AMD recently expanded its X3D lineup with the Ryzen 7 7700X3D, a new entry that slots in below the Ryzen 7 7800X3D as a more affordable way to get 3D V-Cache on the AM5 platform. Launched on July 16 at $329, the 7700X3D is essentially built from the same silicon as the 7800X3D, just with lower clocks and a price tag that undercuts it by $120 at launch.

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D, on the other hand, needs no introduction at this point. Launched back in April 2023 at $449 (now $360), it quickly became one of the most recommended gaming CPUs on the market and has held that reputation for over three years. AMD has kept it in the lineup even as newer X3D chips took the place at the top of the best CPU for gaming charts, which says a lot about how well it has aged.

With the 7700X3D now available, AM5 builders finally have a cheaper way into the X3D club without stepping down to the six-core Ryzen 5 7600X3D. The obvious question is how much performance actually gets left on the table by going with the cheaper option, and whether the 7800X3D's higher clocks are worth the extra money in 2026.

Using data from our CPU benchmark hierarchy and individual reviews of both chips, we’re going to compare them point-for-point across gaming, application performance, power consumption, and more.

Features and Specifications: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

The Ryzen 7 7700X3D is the newer of the two chips here, launching on July 16, 2026, priced at $329. For the time being, it's a Newegg exclusive in North America, at least for this quarter, before wider retail availability presumably follows. It's built on the same Zen 4 architecture as the rest of the Zen 4 X3D family and manufactured on TSMC's N5 process.

The chip features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.0 GHz and a boost clock of 4.5 GHz. That boost clock is notably 500 MHz lower than the 7800X3D, which is really the main differentiator between the two chips on paper. AMD has essentially taken 7800X3D silicon that couldn't hit the higher clocks and repackaged it as a cheaper SKU.

For the cache, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D carries the full 96MB of 3D V-Cache-enabled L3, for a total cache pool of 104MB once you factor in L2. This matches the 7800X3D exactly, and it's the reason the 7700X3D isn't just a watered-down budget chip.

The Ryzen 7 7700X3D uses the AM5 socket and supports DDR5 memory exclusively, with capacities of up to 128 GB. It also supports PCIe 5.0 connectivity for both storage and GPU lanes. The chip has a 120W TDP, identical to the 7800X3D, and integrated graphics are included in the form of AMD Radeon Graphics with 2 CUs running at 2,200 MHz (same as the 7800X3D).

Now onto the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which launched in April 2023. It's also an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 4 chip built on TSMC's N5 node, so the core architecture and process node are shared between both CPUs. Where it separates itself is clock speed, with a 4.2 GHz base clock and a considerably higher 5.0 GHz boost clock.

The 7800X3D carries the same 96MB of L3 cache as the 7700X3D, along with the same 104MB total cache figure. It also uses the AM5 socket with DDR5-5200 support up to 128GB, the same 120W TDP, and the same PCIe 5.0 lane configuration.

Neither CPU officially supports a traditional multiplier overclock in the way non-X3D Ryzen chips do. However, AMD has gradually opened up more headroom for Curve Optimizer and PBO tuning on its X3D lineup since the 7800X3D's launch. We'll get into that in more detail in the overclocking round.

Zooming out, it's clear these two CPUs are much closer than a typical faceoff matchup. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D and Ryzen 7 7800X3D share the same core count, the same cache pool, the same socket, the same memory support, and the same TDP. The only meaningful difference on paper is the 500 MHz deficit on the 7700X3D's boost clock, and any price gap that comes with ti (though that gap is small).

That makes this round more or less straightforward, with only one factor tipping the scales in the favor of the 7800X3D.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

The 7800X3D still wins on paper thanks to its higher boost clock, but barely. With identical cache, cores, and platform support, this is about as close as a spec sheet comparison gets.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

For gaming, we're looking at a 16-game test suite at 1080p, with settings varying between High and Ultra depending on the title. That should give us a clear picture of how the new Ryzen 7 7700X3D stacks up against its more expensive sibling in the games people are actually going to play. We tested the two CPUs with a GeForce RTX 5090 to remove any potential GPU bottlenecks.

We used identical systems for testing. For a full breakdown of the platforms we used, see our Ryzen 7 7700X3D review and Ryzen 7 7800X3D review.

