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.

DeepCool has been delivering innovative, interesting, and often budget-conscious PC cases and cooling products for more than a decade. Its current lineup includes air and AIO coolers, computer cases, keyboards, power supplies, and other accessories.

We were impressed by the company’s AK620 and Assassin VC Elite air coolers in the past. In 2024, the Beijing-based company was banned from selling products in the U.S., but has continued to produce and improve its cooling products for markets elsewhere. US consumers also have the option of importing the cooler, if you don’t mind paying for extra shipping costs.

Here, we’re looking at DeepCool’s second-generation AK series coolers, the AK400 G2 and AK620 G2. These are available in two styles: one with woodgrain top covers, the other featuring a digital display.

Let's take a look at the specifications and features of the coolers, then we’ll go over thermal and noise benchmarks and decide if DeepCool’s AK G2 series coolers deserve to make our list of the best CPU coolers.

DeepCool AK620 G2/AK400 G2 specifications

Features of DeepCool’s AK G2 Air coolers

▶️ Heatpipes and heatsink

With the single-tower AK400 G2, four slightly staggered direct-touch copper heatpipes are embedded in the base to transfer heat from the CPU into the heatsink and its fins.

The larger, dual-tower AK620 G2 features six evenly spaced copper heatpipes.

The heatsink fin designs are similar in both models. The front ends feature a jigsaw-type design, shown below.

The exhaust side features the checkerboard matrix style DeepCool’s air coolers are known for, a design choice which the company says improves static pressure.

▶️ High-performance 120 mm fans

There’s more to a cooler than just the heatsink. The included fans directly impact noise levels and cooling performance. The fans included on both AK400 and AK620 G2 models are essentially the same – but the AK400’s single fan runs up to 10% faster than the two fans included with the AK620 G2.

▶️ Woodgrain and digital display styles available

Both the AK400 and AK620 are available in black or white, but there are two sub-choices for the aesthetic. The versions we’ve tested for this review feature woodgrain, a motif that’s been increasing in popularity in DIY PCs since the release of Fractal’s North computer case.

If you don’t like woodgrain, DeepCool also includes a checkerboard black cover that you can use in place of the woodgrain covers.

There’s also the Nyx version of the AK620 G2 available, which features a digital display showing CPU performance metrics – temperature, frequency, power consumption, and overall CPU usage.

▶️ RAM Clearance

The AK400 G2's design is such that it doesn’t overhang or interfere with the DIMM slots, ensuring that all sizes of RAM, no matter how tall, are compatible.

Standard-height DDR5 sticks 40mm tall fit well under the larger AK620 G2, but taller sticks won’t fit perfectly underneath. Our current CPU cooler test bench incorporates TeamGroup’s Sakura Rose T-Force Xtreem DDR5-7200 sticks, which are 48.8mm (1.92 inches) tall.

If you also use taller RAM DIMMs, you’ll have to raise the intake fan’s placement by a few millimeters for things to fit properly, as we did (see image, above). This might result in slightly lower cooling performance in certain scenarios. But even so, the AK620 G2 performed excellently, as you’ll see in the benchmarks section.

▶️ Packaging

The outer packaging is typical of DeepCool products: a basic brown box with a blue line and DeepCool’s logo, covered by a wraparound showing a picture of the cooler.

The heatsink and fans are protected by molded foam, and the accessories are contained in a small cardboard box. Included with the package are:

• Mounting hardware for AMD and Intel platforms
• Alternative top covers
• Screwdriver (AK620 G2 only)
• The AK620 G2 includes a tube of thermal paste; the AK400 G2 includes pre-installed thermal paste
• Single-tower (AK400 G2) or dual-tower (AK620 G2) heatsink
• 120 mm fans and fan clips
• Installation manual

▶️ AK620 G2 AM5 Installation

You’ll need to first remove the default AM4/5 retention mechanism and then place the mounting studs around the exposed screw holes.

The next step is to place the mounting bars on top of the studs, securing them with the included screws, and then apply the included thermal paste. If you’re not sure how to do that, we have a handy thermal paste application guide that covers the different methods you can use. Afterwards, place the heatsink tower against the CPU and mounting bars, and use a screwdriver to secure it.

Once the heatsink is secured, attach the 120 mm fans to the heatsinks. Lastly, connect the PWM cables of the fans to the corresponding headers of your motherboard.

Real-world testing configuration – AMD AM5 platform

We’ve tested coolers with both the Ryzen 9950X3D and its non-V-Cache sibling, the 9950X. There are some differences in how the 9950X and 9950X3D CPUs are impacted by thermal events. While the heat output of the CCDs of AMD’s 9950X3D is relatively balanced, the 9950X has one CCD that runs much hotter than the other, with a difference of over 10 degrees Celsius in some scenarios, shown below.

The benchmark results shared in these reviews may differ from others because I emphasize results that are comparable to real-world use. This means I generally test CPU coolers inside of a closed desktop case, which increases cooling difficulty compared to other testing methods.

Many reviewers test coolers on an open test bench, which has lesser airflow needs and lowered ambient temperatures. This results in weak coolers appearing stronger than they really are. Some have also used generic thermal plates to test cooling solutions. I feel that these methods don’t accurately reflect real-world cooler conditions.

Our latest testing setup uses the Flova F50 computer case from Tryx.

This case features a unique “crossflow” fan that pulls air from the side, which the company claims is more effective than traditional intake fans. For air cooling tests, we’ve added a single Noctua NF-A12 G2 intake fan.

PBO Performance and maximum noise levels

We’re going to start by focusing on a traditional maximum performance test, with the CPU cooler’s fans allowed to reach their fastest speeds, for the best cooling possible.

Turning on PBO allows AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X3D to stretch its legs to an extent, and all air coolers I have tested with PBO enabled using MSI’s X870E Carbon Wifi motherboard reach the maximum CPU temperature of 95 degrees Celsius (203 degrees Fahrenheit) and thermally throttle to some extent.

