor Deals, Graphics Card Deals, gaming chair, or CPU Deals pages.

To optimize how software runs on hardware, instruction latency analysis looks at the time it takes for low-level instructions to execute on a processor, either to optimize the architecture or to optimize applications to run on a particular architecture. One hardware researcher, Christopher Domas (@xoreaxeaxeax on GitHub), is taking a different approach with the CPU Deoptimization leaderboard, which looks not to make Assembly instructions run as fast as possible, but as slow as possible to measure the single instruction with the highest latency.

The winner here is fxrstor64, which took 62 seconds, or over 198 billion cycles, to complete. This instruction restores the state of registers used for SIMD calculations to a 512-byte memory location. To achieve the highest (slowest) score, Domas first used their own mmiotic tool to find a high-latency area in the internal PCIe fabric, then forced the CPU to load a 512-byte state from MMIO (Memory-Mapped I/O), essentially processing all of those 512 bytes as slow as possible. That took 74 billion cycles or just over 23 seconds to complete.

Then, they went further "by starving the fabric while the load is in flight." They did so by using a series of 4-byte reads from another high-latency MMIO register, overwhelming the CPU's PCIe root complex and forcing the state restore to queue behind frivolous read ops. The next step is to use the AMX instructions available in Intel's Sapphire Rapids for xrstore64. The state area is increased from 512 bytes to 8KB, which could cause the instruction to hang for more than 1 trillion cycles.

The x86 leaderboard is live on GitHub now, and it looks like Domas has ARM and RISC-V leaderboards planned, as well. There are a few rules for the runs. Domas says any setup is fine, so long as only the execution of a single instruction is scored. Interruptible instructions aren't allowed, nor is scoring emulated instructions run on the handler. All times are normalized based on the CPU's base clock, and the platforms were all run without hardware modifications.

We're dealing with assembly code here, so the ranking is less about the specific instruction and more about what you're doing with that instruction.

Domas primarily used two CPUs for testing: the Intel Core i7-8559U and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H (inside the Trigkey S5). For the rdmsr instruction, however, they used a VIA Eden chip, which was a series of embedded processors from the early 2000s. The rdmsr command is used to read a model-specific register, or MSR. According to Domas, VIA "uses an undocumented register at 0x133 that gives wildly high response time." That command took 202 microseconds or 161,602 cycles to execute.

This is not the developer's first foray into wild experimentation with low-level instructions. An earlier project, called movfuscator, is a C compiler that solely uses the mov (move) command.

Amazon Web Services is cracking down on internal use of EC2 instances among its engineers. In May, the company reportedly met with engineers and told them to reduce CPU waste to ensure AWS has enough CPU capacity to meet customer demand, The Information reports. The message comes as demand for CPUs in the data center has hit a fever pitch, with the traditional eight-to-one or four-to-one ratio of GPUs to CPUs moving closer to parity.

EC2 instances make up a large chunk of the modern internet, and they're used in private deployments, as well. Traditionally, AWS engineers have been able to spin up their own instances for development, leveraging the relatively low CPU utilization required for web infrastructure to use more virtual machines. Now, engineers say they're waiting days to get access when they previously could get access within hours. One engineer told The Information that they've never had to wait this long for an instance, even after several years of working at Amazon.

Amazon deploys several different types of CPUs in EC2 instances, including AMD and Intel options and its relatively new Graviton5 chip. Graviton5 is Amazon's most powerful CPU to date, and it uses an Arm-based architecture along the lines of Nvidia's Vera CPU and Arm's own AGI.

The increased demand for CPU comes on the back of AI agents, a new paradigm in productivity that even companies as large as Amazon are struggling to reckon with. Last month, for instance, a coding agent blew through $1.8 million in token costs at Amazon, surpassing a development budget by 860%.

Much of the AI infrastructure currently in place is designed around inference, a workload that's accelerated by GPUs. With the four-to-one ratio, the CPU served as a way to keep the GPUs fed, and nothing more. However, agentic workloads are much more complex. They often involve tool calls that run on the CPU, as well as more complex orchestration of inference on GPUs. This is what has brought CPUs center stage in the agentic era. Intel, AMD, and others have echoed what we've heard from memory and storage companies over the past several months: the demand is so high for CPUs that most companies will take whatever they can get.

The major players are capitalizing on that demand. AMD just recently unveiled its portfolio of Zen 6 'Venice' CPUs for the data center, marking the first time AMD has launched a new architecture in the data center before the client market in decades. Nvidia has also pivoted its messaging away from accelerators and toward its new Vera CPU, vying to stake its claim in an expanding market of agentic AI infrastructure.

Although Amazon is wrestling with CPU capacity across its internal engineers and external customers, The Information reports that shortages are largely a problem for spot instances. A consultant told the outlet that contracted capacity hasn't experienced any shortages.

Following publication, an Amazon Web Services spokesperson reached out with the following statement:

"Demand for AWS services, including EC2, is incredibly strong and growing. Even with this heavy demand, we continue to satisfy the overwhelming majority of compute needs for both our internal and external customers. We work closely with internal teams to meet their compute needs while ensuring they use EC2 resources as efficiently as possible, such as reclaiming idle instances, right-sizing, and scaling up and down as needs change – just as we’ve always done. These efficiencies help manage capacity for internal and external customers alike, and any suggestions that these long-standing efforts reflect new capacity constraints is simply wrong.

This premise is sensationalized. Frugality is in our DNA since Day 1. We have always encouraged our teams to operate efficiently. We also share best practices for how customers can optimize resources to external customers. This isn’t a new directive, and encouraging efficient use of resources isn’t unique to Amazon."

We pressed Amazon on if engineers had been given deadlines to reduce their compute usage, as The Information originally reported. An AWS spokesperson responded: "This narrative on EC2 is inaccurate. As part of our normal business operations, and backed by our leadership principle of frugality, we are always driving efficiency across our resources to ensure teams are optimizing capacity."

AMD is expected to unveil its next-gen Zen 6 platform at CES 2026 with Ryzen 10000 series processors. While we're looking forward to IPC and clock speed improvements, it seems like more subtle, under-the-hood changes could end up upgrading the gaming experience in a big way. According to a tip received by Videocardz, AMD is implementing various per-core optimizations to ensure foreground tasks get priority over background applications. Each new feature is supposed to more smartly manage the power and thermal budgets at the silicon's disposal, so let's go over each of them.