Starting off with our 16-game FPS geomean, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D leads the Ryzen 7 7700X3D with an average of 181.8 FPS, compared to 174.3 FPS for the newer chip. That works out to a 4.3% advantage for the 7800X3D. The gap widens slightly in 1% lows, where the 7800X3D puts out 124 FPS against 118 FPS for the 7700X3D, a difference of about 5%.

It's a modest lead across the board, but a lead nonetheless. Both CPUs comfortably outpace the rest of the field here, including the pricier Core i7-14700K and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, so this really comes down to a battle within AMD's own X3D lineup.

Looking at individual titles, the story stays fairly consistent. In Baldur's Gate 3, the 7800X3D leads the 7700X3D by 6.4%, and the gap is similar in The Last of Us Part One at 5.6% and Marvel Rivals at 5.5%. Hogwarts Legacy sees the 7800X3D ahead by 4%, and 007: First Light comes in at a 3.2% lead.

However, the margin shrinks considerably in a few titles. Flight Simulator 24 and Minecraft RT both land in the 2% range, and Crimson Desert is even closer at just 1.4%. Interestingly, DOOM: The Dark Ages is essentially a dead heat, with the 7800X3D ahead by less than 1%, at 201.9 FPS to the 7700X3D's 200 FPS.

So yes, the 7800X3D wins every title we tested, but in a good chunk of them, you'd be hard-pressed to notice the difference without a frame counter on screen. However, that is what you would expect from a CPU that is essentially the same, with a cut-down boost clock.

Speaking of the clocks, the 7800X3D averaged 4,726 MHz across our test suite, compared to 4,505 MHz on the 7700X3D. That's a 4.9% higher average clock speed for the 7800X3D, and it lines up almost exactly with its FPS advantage, so the extra frequency headroom appears to be the deciding factor here.

Where the 7700X3D claws back some ground is in power, temperatures, and value. The newer chip drew just 60.9 watts on average during our gaming tests, compared to 67.3 watts for the 7800X3D, a 9.5% reduction in power draw. That also translates to lower temperatures, with the 7700X3D running at an average of 55°C versus 62°C for the 7800X3D, a full 7°C cooler than its sibling.

Safe to say, the 7700X3D is also the more efficient chip of the two. It managed 2.86 FPS-per-watt in our testing, compared to 2.70 for the 7800X3D, making it about 6% more efficient. The value picture tells a similar story, with the 7700X3D delivering 0.53 FPS-per-dollar against 0.50 for the 7800X3D — though that assumes a $360 price for the 7800X3D, and we’ve seen it sell for the same price as the 7700X3D multiple times previously. Obviously with both CPUs at $330, the 7800X3D comes out ahead on value.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

The 7800X3D wins every game we tested, and while several of those wins are razor thin, a win is still a win. The 7700X3D answers back with better efficiency, cooler temperatures, and a stronger price-to-performance ratio, at least at MSRP, but this round is about raw gaming performance, and the 7800X3D still has the edge there.

Productivity Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

AMD’s X3D chips aren’t top productivity performers, unless you spring for something like the Ryzen 9950X3D. Still, application performance is important even if you primarily use your PC for gaming. We have a range of tests in rendering, encoding, web performance, and more that compromise or multithreaded and single-threaded geomeans, which you can see in the gallery below.

In these workloads that are concerned with raw CPU performance, clock speed alone can make a significant difference. That tracks with our results, with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D consistently providing a larger advantage over the 7700X3D in application performance than it does in games.

Starting with our multi-threaded performance ranking geomean, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D scores 291 points, compared to 272 points for the Ryzen 7 7700X3D. That puts the 7800X3D ahead by 7% on average. It is not a massive gap, but it is a consistent one, as it shows up across every multi-core test we ran.

In Cinebench 2024's multi-core test, the 7800X3D leads the 7700X3D by 4.7%, with the same pattern showing up in Cinebench 2026 at a 5.3% lead. POV-Ray tells a similar story, with the 7800X3D ahead by 7.7%, and Blender's Junkshop scene puts the 7800X3D 6.25% faster than the newer chip.

The encoding tests follow the same trend. In HandBrake's x265 10-bit encode, the 7800X3D is 7.7% faster than the 7700X3D, and that lead holds nearly identical at 7.6% in SVT_AV1 encoding. JPEG-XL multi-threaded decode shows the 7800X3D ahead by 7.2%.