Results from the liquid coolers we’ve recently tested aren’t shown above because they are able to keep AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X3D under TJ Max, and as such, power consumption figures aren’t quite comparable.

The performance of DeepCool’s AK620 G2 is simply excellent, outperforming every air cooler we’ve tested on our current test bench. Its little sibling, the AK400 G2, also does fairly well for a single-tower air cooler, slightly outperforming Sudokoo’s SK620V and only trailing ID-Cooling’s AK620 SLK by 2.4W!

To give a wider variety of comparison examples, I’ve included a chart of the same tests from our last AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D cooling test bench. But keep in mind these results aren’t 100% comparable, due to a different case and fans being used; the ambient temperature is also slightly higher with the results below.

Our newest test bench used for this and other recent reviews incorporates a Tryx crossblade intake fan as well as a single Noctua NF-A12 G2 intake fan, which results in better air cooling performance.

Some coolers perform well in maximum strength tests, but require running loudly to maintain said performance, but that’s not the case with DeepCool’s AK G2 air coolers. With measurements of 42.4 and 41.9 dBA respectively, their maximum noise levels put them among the quietest coolers featured in our charts.

200W thermal benchmarks

For the next thermal test, I leave the motherboard settings at their defaults, which results in a power limit of 200W when running Cinebench R23.

With this thermal test, DeepCool’s AK620 G2 slips to the second best result we got from any air cooler. The single tower version, the AK400 G2, still performs well in comparison to dual-tower products, besting Sudokoo’s SK620V and just a bit behind Montech’s NX600 with its powerful E28 fans.

150W + GPU thermal results, noise levels

Our next test runs Cinebench on the CPU with a 150W power limit, while also running Furmark on MSI’s RTX 4070 Ti Super Ventus 3x OC. This causes the GPU to consume ~295W of power. This test is designed to emulate the thermals of games, which primarily stress the CPU and GPU.

At first glance, you might think the results above – when tied to the default fan curve of MSI’s X870E Carbon motherboard – are a little underwhelming compared to the competing coolers shown in the chart.

But thermals are only part of the story. Noise levels, especially when you’re gaming, are far more important here. With a noise level of only 38.9 dBA measured, the loudness of these coolers won’t be an issue while you’re gaming. Your GPU fans and / or your case will likely be making more noise in most setups.

Noise-normalized testing

Most testing is performed with the cooler tied to the default fan curve of our MSI X870E Carbon motherboard, but many prefer tests with the noise levels of coolers equalized. This is especially important to those of you who prefer silent computers. This next benchmark has the CPU cooler noise-normalized to 38.9 dBA, with PBO enabled for the Ryzen 9 9950X3D CPU.

The results here are pretty good. With an average of 242.5W cooled during the course of testing, DeepCool’s AK620 G2 shows the second-best performance of the air coolers in this chart. The single-tower AK400 G2 is our bottom result, but even so, its performance is basically on par with Montech’s NX600. That’s fairly impressive for a single-tower air cooler.

Karhu DDR5 RAM thermals testing!

Your CPU cooler does not operate in isolation. It has an impact on not just your CPU’s temperatures, but also the other components in your build, like your RAM and GPU. To that end, I’ve run the Karhu RAM stress test. This places a load of ~153W on the CPU and ensures system RAM (DDR5 in my case) is fully stable. In this type of scenario, most AIOs tend to produce worse results than air coolers.

The DDR5 temperature recordings from this test seem to be within expectations compared to other dual-tower air coolers. Temperatures with DeepCool’s AK620 G2 were an average of 21.9C above ambient. Curiously, DeepCool’s single tower AK400 G2 showed the best RAM temperatures in this scenario of any air cooler.

The thermals of the CPU in this test were about as expected, with the AK620 G2 showing some of the best temperatures and the AK400 G2 running warmer than most of the dual-tower coolers here, but notably still outperforming Sudokoo’s SK700V.

Conclusion

DeepCool continues to impress with its second-generation AK air coolers, the AK620 G2 and AK400 G2, delivering strong thermal performance and low noise levels. Our only major complaint is that these coolers aren’t easily available for purchase in the USA. If you’d rather not go through the hassle of importing, our recommendation would be Thermalright’s Royal Pretor 130, which offers similarly strong thermal performance and low noise levels, at a more affordable price of $50 USD.

If you’re looking around for a good deal on one of the best gaming chips around and 32GB of RAM, we’ve found a worthwhile combo for you on Newegg. For only $969.99, they’re offering a powerful Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU, 32GB of Corsair DDR5-6000 RAM, a quality mid-range Gigabyte X870 Aorus Elite Wi-Fi 7 motherboard, and they even toss in a Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240 AIO. Saving almost $219 versus purchasing the components separately, this combo gives you a solid foundation for a speedy AM5-based gaming PC without breaking the bank.

• Check out this deal on Newegg

This combo begins with one of the most popular and fastest current-generation CPUs for gaming, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. This 8-core/16-thread Zen5-based processor has a base clock of 4.6 GHz and a max boost of 5.2 GHz, which is plenty of speed for any task. The 96MB of L3 cache on the X3D variant helps with gaming (among other things), making it one of the fastest gaming CPUs available. It is also a well-rounded performer that excels in games and is a good match for most applications. This combo also includes a free Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240 AIO, which allows you to get the most out of this awesome processor.

The RAM portion of the bundle, Corsair’s Vengeance RGB 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 RAM kit, is currently available on Newegg for a painful $479.99 when bought separately. The good news is that the $218.99 discount brings this RAM down to a reasonable-for-the-times $261. This black kit matches the Aorus Pro board and features a frosted RGB light bar that runs the length of the sticks, drawing attention inside your case. Or, if RGB lighting isn’t your thing and you prefer a stealthy appearance, you can turn it off. The DDR5-6000 speed lands in the sweet spot for the AM5 platform and is a worthwhile, good-looking option. The SK Hynix ICs under the heatsink pair nicely with the board and offer plenty of overclocking headroom.