First up, we have CPPC Performance Priority — CPPC stands for Collaborative Processor Performance Control, and it's responsible for communication between the silicon and the OS. It lets the firmware sitting in between decide the performance of each core separately. This feature has actually existed since the Ryzen 3000 series, but it doesn't work perfectly. Zen 6 CPUs are apparently supposed to apply a band-aid fix and improve their effectiveness.

Secondly, we have FloorPerf, which acts as a dynamic, targeted power delivery system. It sets a minimum clock speed for all cores that the silicon can clock down to in case of thermal throttling. For instance, imagine you're running a game in the foreground while Discord and Spotify sit in the background. The temperatures on your Zen 6 CPU rise to the point of throttling, but instead of reducing the speed of all cores, FloorPerf will target the cores running the background tasks first, in order to maintain the performance of your game.

We covered a recent fix like this for the Linux world as well, where a sudden spike in the background can cause the foreground task to choke. Linux has an issue with priority allocation across tasks, so that was a different situation, but similar logic applies here. On a Zen 6 CPU, instead of your game suddenly experiencing microstutters because of aggressive throttling, FloorPerf will try to limit whatever's running in the background first. The aforementioned CPPC Performance Priority should work hand in hand with this feature to maintain clocks on the important cores.

CPPC will get another boost in the form of HighestFreq, which will allow the OS to access more granular chip data to make better core management decisions. As the name suggests, it pertains to maintaining high clock speeds on the cores running a foreground task. The OS will be aware of exactly which core can boost the highest and maintain that speed the longest. This will allow it to assign, for instance, a game's main rendering thread to the fastest cores, while pushing background apps to more power-efficient ones.

In conjunction with this, Zen 6 is also seemingly getting per-core EPP boost. EPP stands for Energy Performance Preference, and it's supposed to fix core parking issues caused by a momentary bottleneck. For example, if the CPU is waiting for the GPU to render the next frame, the clock speeds for the active cores will drop in that moment and struggle to ramp back up in time, forcing all cores to boost when the frame is ready. EPP boost is supposed to identify the active cores and individually keep them in high-performance mode to eliminate any wait times.

Lastly, Zen 6 is reportedly introducing PQOS Global Bandwidth Enforcement and an updated IBS Memory Profiler. Both of these target memory bandwidth with the same goal of maximum stability as everything else discussed so far. The former is responsible for allocating RAM to background tasks, ensuring their usage stays under the limit for foreground priority. The latter will limit L3 cache access to background tasks when it detects that those tasks are slowing down the foreground application, which should help with frametime consistency in games.

As you can tell, all of these optimizations are supposed to work together and harmonize into a more efficient processor at the end — one that maximizes the silicon's potential as much as possible. Of course, none of this is confirmed and there's a lot that could be gated behind product segmentation. We could see some features only on high-end parts, while some are limited to mobile; there's no telling at the moment, but it's exciting stuff, nonetheless. Seems like a battle for the ages is brewing between Nova Lake and Zen 6 next year.

We're celebrating the 30th anniversary of Tom's Hardware. Since the beginning of Tom’s Hardware in 1996, we’ve been covering CPUs. Over the course of the past 30 years, we’ve maintained a comprehensive list of the best CPUs for gaming by reviewing each new release, and we’ve compiled thousands of data points spanning years to compile our CPU benchmark hierarchy. From the Pentium II and the introduction of Dual Data Rate memory to dual 3D V-Cache CPUs, Tom’s Hardware has been there for it all.

It’s time to look back, not just on Tom’s Hardware’s role in the world of CPUs over the past 30 years, but on the broader CPU market. Earth-shattering releases at a given time turned out to be footnotes in hindsight, and bubbling competition that seemed like no real threat turned into seismic shifts in the AMD vs. Intel battle. Hopefully, along the way, we’ll see some reflections of what’s going on in the world of CPUs today.

This is a celebration of 30 years of CPU coverage here at Tom’s Hardware, a history lesson about how the AMD and Intel of yesteryear arrived at the positions they’re in today, and a retrospective of the CPUs that stood the test of time against the refreshes that faded into obscurity just as soon as they were released. We hope you enjoy it.

Ruffling feathers from day one (1996 - 1998)

Ruffling feathers from day one (1996 - 1998)

Like much of the early internet, the true beginnings of Tom’s Hardware (or, rather, Tom’s Hardware Guide) is difficult to pin down, but the earliest archived article concerns the SoftMenu BIOS, which allowed you to change CPU settings through software rather than physical jumper cables; it should go without saying that this article was from July 1, 1996. There were articles before this one, with the original domain of sysdoc.pair.com going online in February 1996.

Tom’s Hardware gained a lot of traction a year later with a CPU review: a look at the Intel Pentium II ‘Klamath’ processor.

Tom’s Hardware’s founder, Thomas Pabst, had discussed CPUs previously, like in a dense CPU guide published the same year, but the Intel Pentium II review marked a turning point. It was published March 1, 1997, more than two months before Intel launched the Pentium II 80522 (or Klamath). It was not positive: “...since I wouldn't eat [Mad Cow Disease] infected beef, I wouldn't be interested in risking an infection of my computer with this CPU either,” wrote Pabst.

The CPU wasn’t officially available, but Pabst was able to test the chip with a pre-release unit shared by two German magazines: C'T Magazin fur Computertechnik and PC Professionell. Following the publication of all three reviews, Intel targeted the two German magazines, threatening to withhold advertising dollars and take legal action against them. Pabst publicized this fiasco and was contacted by The New York Times, which also covered the story. Intel backed down. Pabst later wrote that “...this 'David against Goliath'-incident made Tom's Hardware Guide very famous.”

In the following months, Pabst focused on CPUs quite a bit, breaking from the performance-tuning guides and general enthusiast information the website had previously published. The situation with Intel made Pabst a “secret star,” so much so that AMD not only offered Pabst a free review unit of the upcoming K6, but also apparently offered to cover legal fees should Intel pursue the situation further.

Although the unofficial review of the Pentium II predates it, the first review that looks most like the technical reviews that have been published on Tom’s Hardware for decades came in April 1997 with a review of the AMD K6, a CPU that established AMD as a true competitor to Intel, claiming Pentium II-like speeds for less money.

The performance wasn’t quite on the level of a Pentium II, most notably because the K6 originally arrived at 233 MHz, when 266 MHz was promised. But it was competitive, particularly when compared to the Pentium II 233, and much cheaper. Pabst concluded the review, “All in all I'm sure that this CPU will be very successful… Whoever is contemplating the purchase of an Intel Pentium or Pentium MMX CPU can forget about this now. The AMD K6 is faster and cheaper.”