Interestingly, the gap in every single multi-threaded benchmark sits somewhere between 4% and 8%, so there is no real outlier here in either direction. Since core and thread counts are identical, this is really just a straightforward reflection of the 7800X3D's higher boost clocks doing their job across sustained, all-core loads.

Moving on to single-threaded performance, the gap actually widens a bit. Our single-threaded performance ranking geomean has the 7800X3D at 215 points against 195 points for the 7700X3D, which is a 10.3% lead for the pricier chip.

This makes sense when you consider how single-core workloads work. With fewer cores active, the CPU can push individual cores harder within its power budget, so the chip with the higher clock ceiling pulls further ahead than it does in multi-core tests where thermal and power limits are shared across all cores at once.

The same pattern shows up across the individual single-threaded tests. Cinebench 2024's single-core result favors the 7800X3D by 9.8%, and Cinebench 2026 comes in nearly identical at 9.8% as well. POV-Ray's single-core test shows the widest gap of the round, with the 7800X3D ahead by a noticeable 11.1%.

In the Lame audio encoding tests, the 7800X3D finishes 8.8% faster in the standard test and 9.5% faster in the extended version. WebXPRT4, which measures browser and JavaScript performance, has the 7800X3D ahead by 9.7%.

It is worth remembering that neither of these CPUs was really built with productivity as the main focus. The extra 3D V-Cache that makes them so good at gaming doesn’t help much in these tests, and if anything, the lower clock speeds that come with fitting that cache onto the die work against them in these tests.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

The 7800X3D wins every single productivity test we ran, with leads ranging from roughly 5% in multi-threaded work up to 11% in single-threaded tasks. It is a clean sweep, though the margins stay consistent enough that the 7700X3D never looks completely outmatched.

Overclocking: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

AMD introduced traditional multiplier-based overclocking with Zen 5 X3D CPUs. However, the Ryzen 7 77003D and 7800X3D don’t have access to that. These CPUs stack the cache on top of the compute die, acting as an insulating layer. New Zen 5 X3D CPUs instead keep the cache below the compute die.

That said, AMD loosened things up compared to the first-gen X3D chips. Both the 7700X3D and 7800X3D support Precision Boost Overdrive and Curve Optimizer, which let you push sustained boost clocks a bit further and shave voltage where the silicon allows it, without touching the core multiplier directly. Memory and Infinity Fabric overclocking remain fully open on both chips too, and EXPO makes hitting rated DDR5 speeds simple enough.

Given that the 7800X3D already ships with higher stock clocks and a bit more thermal headroom than the 7700X3D, it also tends to respond slightly better to PBO tuning, since it has more room to stretch before hitting the same limits. The 7700X3D isn't far behind, and its lower stock power draw means it has some slack of its own to work with when pushed.

Realistically, this round is a wash in terms of actual tools available. Both chips are locked in the same way, and both get the same PBO and Curve Optimizer toolkit. The only real difference comes down to how much headroom each chip has to give up before hitting a wall, which slightly favors the 7800X3D, but it is still a tie overall.

⭐Winner: Tie

Both CPUs are limited to the same PBO and Curve Optimizer tuning since neither got AMD's reworked cache layout, so this round is essentially a tie between the two.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

For power consumption, we measured power draw across idle, active idle, and full load scenarios, then broke things down further into efficiency metrics to see which chip gets more work done per watt.

At idle, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D consumed just 19 watts, compared to 25 watts for the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, making the 7700X3D 31.6% more efficient at rest. That gap narrows slightly in an active-idle scenario like YouTube playback, where the 7700X3D drew 22W against 28W for the 7800X3D, a 27.3% difference. Even while doing nothing demanding, the newer chip is sipping noticeably less power.

Moving on to all-core workloads, in our y-cruncher multi-threaded AVX power test, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D consumed 78W, while the Ryzen 7 7800X3D drew 89W, which is a 14.1% increase. The same pattern shows up in Linpack, where the 7800X3D consumed 10.8% more power than the 7700X3D.

We see the gap growing wider in our rendering tests. Cinebench 2024's multi-core render has the 7800X3D pulling 88W compared to 74W for the 7700X3D, an 18.9% increase, and Blender's Junkshop scene shows an even wider 23% gap. The encoding tests land somewhere in between, with the 7800X3D drawing 11.1% more power in HandBrake x265 and 15.3% more in SVT_AV1 encoding.