The Gigabyte X870 Aorus Elite Wifi 7 is a solid mid-range motherboard and an excellent centerpiece for building your new AM5 gaming PC. The black board is sure to look good inside your chassis. The Aorus Elite offers plenty of connectivity, including 12 USB ports on the rear IO (2x Type-C USB4 40 Gbps), four M.2 sockets (one PCIe 5.0), Wi-Fi 7 and 2.5 GbE networking, several “EZ” features, and a 5-year warranty. For those who would like integrated RGBs on their board, there is a small strip under the chipset heatsink that gives off a subtle glow. Or if you don’t want them on, simply turn them off. Either way, it’s a good-looking motherboard and mates perfectly with the 9800X3D and RAM in this combo.

If you’re thinking of putting together a new AM5-based system, but don’t want to pay ridiculous prices, this Newegg combo is a good starting point. At just $969.99, you get an awesome gaming processor, 32GB of DDR5 RAM, a quality mid-range motherboard, and a free 240mm AIO. The $219.99 off the combo essentially puts the RAM at a more reasonable $261. Offers like this usually don’t stick around for long, so grab it before it’s gone!

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.

A Redditor has successfully connected a very powerful eGPU to the Steam Machine. Large_Customer_3840 briefly explains how they managed to add a potent AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT to Valve’s compact modern gaming desktop by fitting an M.2 to OCuLink adapter in the machine. That was cable-connected to an Aoostar EG01, which hosted the hulking triple-fan desktop graphics card. However, there remained some wrangling to do due to Steam Machine hardware limitations.

The idea outlined above sounds like a quick and simple hack to add a more powerful GPU to the Steam Machine, but there are a few limitations of the Valve hardware that need addressing. Firstly, this compact computer has just one M.2 PCIe 4.0 NVMe slot, which is used by the SSD that Valve supplies with the machine. Valve reckons folks can augment this storage using the microSD slot, just like Steam Deck gamers are accustomed to doing.

So, after fitting an OCuLink to M.2 adapter, Large_Customer_3840 had to find somewhere for the boot drive to live. The answer was simply to shove the boot drive into a USB-C to NVMe caddy and boot from that. Valve’s Steam Machine has a USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) port on the back which supports DP-Alt and Power Delivery. This is the fastest USB port it has, so it was used for the operating system.

A second snag with the M.2 to OCuLink adapter setup here is that there will need to be a case mod done so the cable can be threaded through the rear of the chassis. Large_Customer_3840 hasn’t made such a mod yet, and they are happy to have the system running open for now.

But many eGPU solutions like this, using the Aoostar EG01 in this instance, are inherently messy anyway. This older Aoostar eGPU dock has no enclosure, making it little more than a platform with a PCIe slot and supporting circuitry to host a desktop GPU, exposed, on your desk. Moreover, the EG01 doesn’t have a built-in PSU, unlike some models, so you also have a typically ugly PC power supply in view, too.

Looking beyond the aesthetic mess, the Redditor was pleased that “When I turned it on the 9070xt became the primary monitor and worked straight away. There was no hassle no selecting of graphic adapters.” The extra shot of performance delivered by one of the best graphics cards for PCs in 2026 was also welcomed. Apparently the OCuLink-connected Radeon RX 9070 XT eGPU ran Crimson Desert at over 100 frames per second using the High preset. It would have been interesting to know how the Steam Machine’s built-in discrete GPU handled the game at the same settings… As the Steam Machine basically runs a GPU similar to the Radeon RX 7600 – you can see our extensive Graphics Card Hierarchy data to see the expected difference between the RX 7600 and RX 9070 XT in various gaming scenarios. Online testing for Crimson Desert at the High preset yields frame rates of around 50 FPS, making the eGPU addition a sizeable performance buff.

Many AMD mini PCs come with USB4 ports nowadays, so it is a shame that the Steam Machine’s USB connectivity plateaus at USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) via a single USB-C on the rear. USB4, or better, is a more convenient hot-pluggable eGPU port opening up lots of other docking options for compact system users. It may offer worse bandwidth than OCuLink, but most folks find it an acceptable compromise. I’ve used both and was slightly annoyed by both, vowing not to be tempted into the eGPU world again until mainstream USB4 v2/Thunderbolt 5 solutions have arrived at affordable levels.

In one of the most unique DIY projects, Reddit user PickentCode has created what can be described as a completely off-the-grid "heat engine computing device." Instead of relying on solar panels or a battery pack, the creator went in a completely different direction, building a custom steampunk-inspired microcomputer which features a miniature Stirling engine to power the hand-crafted wooden console.

Originally patented in 1816 by the Scottish minister and inventor Robert Stirling, a Stirling engine converts heat directly into mechanical energy. By applying a flame to one end of a sealed cylinder, the temperature difference forces the air inside to expand and contract. This cycle pushes a piston that spins the flywheel, which can be used to power a simple generator that converts the mechanical rotation into usable electricity.

"The entire project took about a month to design, build, and program," PickentCode told Tom's Hardware. They first conceptualized a 3D layout using Blender before constructing the physical case out of wood. They even went ahead and utilized a DIY laser engraver to etch a portrait of Robert Stirling and his original 1816 engine patent sketch directly onto the wooden side panels. For the smaller structural elements, the electronic housings and the keycaps were custom 3D printed, while the decorative pipes winding across the frame were made from old shower tubing and some gold paint.

The brains of the system are an ESP32 C3 microcontroller paired with a 2.42-inch monochrome OLED display with a 128x64 resolution, alongside a 16-key keypad. The electrical output of the generator is stabilized using small capacitors wired into the circuit. One can also actively monitor the voltage output using the analog voltmeter, which is wired in parallel, and the two toggle switches mounted on the front panel can be used to turn on the main circuit and the voltmeter.