Later that same month, Pabst published a proper review of the Pentium II, now using finalized silicon. In DOS games and the 32-bit Windows NT, Pentium IIs showed a commanding lead over the K6, though the battle on Windows 95 was closer. “The world is back to normal. Intel’s managers can sleep quietly again. The Pentium II shows that Intel is still the leader in the CPU market,” the review concluded.

A review of the Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX went live in 1997, as well, showing competitive performance with the K6, but much of the rest of the year was focused elsewhere after the Pentium II/K6 showdown. Looking back, it’s interesting to note the dynamic at play between AMD and Intel, with Pabst using a running gag of referring to Intel as the “Empire,” and competitors like AMD and Cynix as “Rebels.” Although Intel backed away from further action on Pentium II, it wouldn’t be the last time Pabst and Intel butted heads.

The Pentium III incident (1999 - 2001)

The Pentium III incident (1999 - 2001)

The competitive performance of K6 brought AMD into focus as the rival to Intel, which Pabst often described as “almost-monopolistic” at the time. However, AMD really put itself on the map with the release of K7, or as it’s better known, Athlon, in June 1999. In our review, we described it as “a milestone in the whole processor scene,” due in part to AMD’s unique three-way instruction decoder, which allows instructions of variable complexity through all three lanes. Intel’s P6 architecture in Pentium III also had a three-way instruction decoder, but they were segmented based on the complexity of the instruction.

We’re still firmly in the single-core era of CPUs here, so an architectural divergence like this, even before testing, represented a goldmine of speed gains. Rather than releasing several variants of silicon sliced up in different ways, as we see with modern CPUs, Intel and AMD refined their chips and released new versions with faster clock speeds. AMD released the Athlon 600 as the fastest chip in the range at 600 MHz first, but less than two months later, it introduced the Athlon 650, and two months after that, the Athlon 700.

Intel was caught off guard and quickly introduced the Pentium III 600 to counter AMD. The original Pentium III range, codenamed Katmai, was largely a refinement of Pentium II ‘Deschutes’ chips; both were built using a 250nm node, in fact. In our original Athlon review, we noted instability with the Pentium III 600, suggesting the architecture couldn’t handle such high clock speeds.

The original ‘Katmai’ range of Pentium IIIs was short-lived, and later in 1999, Intel introduced a new revision called Coppermine. Coppermine introduced an on-chip L2 cache for Intel, and it was built on a 180nm node, allowing Intel to go from 9.5 million transistors on Katmai to 28 million on Coppermine, as well as push clock speeds up to 733 MHz with the initial range, squeezing out a minor increase over the Athlon 700. Less than two months later, AMD introduced Orion, or Athlon Model 2, which also used a 180nm node and clocked up to 750 MHz. This back and forth of minor clock speed improvements is going to stick with us for at least another half of a decade, so strap in.

The goal, of course, was the first 1 GHz CPU, a milestone that AMD claimed for itself in March 2000 with the introduction of the Athlon 1000. Intel had shown a 1 GHz Pentium III, but AMD released a 1 GHz Athlon first. Intel followed shortly after with its first CPU to hit the gigahertz milestone. Intel didn’t want to place second again, so it went to work on the Pentium III 1.13 GHz, which it introduced in July.

Pentium II made Tom’s Hardware a name in the PC industry, but the Pentium III 1.13 GHz gave it a name among enthusiasts. Our review found that the processor wasn’t stable at 1.13 GHz, and less than a month after introducing the chip, Intel recalled it. The Pentium 1.13 GHz would eventually come back in 2001, but at the pace of CPU innovation at the time, even a six-month delay was detrimental.

In June 2000, AMD introduced a refinement of Athlon, codenamed Thunderbird, and days before Intel’s recall, introduced the Athlon 1100. AMD remained uncontested throughout the rest of the year, pushing Thunderbird up to 1.2 GHz. Intel was closing the curtain on Pentium III and trying to move attention away from Athlon toward its upcoming Pentium 4 range.

Going for gigahertz (2001 - 2004)

Going for gigahertz (2001 - 2004)

Intel was struggling to keep pace with Athlon, but work was going on behind the scenes on the new NetBurst microarchitecture, which was set to become the successor to P6. It was introduced to the world with the Willamette core inside the first Pentium 4. Like most major microarchitecture shifts we’ve seen from Intel and AMD, NetBurst wasn’t an immediate success. However, Pabst noted in our review: “I am certain that Intel will deliver very fast Pentium 4 processors very soon. Intel has finally won back the ability to make AMD's life a lot harder.”

Intel pushed P6 down to a 130nm node with the release of Tualatin Pentium III chips, but the focus was on Pentium 4 and optimizing NetBurst. In March, AMD introduced the Athlon 1333, but Team Red was losing steam. Intel had already released a Pentium 4 1.5 GHz, and it introduced the Pentium 4 1.7 GHz (along with a price cut to the range) in April 2001. With a new microarchitecture seemingly bursting with potential, it was only a matter of time before Intel made its way back to the top.

That came in August, when Intel planted its flag on the 2 GHz milestone with Pentium 4, and beat out AMD’s fastest Athlon chip. AMD didn’t like that. Later in the year, in October, AMD introduced its Athlon XP range, and with it came a sneaky switch in marketing strategy. Rather than include the clock speed as part of the processor name (i.e., Athlon 1333), AMD started using model names. No, the Athlon XP 1500+ wasn’t clocked at 1.5 GHz; it was clocked at 1.3 GHz. This nomenclature climbed all the way to the top, with the Athlon XP 2100+, which was not 2.1 GHz, but rather 1.7 GHz.

At the time, AMD described this shift as an alignment with what it was able to deliver with Athlon. During this era, we start to see more significant architecture divergences between Intel and AMD, so much so that like-for-like clocks could result in vastly different performance. That’s what we found in our Athlon XP review, in fact, with the Athlon XP 1800+ (clocked at 1,533 MHz) contesting the Pentium 4 2 GHz. Still, it’s not hard to see what AMD was trying to do. In January 2002, Intel introduced its Northwood core for Pentium 4, which could clock up to 2.2 GHz. AMD wasn’t able to break the 2 GHz barrier yet, but it used product names to suggest it had.

Names weren’t enough. By the middle of 2002, Northwood had picked up steam and could clock as high as 2.8 GHz; even the 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 was able to beat AMD’s fastest Athlon XP 2100+ across our benchmarks. AMD was working on the Thoroughbred revision of Athlon XP, including a node shrink down to 130nm to match Intel’s new Northwood core, which it trickled out through 2002. By the end of the year, AMD had shown the Athlon XP 2800+ as a rival to the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz.

Despite lagging in clocks, AMD had become quite popular during this time due to the competitive performance of Athlon XP and (most importantly) a lower price point than the expensive Pentium 4s. Still, there was a stalemate in technology between Intel and AMD, and Intel would break it in November 2002 with the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz.

It was the first consumer CPU to clock to 3 GHz out of the box, adding another notch to Intel’s belt, but it was also the first CPU to bring Intel’s long-standing simultaneous multithreading implementation, called Hyper-Threading, to market. With higher clocks and two threads to play with, the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz cemented Intel at the top of the performance charts, beating out AMD’s fastest Athlon XP and even a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 (no Hyper-Threading) in some benchmarks. Tom’s Hardware actually benchmarked the Pentium 4 3.6 GHz nearly a year before it was available, and had data in time to compare to the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz with Hyper-Threading.

More cores, more fun (2004 - 2007)

More cores, more fun (2004 - 2007)

The clock speed battle from the late 90s and early 2000s was starting to fall apart. AMD had demonstrated that performance was more than peak clocks with Athlon XP, and Intel was pushing ahead with Hyper-Threading to get more work done simultaneously each clock cycle. The first half of 2003 was dull in the world of CPUs as Intel worked on its Prescott core and AMD mulled over “ClawHammer,” which would eventually become Athlon 64.

Athlon 64 would be the first to bring AMD’s x86-64 ISA extension (called AMD64) to the desktop market (it previously showed up in Opteron). It rolled out in September 2003, and just a week before release, Intel launched the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, which was widely considered a panic switch in response to Athlon 64 while Prescott was still under wraps. Although Intel maintained the performance crown with P4 Extreme against the Athlon 64 FX-51, it did so at a much higher price.

Still, this late-stage battle as Intel and AMD moved toward a 90nm node was important. Intel started marketing expensive, high-performance processors directly to enthusiasts in a market that would eventually get the HEDT, or high-end desktop, name. Meanwhile, AMD designated some Athlon XP chips with the FX name, which signaled high-performance chips with unlocked multipliers.

Intel was first to get down to 90nm with its highly anticipated Prescott core, though it arrived with a whimper. It clocked slower, allowing the FX-51 to remain competitive and Northwood chips to remain at the top of the charts in our review. There, our reviewer Patrick Schmid wrote: “In our opinion, Intel today does not care about Prescott as a processor, but as a marketing instrument. It is fast enough, which is mainly what counts, and since the 90 nm production process yields cheap processors in vast quantities, the Santa Clara-based company gains new flexibility.”

AMD made it down to 90nm later in the year with the FX-55. The FX-55 allowed AMD to close the gap with higher-clocked Pentium 4s, as we found in our review. However, it was becoming clear that the chase for higher clocks wouldn’t be enough. In our review, Schmid wrote in 2004: “Today, the performance gap between the fastest and the slowest processors in our benchmark charts is rather small.”

Intel fired back at the beginning of 2005 with Prescott 2M, a minor revision to the Prescott core with 64-bit ISA extensions, and released the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73. The tide shift came in the summer of 2005 when AMD launched the Athlon 64 X2, built on a 90nm node, and featuring two cores on the same package.

Intel had released its double-core Pentium D just weeks earlier, which was also a dual-core chip, but the design forced Intel to compromise clock speeds — an important spec given how few applications could actually leverage a dual-core chip in consumer software. AMD ultimately won the battle with the Athlon 64 X2, largely due to the fact that it could keep pace with single-core Athlons in most benchmarks, as you can see in our early preview of the chip.

AMD released more Athlon 64 X2 chips throughout 2005, while Intel rolled out various chips under different Pentium brands, including the Smithfield core on Pentium D. Intel built out the range into 2006, using another node shrink down to 65nm with the Presler core, which was the final revision under the Pentium brand. In January 2006, Tom’s Hardware first reported that Intel planned to drop the Pentium brand, a name that it had kept for over a decade.

In its place? The new Core microarchitecture, finally moving on from NetBurst, which had been plagued with thermal issues as clocks climbed. Built out of Intel’s work in mobile chips, the Core 2 Duo was Intel’s first proper dual-core processor — the “double-core” Pentium D was just two Pentium dies fused together. It was a tide shift.

As we found in our Core 2 Duo review, the base E6600 and E6700 often beat, or at least matched, AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-62, while the supercharged Core 2 Extreme X6800 established a new performance tier at the high-end. Further, it did so at reasonable power levels, finally taking the efficiency fight back to AMD.

Intel doubled down, literally, with the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 at the end of 2006. Although Intel had introduced a four-thread processor previously, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 was the first CPU with four cores to hit the market. It took two dual-core dies from Core 2 Duo and put them together on a single package. AMD brute-forced a quad-core with the 4x4 platform and dual Athlon 64 FX-70 chips, but there was a major tradeoff in cost, thermals, and power demands.

The coast of Nehalem (2007 - 2010)

The coast of Nehalem (2007 - 2010)

For the first time in the early aughts, Intel was firmly in the driver’s seat for enthusiasts. AMD drummed up some interest with its dual-chip Athlon 64 systems, and it finally moved down to a 65nm node at the start of 2007. But Intel was on a tear, and it would continue its momentum for years to come.

That started by formalizing the success of the Core microarchitecture. Instead of squeezing everything out of a microarchitecture for several generations, as it had done with P6 and NetBurst, Intel transitioned to its well-known tick-tock cycle. First, there’s a node shrink on its existing architecture, then there’s a new microarchitecture on that node, and the cycle continues. Core was the tock at 65nm, and it would move down to Penryn revision at 45nm later in 2007.

AMD struggled to keep pace. After introducing its AM2 socket in 2006, it continued refining the Athlon 64 X2 lineup with a new 65nm node, but Intel was firmly in the lead, forcing AMD to slash prices and settle into the market as a budget-focused alternative to the shiny Core 2 Duos. AMD doubled down in this area with its K8 microarchitecture, releasing a series of efficient “BE” series chips throughout the back half of 2007, which we found were excellent for efficiency and price-to-performance in our review.