Running an electronic device, in this case a microcomputer, purely on fire comes with obvious energy limitations. The model Stirling engine can produce only 150 milliwatts of power, and to stay within this tiny power budget, the creator implemented certain hardware and software optimizations. For instance, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth were completely disabled, and the screen brightness was kept low to conserve every milliwatt. PickentCode also tuned the ESP32's CPU frequency, reducing it down to just 80 MHz when updating the screen or interpreting opcodes, going all the way down to just 10 MHz while sitting idle in the main loop.

Despite the limitations, the computer is fully functional. It runs a custom CHIP-8 virtual machine preloaded with classic gaming ROMs like Tetris, Snake, and Pong. Impressively, it also features a built-in code editor, allowing users to type in CHIP-8 opcodes directly to write and execute their own custom programs on the fly.

Stirling engines are not exactly new to the world of computing. Earlier this year, we covered a project by Windows development guru Dave Plummer who showcased a cooling solution that used a small Stirling engine to convert waste heat from an AMD Threadripper system into mechanical energy, which was used to spin the engine's flywheel. While it isn’t an actual solution to an overheating chipset, it is claimed that the flywheel can spin up to about 200 RPM in a 20C/68F environment.

News of regional price increases for Nvidia graphics cards has been rolling in over the past little while, and those hikes have now arrived in the United States. We nearly spit out our coffee this morning while checking Newegg prices for Blackwell products. After months of painful but still relatively reasonable e-tail prices versus skyrocketing RAM and SSD costs, popular Blackwell GPUs are now eye-wateringly expensive. And those increases appear to be rolling out across other e-tailers, too.

As part of our ongoing research for the best graphics cards, we track the prices of every e-tail listing we can find for consumer graphics cards and calculate the median price of those products. We specifically track this figure as we feel it represents the price of a given graphics card model that you're most likely to find in stock, not stripped-down models that might be produced in limited volume to hit an artificially low MSRP.

With that, the theoretically entry-level RTX 5060 is now $469.99 at the midpoint of current prices, which is now two rungs up the MSRP ladder compared to its $299.99 launch MSRP. Just a couple of months ago, 5060s were selling for a median $369.99, or just below the RTX 5060 Ti 8GB’s $379.99 launch MSRP. Now, the cheapest GDDR7 Blackwell card costs more than the RTX 5060 Ti 16GB’s $429.99 launch price.

RTX 5060 Ti 8GB cards used to be among the least marked-up Blackwell parts thanks to the fact that their performance and VRAM capacity was out of line with their high $379.99 launch MSRP, but they’re now headed up the escalator like their stablemates. The median 5060 Ti 8GB now costs $529.99, which is about 13-15% more expensive than a couple of months ago.

The RTX 5060 Ti 16GB now commands an astounding $799.99 median price, a jaw-dropping 38% more expensive than the $579.99 midpoint we last calculated. The 5060 Ti 16GB was already far too expensive to recommend for gaming at that price, and the new markup suggests that it’ll only be of interest to local AI explorers trying to get the most VRAM they can on a Blackwell card for under $1000. Pour one out for what used to be the best entry-level enthusiast GPU we recommended.

The RTX 5070 was another one of the last gaming holdouts near its MSRP thanks to strong competition from the RX 9070 16GB, but the midpoint of prices for 5070s has now leaped an incredible 29% over our last survey, to about $850-$900. Even comparing lows to lows, prices for the cheapest 5070s have jumped about 20%. That takes this card entirely out of the midrange running and positions it closer to the much faster RTX 5070 Ti, which also has 16GB of VRAM to play with.

The hikes appear to have hit the middle of the Blackwell lineup the hardest, as the midpoint of RTX 5070 Ti prices is the same as it was during our last check-in. RTX 5080s haven’t gotten substantially more expensive than they have been, either, as prices for those cards have always been highly elevated compared to their $999 MSRP. And the RTX 5050’s price has barely moved today, either, hovering near the $300 it’s maintained since around the beginning of the year.

These increases haven’t been matched by hikes on the AMD side—yet. Heavy emphasis on yet. We’re only seeing single-digit percentage increases in RDNA 4 card prices compared to our last survey, although Radeon RX 9000-series cards appear to be affected by the silicon supply crunch in other ways.

The assortment of available RX 9070 16GB cards is perhaps a bit smaller than it’s been in the past, while the cut-down RX 9070 GRE is available in abundance around its $549 MSRP, suggesting that card has taken over the true midrange role the plain 9070 could never quite manage at the same MSRP.

We felt that the GRE’s price was high at launch, but AMD likely has a better crystal ball for silicon supply chain trends than we do, as the GRE now offers incredible bang for the buck compared to the RTX 5070’s new sticker.

The RX 9060 XT 8GB isn’t completely dead yet, but only one XFX 8GB model remains readily available at e-tail for $399. The RX 9060 XT 16GB’s median price has slightly risen to $474.99, and the RX 9070 XT now sits 5% higher than our last check-in at a median of $799.99.

All told, these Blackwell price hikes are another body blow for a DIY PC component market that’s already reeling from sky-high RAM and NAND prices. Graphics cards had until recently been one of the less hiked-up component categories in a DIY PC’s bill of materials compared to the pre-AI times, but that period of relative solace is well and truly over if you want access to Nvidia’s hardware and software stack.

If you’re a PC gamer, there’s no good news here. We’ll have to see whether there’s a similar price spike waiting in the wings for Radeon cards in the coming days, or whether this is the sad, sorry new normal.

Nvidia is reportedly testing variations of its upcoming Rubin Ultra accelerator with less memory due to concerns it won't be able to source enough HBM. Some versions include just 192 GB of memory and use HBM4 instead of HBM4E, as originally announced, according to The Information. The report confirms an earlier comment from firm SemiAnalysis about a potential Rubin Ultra memory downgrade.

We first saw Rubin Ultra in the flesh earlier this year at GTC, where Nvidia showed off a compute tray housing four compute chiplets alongside 1 TB of HBM4E memory. The accelerator is part of Nvidia's Kyber NVL144 design, which is set to roll out in 2027. SemiAnaylsis reported that the rack was delayed to 2028. "Our roadmap is intact," said Nvidia to Tom's Hardware in response, though the company made no clarification on if the delay was real or not. We've reached out to Nvidia regarding this latest report.

According to The Information, Nvidia is testing versions of Rubin Ultra with 192 GB or 256 GB of memory, as well as versions that use fewer than the 16 announced memory stacks. Perhaps most importantly, Nvidia is reportedly testing with HBM4, not HBM4E as originally announced. Along with the traditional improvements we see in each new HBM generation, HBM4E is unique in that it offers a customizable base logic die. Last year, Micron announced a partnership with TSMC to manufacture the base die and allow customers to tweak the logic die based on their needs.

The complexity of HBM4E has reportedly caused a strain on supply, with memory manufacturers unable to keep pace with Rubin Ultra's rollout. At least three lower-memory designs have been tested by Nvidia, according to the report, though we don't have a full picture of details on those prototypes. The report claims testing with HBM4, as well as 192 GB and 256 GB configurations, though it makes no mention of the number of compute dies, nor the memory type for each tested capacity.

The number of dies is important. In June, reports circulated that Nvidia cancelled its quad-die Rubin Ultra design due to manufacturing complexities. Although Nvidia has yet to comment, reports at the time suggested Nvidia would move ahead with a dual-GPU Rubin Ultra. In such a case, less memory would make more sense. Even with a dual-die Rubin Ultra, the quoted capacities are lower than expected. Each base Rubin GPU currently ships with 288 GB of HBM4.

It's clear Nvidia is trying to get ahead with memory in a world where agreements have been signed multiple years into the future. Nvidia has several of its own agreements. In June, the company announced a partnership with SK hynix to develop next-generation memory technology, which includes HBM, but also LPDDR5X and DDR5. In July, Nvidia expanded that partnership with a $500 billion strategic relationship that includes a long-term memory supply agreement with SK.

Although Nvidia is considering lower-memory configurations, one Nvidia customer told The Information that per-GPU memory isn't a top concern, valuing the relationship with Nvidia over the long term.

Memory shortages are touching nearly every design currently on the market, though enterprise systems packing HBM are particularly vulnerable. Last week, Digitimes reported that Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron have sold through their HBM capacity through 2027. Last month, SK Hynix CEO Kwak Noh-jung said 2027 will be the "worst year" for the memory shortage, with supply constraints lasting through 2030.

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.

A very rare sight indeed; that's how I'd describe the price of the deal on AMD's Gigabyte Gaming Radeon RX 9070 GRE graphics card, on sale at Newegg for $499, a return to its lowest-ever price. It's a very grim time for hunting down PC component upgrades, so to see an actual deal on a GPU that takes it below its MSRP in today's climate is a bit of a shock. The MSRP on the RX 9070 GRE is $549, having only recently extended its availability outside of the Chinese market. To grab the $35 discount and hit the $499 deal price, you must provide your email address to Newegg by clicking the "Extra Discount Available" link.

● Check out this deal at Newegg

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE is built on AMD’s RDNA 4 graphics architecture and uses the same Navi 48 GPU as the Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT. Initially released for the Chinese market, the RX 9070 GRE features a cut-down version of the Navi 48 chip with 48 compute units compared to the RX 9070's 56.

The RX 9070 GRE also cuts the available VRAM to just 12GB of GDDR6, but still sports bandwidth speeds of 18 Gbps on a 192-bit bus, producing 432 GB/s of memory bandwidth in gaming and applications.

It's also reasonably power efficient, using just 220W total power draw. Identical to the standard Radeon RX 9070 GPU.

In our benchmark testing, from our review of the Radeon RX 9070 GRE, we found that the card averages 120 FPS at 1080p and 86.6 FPS at 1440p across our 11-game raster-only test suite. Perfect for 1080p and 1440p gaming, the RX 9070 GRE has ample VRAM, but pushing ultra settings on 1440p may tax the 12GB quite quickly.

Taking a quick peek at our performance charts, you can see the GPU outperform the RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB, and slip in closely behind Nvidia's RTX 5070.

In the current PC component market, this is a very rare opportunity to pick up a graphics card for well below its MSRP launch price. So if you're looking for a competent card for 1080p and 1440p gaming, then consider the Gigabyte Gaming RX 9070 GRE for $499.99.

If you need to buy new storage for your PC, you're going to pay extra. There's no way around that fact. The AI boom has forced prices up across the board. Without a time machine, the only way to score a good deal on a new SSD is to find a bargain that is hundreds of dollars cheaper than its current list price. Luckily, this 4TB Samsung 9910 Pro deal at Woot qualifies, knocking a huge $348 off compared to sister brand Amazon's rival discount price, making it $619.99 for a limited time only.

● Check out this deal at Woot

Before you grab your pitchforks, this is a good deal in context. Amazon owns Woot, so it's fair to use Amazon's own historic pricing as a benchmark here. That data shows this SSD, like the entire market, has seen a huge set of price increases since December. We've not seen this particular model close to this price since February. Prices have been unstoppable since then, too.

For your money, you're getting 4TB of fast storage from a known, trusted brand. Our Samsung 9910 Pro review, made before the market turmoil, shows this is a good all-rounder drive, with good power efficiency compared to its rivals. This is a PCIe 5.0 SSD, with speeds that vastly improve upon rival Gen 4 and 3 drives, and will be a huge step up over an older SATA SSD or traditional hard drive.