Team Red had its chips on K10, and specifically, the new Phenom brand that it made noise about throughout 2006 and 2007. The Phenom X4 series launched in November, featuring the first true quad-core design; that is, using a monolithic die as opposed to MCM like Intel’s Core 2 Quad. Unlike Intel’s Core 2 Extreme, which was reserved for only the most entrenched enthusiasts, AMD targeted midrange builders.

In our Phenom 9700 review, we found that Intel still maintained the performance crown, but AMD offered a cheaper quad-core and offered identical price-to-performance at release. Further, AMD offered support for the chips on both the AM2 socket and the new AM2+ socket, starting a trend of socket longevity that we can still see in action today. With cheaper quad-core CPUs and less upgrade cost, AMD focused less on battling Intel at the high-end and more on delivering in the midrange.

Intel continued to release more Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad models throughout 2008, but behind the scenes, it was working on its next major architectural shift: Nehalem. AMD built out its Phenom line, meanwhile, introducing a tri-core variant, as well as several “Black Edition” models that featured peak clocks and unlocked multipliers for enthusiasts, likely in a bid to grab some attention from Intel’s Extreme lineup.

Nealem came onto the scene in late 2008 in the form of Bloomfield chips. They required an entirely new platform and DDR3 memory, but also promised entirely new performance benefits. Intel managed to create a true quad-core chip with Bloomfield, and one that enthusiasts could actually afford, with the range going down as low as $280. Further, it reintroduced Hyper-Threading after ditching the technology during the early dual-core days, giving enthusiasts eight threads to play with.

The spread between Intel and AMD grew wider. In our review of the Core i7-965 Extreme, we found it was 64% faster than AMD’s fastest chip at the time. Despite offering compelling products at competitive prices, AMD was falling further behind. Intel was far ahead; it had a die shrink ahead, and the legendary Sandy Bridge microarchitecture was waiting in the wings to pick up the tick-tock cycle once again.

AMD bit back in early 2009 with Phenom II (along with Athlon II), finally moving down to 45nm. It brought Team Red back up in the rankings, but Bloomfield still held onto top-end performance. In our original Phemon II review, we found that Intel was about 22% ahead of AMD at the high-end, but AMD offered compelling performance given the platform costs. Sounds familiar.

With tight integration of design and manufacturing under one roof, Intel was moving faster than AMD on process improvements, allowing it to keep a consistent lead in performance, particularly at the high-end. Intel had its Lynnfield chips at 45nm, as well as Clarkdale chips at 32nm, but the 32nm successor to Bloomfield came in early 2010, known as Gulftown. And with Gulftown, Intel could claim a multi-core milestone on a monolithic die for the first time with the six-core Core i7-980X.

At $1,000, the Core i7-980X still only appealed to a small number of enthusiasts. AMD helped fill the gap later in the year with the Phenom X6 launch, introducing six-core models of its own. AMD couldn’t match the 980X at the high-end, but Phenom represented an affordable entry-point to six-core chips if you ran heavily-threaded workloads, as we noted in our review. Still, Phenom X6 was AMD trying to keep pace with Intel. Behind the scenes, AMD was working on a new microarchitecture called Bulldozer, which was built from the ground up for a new generation of chips and finally allowed AMD to move down to 32nm.

Bulldozer bulldozes world records, thermals (2010 - 2013)

Bulldozer bulldozes world records, thermals (2010 - 2013)

It’s easy to pick on Bulldozer in hindsight, but leading up to release, the anticipation was palpable. K8 was a smash success, and K10 built on that success, but Bulldozer was built from the ground up, presumably for the position AMD had found itself in the market. Nearly a year before Bulldozer showed up on the market, however, Intel introduced an architecture that still resonates among enthusiasts today — Sandy Bridge.

Intel unified its product stack with Sandy Bridge and set much of the foundation for the company’s releases through Raptor Lake Refresh. Instead of two broad ranges, Intel placed most of the Sandy Bridge lineup on a single socket. It also brought integrated graphics to all the chips in the lineup, at least in the initial range (some later releases cut the iGPU), as well as unlocked the multiplier on some non-Extreme SKUs to compete with AMD’s unlocked Black Edition chips.

It was a smash success. Reviewing four Sandy Bridge chips, our reviewer Chris Angelini wrote: “Existing Lynnfield- and Clarkdale-based processors already offer strong performance compared to AMD’s lineup. Significant gains, clock-for-clock, compound in the face of notable frequency increases across the board (thanks to a mature 32 nm process), giving Sandy Bridge an even more commanding position.”

Raw performance improvements are one thing, but Sandy Bridge was attractive for several other reasons, as well. Overclocking still represented a solid performance boost in this era, and Intel was offering overclocking capabilities at mainstream price points alongside chart-topping performance out of the box. They also introduced Quick Sync to accelerate video encode/decode, and although we have video encode/decode acceleration in modern GPUs, Quick Sync still serves as a fundamental feature for video editing and media servers.

AMD’s response was Bulldozer, which was rumored ahead of release to outperform Intel’s Core i7-950 by upwards of 50%, as well as introduce a true eight-core chip to the consumer market for the first time. If that wasn’t enough, prior to release, the flagship FX-8150 set a world record for clock speed, peaking at 8.429 GHz. AMD would be the first to release a consumer CPU with eight cores, but just about every other aspect of Bulldozer was problematic.

Achieving eight cores in a single package came with significant trade-offs. Up to this point, AMD hadn’t used any form of simultaneous multithreading, but it implemented a version of SMT in Bulldozer. Unlike Intel’s traditional SMT implementation, Bulldozer used two integer units on a core, but shared floating point resources. The major trade-off was how small the integer execution clusters were in order to save space. AMD designed an architecture for a world of heavily-threaded software that just didn’t exist at the time, and it traded very important single-core speeds to achieve that design.

The flagship FX-8150 was marketed as an eight-core chip, with the eight-core count coming from AMD’s odd SMT implementation. Although there were two integer execution units per “module,” as AMD calls them, the floating point unit was shared. This discrepancy was actually the focal point of a 2015 lawsuit, which AMD settled in 2019 to the tune of over $12 million.

It was a flop. Angelini sums up the issue nicely in his October 2011 review of the FX-8150: “[Intel doesn’t] have to do anything at all. Its nearly year-old 95 W parts fend for themselves without even a price adjustment.” Intel had new chips of its own, as well. Just six months later, it introduced Ivy Bridge, taking the solid foundation of Sandy Bridge and moving it down to a 22nm node.

Ivy Bridge wasn’t a big hit on desktop, but it didn’t need to be, given the advantage Intel had already established with Sandy Bridge. Improvements were in the single digits, as we noted in our Core i7-3770K review, but Ivy Bridge brought improvements to integrated graphics to fight against AMD’s burgeoning lineup of APUs and thermal improvements targeting small form factor devices — especially laptops in a new category of “ultrabooks” that Intel was targeting.

12 months after the FX-8150 was introduced, AMD released a revision of the Bulldozer architecture named Piledriver. It promised better IPC and higher clock speeds, which was compelling, as AMD’s FX-4170 released earlier in the year as the first CPU to hit 4 GHz out of the box. Piledriver had a test run earlier in the year through AMD’s Trinity APUs, as well, showing around a 15% improvement compared to Bulldozer.

The flagship Piledriver, the FX-8350, was indeed better than its Bulldozer predecessor, but it was clear the underlying architecture had issues that wouldn’t allow AMD to scale up. AMD’s flagship was only competitive with Intel’s Core i5 options, and power use, although tamed in Piledriver, still meant the chip ran hot. It was immediately forced into a price cut upon release. After two failures to launch flagships, Intel effectively owned the high-end, which it continued to dominate with CPUs like the Core i7-3970X.

Around six months after Piledriver chips shipped, AMD released another two chips, both running at an insane 220W TDP and shipping with their own liquid cooling system. The highest-end offering, the FX-9590, was the first CPU to hit 5 GHz out of the box. AMD had learned the hard way what it had preached back in the Athlon XP days — clock speed isn’t everything.

The dawn of 14nm (2014 - 2016)

The dawn of 14nm (2014 - 2016)

With a 22nm product shipped, Intel went back to a tock and came out the other side with Haswell. Today, Haswell is heralded as a legendary architecture; we’ve all seen forum comments about gaming with a Core i7-4770K more than a decade after it was released. At the time, however, it established a narrative that would follow Intel for the next several years. That narrative being that Intel ships a new generation of quad-cores, each year, with minor IPC improvements and not much more. That’s certainly the impression Angelini came away with after reviewing the Core i7-4770K.

Intel didn’t have to move the needle beyond that point. Although AMD had shipped Bulldozer and Piledriver, a lot of turmoil was going on behind the scenes. Two further revisions of Bulldozer, Steamroller, and Excavator were planned, but AMD largely canceled the two revisions outside of a few low-end products. During this time, AMD underwent a series of sweeping layoffs and executive changes, cutting thousands of employees. Looking back at the time through a modern lens, some long-time AMD employees say that the company would’ve faced bankruptcy had it not been for semi-custom partnerships with Microsoft and Sony for their game consoles.

From the release of Piledriver in late 2012 through 2017, AMD didn’t release a ton of new CPUs. It released some revisions of Piledriver chips like the FX-8370, but we didn’t see any new microarchitecture. And planned node shrinks with Steamroller and Excavator were canned, with only a handful of desktop CPUs surviving, which were repurposed as low-end Athlon X4 CPUs years later. Intel had won.

It didn’t immediately rest on its laurels, however. Hearing the criticism of Haswell for desktop enthusiasts, Intel introduced the Core i7-4790K alongside other ‘Devil’s Canyon’ chips in mid-2014 as it worked on another tick behind the scenes down to 14nm. The result, which arrived almost a year to the day after Devil’s Canyon, was Broadwell. The Broadwell-H range — not Broadwell-E, which shows up later — isn’t very big and didn’t have much for enthusiasts. But Broadwell got Intel down to 14nm, and it would stay there until the release of Alder Lake CPUs in 2021.

We didn’t know that at the time, though. Broadwell laid the 14nm foundation for Skylake, which came hot on the heels of Broadwell-H after that architecture experienced a series of delays. Intel’s first true eight-core chip, the Core i7-5960X from the Haswell-E range, still gave the HEDT market what they were looking for, but Skylake was pushing ahead in the mainstream. In early performance testing, we said Skylake was the first architecture “to really get enthusiasts excited since Sandy Bridge.”

Intel didn’t need to rush at the time, so it didn’t. There wasn’t an Athlon 64 breathing down Team Blue’s neck. A year later, in 2016, Intel launched Broadwell-E for HEDT, marking the first-ever 10-core desktop CPU with the Core i7-6950X. It wasn’t a massive leap forward over Haswell-E, but Intel was competing with itself. “Intel’s clearly the prettiest girl in the room, is well aware of this fact and, based on Broadwell-E's pricing, doesn't need to beat the ‘value’ of last generation's -Es by much,” our reviewer Igor Wallossek wrote in his Broadwell-E review.

Although Intel was a clear market leader, it was slowing down significantly. Earlier in 2016, it quietly revised its tick-tock cycle, moving to a tick-tock-tock cadence where we’d see a new process followed by a new microarchitecture followed by an optimization of that architecture. Intel wasn’t juiced up with Moore’s Law like it was in the early aughts, but it competed in a category of one. What were you going to do? Buy AMD?

Feeling Zen (2017 - 2020)

Feeling Zen (2017 - 2020)

Shortly after the ball dropped into 2017, Intel released its Kaby Lake range of CPUs, now sporting the “14nm+” process and serving as the first optimization pass in Intel’s new release cadence. It was fine. The range came with a clock speed bump over Skylake, but otherwise, Intel released the same architecture sporting nearly identical specs, from core counts to cache sizes.

Behind the scenes, trouble was brewing. Six months before Kaby Lake made its way to market, AMD detailed its first entirely new microarchitecture since Bulldozer, named Zen. In addition to promising a 40% improvement in IPC over Excavator, the Zen platform would come with support for DDR4 and finally move AMD down to a 14nm node. For the architecture itself, AMD implemented SMT, completely redesigned its cache hierarchy, and added a micro-op cache to aid an updated branch predictor.

Two months after Kaby Lake rolled out, AMD launched the Ryzen 7 1800X. The revolution didn’t happen in a day. In our Ryzen 7 1800X review, reviewer Paul Alcorn (now Tom’s Hardware editor-in-chief) wrote: “AMD's Ryzen 7 launch represents more than just a new CPU family. For most of our readers, it signals the return of competition to the enthusiast-oriented processor market. And considering the flagship 1800X’s potent cost advantage compared to Intel's Core i7-6900K… Ryzen 7 does deliver. It's just not as universally superior as the company wanted everyone to believe.”