Two things are important to point out on this SSD: speed and capacity. 4TB of storage is a sizable amount for a gaming or productivity rig. Once you've installed your operating system, you'll be left with terabytes of space for your files. If you're a gamer, that'll mean enough for several of the biggest AAA game installations, alongside plenty of indies, with enough room left spare.

Speed is arguably the bigger draw, though. The Samsung 9910 Pro is an NVMe M.2 SSD, running on PCIe 5.0 over four lanes, delivering sequential read and write speeds of 14,800 MB/s and 13,400 MB/s apiece. This isn't the fastest, but it's not a million miles away from faster rivals like the Corsair MP700 Pro XT, which leads our best SSD list for speed with speeds of 14, 900 MB/s and 14,700 MB/s for read and write.

Specs-wise, the 9100 Pro is built with a single-sided design that includes an SSD controller, a DRAM package, and two NAND flash packages. It's made with Samsung's 5nm Presto controller and is able to max out PCIe 5.0 over four lanes for best throughput. It's a TLC drive using Samsung's 236-layer V8 flash memory modules. This particular 4TB model comes with a heatsink, too, to help keep the drive cool during use.

The $619.99 sale price for this 4TB Samsung 9910 Pro is not ground-breaking or an all-time low. In the context of the current PC hardware market, however, it's a good price that knocks nearly $350 off compared to the same model on sale at Amazon. It's a Prime exclusive (Woot is owned by Amazon), so if you want it, you'll need to make sure you use a Woot account that's linked to your existing Amazon Prime account.

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, Best Wi-Fi Routers, Best Motherboard, or CPU Deals pages.

You can also join the Tom's Hardware deals Discord for up-to-the-minute hardware deals.

Your beloved PCs deserve a regular clean as part of their maintenance schedule. If you miss a seasonal clean or two it is easy for dust to build up and transform from a slight blemish on the system's appearance to something that actually hinders cooling and performance. For all your dusty electronics cleaning tasks, a capable air duster can save the day, and we've spotted a limited-time deal on the powerful Wolfbox MF60 Compressed Air Duster. It is at one of its best prices ever, reduced by 39% from $49.99 to $30.39, for a limited time on Amazon.

• Check out this deal on Amazon

No matter how clean you keep your home, electrical equipment always attracts dust. With PC airflow cases pulling in air from outside to keep components cool, there's always a fresh intake of detritus every time it is used. Laptop fans can be an even worse dust magnet if they are regularly carried around in bags, rested on soft furnishings - an issue exacerbated by the small fans and vents on portables.

This is where a capable dust buster can be useful. It can make maintenance effortless and convenient. The Wolfbox MF60 Compressed Air Duster, for example, is a cordless rechargeable device weighing just half a pound. Users can select one of its three fan speeds, and its brushless motor will kick in to deliver up to 72.4 m/s wind speed using its 110,000 RPM fan.

For less strenuous dust busting work, or on more delicate items, users can dial in the fan at 25K RPM, or 60K RPM. On the lowest setting you'll get up to 240 minutes of air dusting from a single charge. Charging up from empty to full will take 3.5 hours. A USB charging cable is supplied in the box.

Another attraction of the Wolfbox MF60 Compressed Air Duster is the nozzle selection in the box. These include a flat nozzle for blowing dust off PC cases and desks, a long nozzle for deep cleaning computer keyboards and car vents, a round all-purpose nozzle, and there's a swim ring/air mattress nozzle for outdoor inflation and camping.

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.

Noctua is known for making high-end, high-quality fans and air coolers, which it has been doing for over 20 years, recently expanding into AIOs. However, it appears that there were a few questions regarding its PC case compatibility database, which some PC DIYers say don’t match the data from the manufacturer’s website. The company cleared this up in a blog post, saying that it has undertaken its own measurements and it has determined that 56 of the more than 100 cases it has tested showed significant deviation from the details officially listed online.

The company gave two diverging situations of inaccurate official measurements. The first one is when the case is larger than what is actually written, which would allow PC builders to attach a larger cooler. Noctua said that the deviations aren’t minor, either. For example, the NZXT H2 Flow case is listed as being compatible with a maximum 75mm CPU cooler height, but the actual case can accommodate an air cooler up to 79mm. There’s also the Thermaltake TR100, which is 2.7mm larger than what the Thermaltake website says, and the Corsair Frame 4000D, which gives you 10mm of extra clearance.

This is a good thing, as any cooler you bought based on their website’s measurement means that it will definitely fit, but Noctua said that this is a missed opportunity. That’s because you could’ve bought a larger cooler that delivered more performance in the same case.

On the flip side, the company warned that there were also some cases that were actually smaller versus the numbers in their specifications. It cited two examples — the Asus Prime AP201 and the Lian Li B4-mATX. The former is 1.7mm shorter while the latter is 3.5mm shorter than what’s listed on their specific product pages.

This could to be a major issue, especially if you bought items that fitted the available space exactly, based on the manufacturer’s measurements. It would mean that these parts would either be touching the case panels, or worse, not allow them to close at all. If that’s the case, you’ll have to spend extra effort to return either the part or the case and get something that fits better.

The safest solution to this is for you to buy the PC case before you shop for the remaining parts of your build. This is especially true if you’re looking at the best mini-ITX cases, as the tight tolerances mean that you don’t have much margin if the numbers aren’t accurate. But by having the case physically available and measuring it yourself, you’re at least confident that what you’re buying will fit. Alternatively, you can check out Noctua’s compatibility search page, with the clearances of the cases in its database verified by its team.

This compatibility tool will give you peace of mind when shopping for the best cooler and is useful for confirming measurements even if you end up buying from another brand. But this begs the question — are the variations between official and actual measurements limited to the air coolers? Or are the numbers for other components, like the GPU, PSU, and other key components also inaccurate? Noctua’s website only covers coolers, so you’ll have to rely on other pages (or your own measurements) if you want some confirmation of a case’s specifications and clearances for other parts like GPUs and PSUs.