AMD still had quite the year ahead. A month later, the Ryzen 5 1600X launched with performance that could rival Broadwell-E, just for a much cheaper price. And by Summer, the Ryzen 3 1300X proved you didn’t need an expensive CPU and motherboard to get into overclocking. AMD capped its Ryzen rollout with Threadripper, scaling up the Zen microarchitecture to massive core arrays and finally bringing something to the HEDT market — a market that Intel had almost wholly owned since the Pentium 4 days.

Still, Zen had shortcomings, particularly in games, where just about any quad-core from Intel still ruled the roost. AMD was competitive, but Intel was still firmly in the driver’s seat. It barely reacted to the Ryzen onslaught over the summer, rolling out its high-end Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X HEDT offerings throughout the back half of 2017. Even then, however, problems started emerging.

Kaby Lake-X was effectively a rerelease of Kaby Lake with a bit of extra headroom, but restricted to the expensive X299 platform. It was discontinued less than a year after release. Skylake-X was Intel’s true next-gen HEDT offering, signaled by the first use of “Core i9” in front of its flagship SKU. It performed like an Extreme Edition, and it was priced like one too, despite an issue in thermal dissipation that we uncovered in our Core i9-7900X review. Meanwhile, AMD was rapid-firing firmware and chipset updates for its small Ryzen range, and fixing several issues that came up in reviews in the process.

Less than a year after Kaby Lake launched, Intel released Coffee Lake, which was yet another Skylake revision built on 14nm, but this time with extra cores in tow. As you can read in our Core i7-8700K review, Coffee Lake did what Intel wanted it to do, shoring up the fight in heavily-threaded productivity applications against AMD while maintaining leadership in games. Still, AMD was making headway. By the end of 2017, estimates suggest AMD took back anywhere from 2% to 12% market share from Intel, with the higher end of the spectrum coming mainly from the DIY PC market. That’s no small feat for a company that was dead in the water with CPUs 12 months earlier.

Back on more even footing, the next goal post was a node shrink. Intel was gunning for 10nm, which is a milestone it failed to meet with both Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake. AMD, as a fabless designer, was at the mercy of its then-partner GlobalFoundries for the next node shrink. AMD struck first with Ryzen 2000 in early 2018, built on GlobalFoundries 12LP node, which was a revision of the 14LP (14nm) node used in the original Zen. Fittingly, AMD called it Zen+.

Debuting the architecture was the Ryzen 7 2700X, which was an iterative update. However, it helped reacquaint the market with the progress AMD had made. Zen+ came with higher frequencies and reduced memory latency, and all of the software adjustments AMD had made after the original Zen launch. And the range seemed specifically designed to undermine Intel, offering overclocking support across the full stack (and with B-series chipsets), and bundling a surprisingly decent cooler in the box.

Intel still held the edge in gaming, but the margins were narrowing, especially with a bit of overclocking thrown into the mix. Intel was feeling the heat, due in no small part to its continued issues moving down to 10nm. It responded in late 2018 with Coffee Lake Refresh, bringing the Core i9 branding into its main lineup for the first time with the Core i9-9900K and offering an eight-core, 16-thread chip. The strategy, it seems, was to push out AMD at the high-end, as Ryzen 7 was closing in on Core i7.

It worked. Intel had the fastest gaming processor on the market, and even the Core i7-9700K managed to push Intel’s lead in the Ryzen 7 battle higher. These marginal updates were buying time for AMD and Intel. Both companies clearly understood that whoever could go below 14nm first would have a massive advantage, and likely define an entirely new market dynamic.

AMD claimed that advantage for itself with the introduction of Zen 2 in mid-2019. Bolstered by TSMC’s 7nm node, AMD pushed out the Ryzen 9 3900X, moving beyond eight cores to AMD’s first 12-core consumer design. Intel held a slight edge in gaming through Coffee Lake Refresh, as you can read in our Ryzen 7 3800X review, but that delta was becoming less important as AMD took the lead in heavily-threaded workloads.

Later in the year, AMD rolled out the Ryzen 9 3950X, the first 16-core desktop processor ever. It was a bloodbath. Less than a year earlier, Intel had introduced its Skylake-X HEDT platform, including the Core i9-9980XE priced at $2,000. Now, at stock settings, the $750 Ryzen 9 3950X offered better multithreaded performance, along with competitive single-threaded and gaming performance. And you didn’t need to shell out for Intel’s expensive HEDT platform. And you could unlock PCIe 4.0, whereas Skylake-X (and even the following Cascade Lake-X) were locked to PCIe 3.0. You don’t spend top dollar on an HEDT platform for last-gen connectivity.

Intel was getting pushed into a corner, and it followed up less than six months later with Comet Lake to stave off AMD’s Ryzen onslaught. The flagship Core i9-10900K allowed Intel to maintain the lead in gaming, but now, AMD was in a clear lead in applications with the Ryzen 9 3950X.

Reviewing the Core i9-10900K, Alcorn wrote: “The Core i9-10900K is exactly what we would expect from an overclocked 10-core 14nm Skylake derivative: Exceptional performance in gaming and lightly-threaded workloads, competitive performance in multi-threaded work, and downright ugly power consumption and thermal output. And that's pretty much what you get with the Core i9-10900K – an overclocked 14nm processor right out of the box.”

AMD didn’t let up. It moved onto Zen 3 later in the year, launching its 16-core Ryzen 9 5950X alongside the main range in late 2020. And with its fourth Ryzen salvo launched, the battle was over. Opening our Ryzen 9 5950X review, Alcorn wrote, “With the Ryzen 5000 series, it's fair to say that AMD has finally, and fully, eclipsed Intel's performance dominance in desktop PCs.” It was a clean sweep, with AMD taking the lead in gaming, multithreaded, and single-threaded performance. Three years and four CPU generations later, AMD was back on top.

Forging a new path (2021 - 2024)

Forging a new path (2021 - 2024)

In the years leading up to 2021, it had become clear that a tick-tock, or even a tick-tock-tock, wasn’t possible any longer. Process shrinks were arriving later, and a pesky little pandemic threw the tight supply chain required for chip manufacturing into a frenzy. Both AMD and Intel knew they needed a different approach, but that would manifest in wildly different ways.

Intel was all-in on a hybrid architecture, using a mixture of microarchitectures on a single package to bolster core counts, similar to Arm-based designs. Intel talked a lot about Alder Lake leading into 2021, overshadowing its own launch of 11th-Gen Rocket Lake chips. The flagship Core i9-11900K was a massive disappointment, carrying all of the issues of the previous-gen Core i9-10900K while packing two fewer cores. Yes, Intel actually cut two cores from its flagship.

It seems Intel knew the issues with Rocket Lake. The chips launched with little to no fanfare, and as opposed to a gradual rollout like we see with most CPU generations, Intel blasted every model of Rocket Lake onto the market, knowing full well that Alder Lake chips would take their place eight months later. AMD, with renewed confidence, slowly built out the Zen 3 lineup with new APUs and variations of Ryzen 5000 as it worked on its next-gen Zen 4 architecture.

In late 2021, Intel swept Rocket Lake under the rug with the release of Alder Lake. Intel had finally moved on from 14nm with Intel 7 (10nm), and it was mostly successful. Intel reclaimed top placements in gaming, multithreaded, and single-threaded performance, and although the margins were thin, Alder Lake made it clear that Intel wouldn’t go quietly. “The Alder Lake processors mark a massive generational leap forward for Intel in nearly all facets, including gaming, performance in lightly- and heavily-threaded work, power consumption, overclocking, and platform connectivity options,” wrote Alcorn in our Core i9-12900K review.

AMD was working on something unique of its own, however. Zen 4 was in the oven, and it was clear there would be a competitive battle with Alder Lake. But before Zen 4 arrived, AMD introduced the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. It was the first processor with AMD’s 3D V-Cache packaging, and at the time, it looked like a slightly-tuned processor targeting gamers, with somewhere in the range of a 10% to 15% uplift in gaming performance specifically. In a surprising turn, the speculation actually undersold just how big of a deal the Ryzen 7 5800X3D would become.

Six months after the release of the Core i9-12900K, AMD was back on top of the gaming charts with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, no less sporting a last-gen architecture and an SRAM stacking technique that limited boost clocks and locked the multiplier down. It outran the Core i9-12900K by nearly 10% in games while costing hundreds less, and it was nearly 30% faster than a stock Ryzen 7 5800X, as you can see in our Ryzen 7 5800X3D review.

Intel would come back with Raptor Lake in late 2022, but the Ryzen 7 5800X3D established a new category of true gaming CPUs that traded some application performance for peak frame rates. And that’s a category of chips that even today Intel hasn’t managed to crack.

AMD came first, however, launching Zen 4 in September 2022. The flagship Ryzen 9 7950X managed to leapfrog the Core i9-12900K, as you can see in our Ryzen 9 7950X review, but not by much, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D remained at the top of the gaming charts. Immediately, speculation around 3D V-Cache chips for Zen 4 went into motion. Also tampering the Zen 4 release was an entirely new platform, which required costly DDR5 memory.

Intel capitalized with Raptor Lake mere weeks later. The flagship Core i9-13900K was back on top across tests, even managing to outclass the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in games. For the first time since the heyday of Athlon, we had a hotly competitive CPU market with AMD and Intel leapfrogging each other with each new release. Still, there was a niche that wasn’t being filled. 3D V-Cache disrupted the status quo for gaming processors, but it came with a significant trade-off to application performance. The stage was set for a CPU that could offer the best of both worlds.

AMD delivered that in early 2023 with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and (to a much lesser degree) Ryzen 9 7900X3D. A couple months before, Intel cracked the 6 GHz barrier out of the box with the Core i9-13900KS, but AMD was offering something more compelling than peak clocks. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D managed to outclass Intel in multithreaded and single-threaded performance, all while offering a double-digit jump in gaming performance thanks to 3D V-Cache.

Raptor Lake saw a refresh later in 2023, and although the flagship was able to close the application performance gap in our Core i9-14900K review, AMD still held a firm grip on gaming performance, especially with the trimmed-down and relatively affordable Ryzen 7 7800X3D. AMD had taken the lead, but Intel, finally, executed its tick-tock-tock strategy and set its eyes on a radically new architecture in the form of Arrow Lake.

Reckoning with the real world (2024 - today)

Reckoning with the real world (2024 - today)

Under AMD’s thumb and clearly behind in pace, Intel needed to innovate. The result was Arrow Lake. Like Bulldozer, it’s easy to write Arrow Lake off in hindsight, especially given how recent it is. As you can read in our Core Ultra 9 285K review, Arrow Lake chips only marginally improved in application performance over their 14th-Gen counterparts, and they were actually slower across most games. But, architecturally, Arrow Lake is as big a swing as Bulldozer was.

For the first time, Intel outsourced manufacturing to TSMC, clearly behind the Taiwanese manufacturer for cutting-edge nodes. It disabled Hyper-Threading, killing off a staple of Intel CPUs for decades, and it doubled down on Intel’s hybrid architecture. Those bets didn’t pay off, but they were big bets for a company struggling to reckon with a reinvigorated AMD.

AMD followed up Zen 4, predictably, with Zen 5 in mid-2024, shortly before the Arrow Lake release. With Arrow Lakes' struggles, it’s easy to forget the problems Zen 5 had at launch, and the relatively small generational uplift it offers even today. AMD has continued to build out this lineup with X3D chips, and it finally delivered 3D V-Cache on both CCDs with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2. But going back to our Ryzen 9 9950X review, Zen 5, at its core, isn’t the massive uplift we had become accustomed to in the early days of Zen.

Intel tried to give Arrow Lake a bit more life with a small refresh earlier this year in the form of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and those CPUs set the stage for the next era of CPUs. They put Intel into the position AMD found itself during the Bulldozer/Steamroller days, clearancing off silicon to maintain a competitive position in the market.

That’s where we are today, with our sights set on Zen 6 and Nova Lake. But there are some realities in the PC enthusiast space that we have to contend with today. DRAM pricing is out of control, and showing no signs of slowing down, and a sudden boost in demand for CPUs for agentic AI means consumer chips have taken a backseat. Zen 6 and Nova Lake were both expected by the end of the year; it’s looking more likely that they’ll slip into 2027.

History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes, and we can see traces of days past over the last 30 years start to creep into the dynamics today. Today, we see a defiant AMD and an Intel that seems ready to get scrappy in order to earn back market share. Will it pay off? We don’t know, but Tom’s Hardware will be here to cover whatever comes next in the world of CPUs, just as we’ve been for the past 30 years.