The fearless TrashBench has been testing direct die water cooling of graphics cards. The inevitable twist here is that they removed the metal waterblock from the equation. Despite initial leaky results and much concern of water damage to the expensive parts thrown into the mix, some of the end results are eyebrow-raising in a good way.

“In my pursuit of the perfect water block, I realized, why do we need metal at all?” queried the antipodean host of the punk-rock GPU death lab. “Why can't we just pump water directly over the bare silicon? Makes sense to me.”

TrashBench began this project well aware that leaks might be a problem. Thus, a non-working GeForce RTX 3060 was chosen for the initial feasibility tests. It was measured up for a 3D printed water block which would direct the coolant directly over the GPU die. Our hardware adventurer covered any surface-mount components beside the GPU with nail polish to prevent water damage/shorting.

Some tried and trusted plumbing measures were then applied, with the design incorporating washers, gaskets, and hose clamps (worm-screw equipped jubilee clips). Water pipe fittings were melted into the block, which was fastened using the retaining clamp mechanism that the air cooler had previously used.

This initial test sprang a leak, or two, so TrashBench decided to add epoxy adhesive to secure and seal the 3D printed block to the GPU. This worked, but then some water was spotted oozing from the tube fittings, so they got a dose of epoxy too. At last, we had the first non-leaky prototype…

After some live runs using a powered-up GTX 980 were successful, it was time for the main event with fitting, testing, and benchmarking using an RTX 2060 Super. On the way, it was noticed that the choice of 3D print material used on TrashBench’s Bambu Lab 3D printer wasn’t trivial. Some materials leaked from the edges, and others were actually slightly porous. During live power tests, the TechTuber wisely used a PCIe riser cable so any leaks wouldn’t immediately drip onto the motherboard.

Was it worth it?

If you like to live dangerously, it could be argued that the TrashBench results show some value in this cooling methodology. The headlining technique was compared against the stock cooler and a clamped-on AiO cooling solution.

Going by the numbers above, you can see that direct water cooling could be interesting, as long as you can ensure long-term confidence about leakage. In the video, you can also see some interesting extras, like running this system using -28°C coolant. The same trick is also tested using an Intel i5-7600K CPU. That was chosen as “it’s not a particularly hot CPU, but if it dies, I don’t care.”

The eventual conclusion was that chamber size matters (most clearly illustrated by the CPU cooling test), but pumping water directly over silicon can work.

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

From the outside, the Phantom Drive, created by Rootkit Labs, appears like a boring old USB. It has that classic, cheap plastic-feeling look to it that would never make you second-guess its intention; when you plug it in, it shows up as just an 8GB drive. However, under the hood, the Phantomdrive is powered by a microSD card that only unlocks itself when you specifically create a new text file, after which it mounts the secret partition, which comes with AES-256 encryption. It's made for situations and places where you might be forced to reveal the contents of a storage device.

The Phantomdrive is built using the CH569 microcontroller that has a bunch of different hardware blocks — this project uses the USB3, SD/eMMC, and the AES block. There are no NAND chips directly onboard the custom PCB because of the ongoing component crisis. Instead, the Phantomdrive relies on a simple microSD card (that you provide; it doesn't come with one) for both its 8GB decoy partition and the hidden partition. The creator does say they'll make a version with eMMC modules once prices come down.

Of course, if someone were to open up the drive, they'd be able to physically rip the SD card out. However, it still wouldn't be a dead giveaway since many cheap USBs are powered by microSD cards, and SD card adapters are also a thing. Anyhow, the finished drive looks pretty simple from the inside; it comprises a USB port, two buck supplies, a button for firmware update, the microSD card, UART test points, and some support components. The custom firmware now comes into play.

The name of the game is interception. The firmware doesn't know it's being used to handle file transfers; it just reads raw packets of data being sent over the USB bus as is. It's coded to always look for a "password" string, so as soon as you create the unlock.txt file with "password:xyz" inside, it detects the "xyz" bit and copies it over to SRAM, while overwriting the raw data with a bunch of zeroes before it's written to the SD card. The operating system thinks it's created the new file, but the firmware intercepted it midway and sent essentially nothing to the physical storage cells.

The firmware uses the unique internal hardware ID of the microcontroller as the salt, combines it with the password you just typed, and runs the pair through PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-256 hashes 100,000 times (you can also select 600,000 times) to create a key. Each run induces an intentional 2-3 second delay to deter brute-force attacks that would try to crack the password. The key is used to unlock and lock the hidden partition, and since it's tied to the silicon itself, putting the SD card into another Phantom Drive will not unlock it.

Even if you try to access it directly through a microSD card slot, it will stay hidden, and the 8GB decoy will actually appear like a broken partition. The creator has also provided the option to recompile the firmware on your own to spoof specific vendor IDs, so that the USB appears like it's from different brands. You can make the Phantomdrive pretend to be a cheap 16GB Kingston Datatraveler at the hardware protocol level, at which point no scanning software will flag it as anything more than a cheap USB.

There are Linux-based C tools you can use in case of emergency, however, to recover your data, such as physical damage to the board. The transfer speeds are also very limited because the project is built over USB 2 — 20 MB/s reads and 9 MB/s writes in AES-CTR mode. The speeds fall to 10 MB/s reads and 6 MB/s writes in AES-XTS, but at least you have the freedom to choose between the two according to your needs.

You can buy the Phantomdrive from Rootkit Labs for $50, but you can also build your own, since this is an open-source project. The prebuilt device comes with two extra shells because the pins wear off and break quickly. Otherwise, the GitHub repo provides all the resources, including the PCB layout files and schematics, the BOM for every part, and the custom firmware, alongside its related tools.

The creator of Phantomdrive, Ryan Walker, explains the goal behind the project as both utilitarian and political. It's built using entirely open-source software and with inexpensive, easily accessible components. They wanted to create something that could "slip past authoritarian government representatives, corrupt police, and anyone else that doesn't respect basis encryption rights."

Micron used to produce some of the best RAM available to mainstream users through its Crucial brand. Despite the company's exit from the consumer market through its now-defunct Crucial brand, Micron had pledged to continue honoring warranties on existing Crucial products. A recent case on Reddit, however, highlights ongoing challenges with Micron's warranty process, where it reportedly offered a customer a ludicrous payout for an RMA. Only after further communication did Micron provide an improved offer. Another user also chimed in with a similar story about an SSD return with Micron. We have reached out to Micron for comment.

Redditor Key_Tailor6948, who shared the email exchange with Tom's Hardware, recently shared their RMA experience with Micron's warranty process after encountering a failing memory module from a 48GB (2x24GB) DDR5 memory kit. While the Redditor did not specify the exact model of the memory kit, Crucial used to sell two such kits in this capacity: the Crucial Pro DDR5-6000 C48 and the Crucial Pro DDR5-5600 C46. The last known pricing for the memory kits was $489.99 and $459.99, respectively, during the memory shortage.

According to the Redditor, Micron allegedly said in an email that the company is no longer offering replacement products for warranty claims. Instead, Micron purportedly stated it would provide a refund based on the original purchase price, including taxes where applicable. However, the proposed refund amount was $241.86.

The major issue at hand is that the reimbursement Micron offered was based on the cost of the 48GB memory kit purchased before the recent memory shortage and the resulting price hikes. Nowadays, the most affordable 48GB DDR5 memory kit available on the market, such as a DDR5-6400 C32 one, which is faster than Micron’s discontinued offerings, starts at a staggering $649.99. The refund Micron proposed amounts to just 37% of the current market value for a somewhat comparable product. The Redditor's math about being 17% of market value and estimating similar-capacity memory kits going for “roughly $1,400" is a bit off based on verifiable pricing, but the proposed payment was still well short of current market value.

Beyond the disappointment over the low reimbursement, the Redditor expressed frustration that they had to send back the entire 48GB memory kit, even though only one of the two modules was faulty. This meant parting with a memory module that was still fully functional. Unfortunately, this is a common industry practice. Most manufacturers require the return of the full memory kit for warranty claims. It is exceedingly rare for companies to allow returns or replacements of only a single memory module from a multi-module kit, regardless of whether the other module is working perfectly. (EDIT 8/11/2026 : Micron's warranty states that it will either replace a product under warranty or refund the current market value of the product or the amount of the original purchase cost, whichever is lower. Therefore, Micron's offer is within the bounds of its warranty.)

The Redditor was also not happy about covering the shipping costs to return the defective memory module. This is another policy that varies widely among brands: some manufacturers cover all shipping fees, others split the cost, so you cannot really single out Micron in that aspect.

It would seem that Micron subsequently offered a more favorable resolution. The company agreed to send the user three Crucial Pro DDR5-6400 C32 16GB (CP16G64C32U5B) memory modules as a replacement. This solution matches the original capacity of 48GB and also delivers better performance than the user's original memory kit. The user accepted the offer.

Meanwhile, Crucial SSD owners are seemingly experiencing similar RMA practices from Micron. A Reddit user named LeanaIsTheBest highlighted in the same thread that Micron is allegedly refusing to provide direct replacements for a failing 4TB SSD. Instead, the company ostensibly offered a gift card equivalent to the original purchase price of the 4TB SSD as compensation. However, the company provided an alternate option to receive the same amount in cash through PayPal or Venmo, with the condition that the user pays the 6% transaction fee.

Micron wound down its consumer business back in December 2025. It is reasonable to think the chipmaker has reshaped its manufacturing factories to cater to more profitable markets, such as data centers and the AI sector. Micron probably is not maintaining inventory or production lines for consumer products, so direct replacements are unlikely. For a company that reported revenue of $41.46 billion in its last earnings call, it isn't a great look for Micron to not reimburse the replacement cost for loyal customers who have purchased its Crucial products.

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.

The AI-driven memory apocalypse has made computer parts so expensive that the average buyer has stopped building PCs. Multiple research firms have already said that, but we’re now seeing it in action in the market. Uniko’s Hardware shared on X four crazy combos of RTX 5090 GPUs being sold on the Taiwanese e-commerce platform PChome24h.

Some of the GPUs that come with a lot of "freebies" include the Asus ROG Astral GeForce RTX 5090, Gigabyte Aorus RTX 5090 Master, MSI GeForce RTX 5090 Gaming Trio OC, and a Gigabyte Aorus RTX 5090 AI Box external graphics card. These items are priced in NTD, but we’ll list them below, including their retail prices in dollars (NTD 32.25 = USD $1 exchange rate) and the included items.

As we can see, even though GPU prices are quite inflated, many of them come with enough freebies that you can start building one high-end system and three to five entry-level gaming rigs. They’re still priced relatively high compared to Amazon or Newegg in the U.S., though, but we have to keep in mind that Taiwan is a different market, so there will likely be variations in prices plus VAT.

While this might be an amusing piece of trivia for some people, it’s actually evidence of a disturbing trend in the PC building industry. Multiple research firms have been saying that the market will contract by double digits this year, with the entry-level PC market being hit the hardest, and that it’s not expected to bounce back until 2029. These combos are just evidence of that, at least in Taiwan.

That’s because sellers often put slow-moving products in a combo to help get their inventory moving. Given the number of motherboards, entry-to-mid-range GPUs, and other components included in these combos, it’s safe to say that these items aren’t selling and retailers are doing all these crazy deals just to free up capital.

As the AI-driven memory crisis has pushed up the prices of memory and graphics cards, many have already paused or delayed their purchases and upgrades. Only those with deep pockets who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on parts and combos like these are still buying PC parts.

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.