We even looked at single-threaded power draw, and the same pattern can be seen here as well. In y-cruncher's single-threaded AVX test, the 7700X3D consumed 32W, while the 7800X3D needed 39W, which is a 21.9% increase. This lines up with the more conservative power budget AMD appears to have given the 7700X3D, as it prioritizes efficiency over the extra clock speed the 7800X3D gets to use.

To determine said efficiency, we looked at the performance delivered per watt. In Cinebench 2024, the 7700X3D managed 14.4 points per watt compared to 12.6 for the 7800X3D, making it 14.3% more efficient in this test. Linpack's GFLOPs-per-watt-hour metric shows a similar story, with the 7700X3D being 12.2% more efficient in this test. In HandBrake x265, the watts-per-FPS numbers are close, but the 7700X3D still edges ahead by 4.6%.

We can also visualize this using our scatterplots. In the Linpack power efficiency chart, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D and Ryzen 7 7800X3D sit almost on top of each other toward the bottom-left of the graph, both well ahead of the Core i7-14700K and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus in efficiency. The HandBrake x265 scatter plot tells a slightly different story. The 7700X3D sits marginally lower in energy use, while the 7800X3D pushes a bit further right thanks to its higher FPS, landing both chips close together towards the middle of the plot.

Curiously, the 7800X3D never falls behind by a wide margin in these efficiency charts, but the 7700X3D is consistently the more frugal chip whenever raw wattage is being measured directly. The long and short of it is that AMD seems to have dialed back the power ceiling on the 7700X3D without giving up much in the way of real-world efficiency, which makes sense given it is the newer, more refined part in this matchup.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

The Ryzen 7 7700X3D draws less power across idle, active idle, and full-load scenarios, and it backs that up with better efficiency numbers in nearly every test we ran. The 7800X3D still performs faster, but not by enough to justify its higher power draw in this round.

Pricing: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D

Pricing is interesting as this is where the two chips get quite close, since they share the same platform, the same socket, and largely the same feature set. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D currently sits at $340, though it’s previously sold closer to $340, while the newer Ryzen 7 7700X3D comes in at $330, making it $10 cheaper out of the gate.

That $10 difference on the CPU itself is straightforward enough, and the platform costs line up, as well. Both CPUs support the same AM5 platform. A decent B650 board runs about $150-$200, while X670E boards with better VRMs and connectivity climb into the $250-$350 range.

Memory requirements are also identical, since both CPUs support DDR5 exclusively. A 32GB DDR5-6000 kit, which is the sweet spot for AM5 platforms, currently runs between $300 and $400 depending on the brand and timings. Given the ongoing RAMpocalypse, that price could shift, but it applies equally to both chips, so it does not tilt the comparison one way or the other.

Both CPUs are remarkably efficient, but they run hotter than what their power draw suggests; that's the insulation effect of the cache at work. A competent air cooler between $30 and $80 is enough to keep the chip cool, though you might want to step up to a midrange AIO liquid cooler between $80 and $120.

Platform longevity is identical between the two as well, since both are on the AM5 platform that AMD has committed to supporting for years to come. Neither chip has an advantage in future upgrade paths, so this round really does come down to dollars and cents.

And that makes picking a winner here tricky. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D has seen consistent price drops, with it dropping from $360 to $340 just in the time between writing and publishing this article. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D briefly dropped down to $290, though it climbed back up to $330 and has remained there since.

⭐ Winner: Tie

This round is a tie because, depending on the day, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D might be the exact same price (we've actually seen it cheaper on sale) than the 7700X3D. If you want a shorthand, if you can buy the Ryzen 7 7800X3D for less than $350, it makes up the extra cost in performance. Otherwise, the 7700X3D comes out ahead on value.

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

After a six-round matchup, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D comes out on top with a 5-3 scoreline, coming ahead in features, gaming performance, and productivity, while coming in a tie with the 7700X3D in pricing and power consumption.

The 7800X3D's wins all trace back to the same factor: higher clock speeds. It has more headroom baked in from the factory, and that advantage carries through gaming performance and productivity workloads. Its victory in both of these categories was slim, but consistent.

The Ryzen 7 7700X3D answers back where it counts the most for a lot of buyers. It draws noticeably less power at idle and under load, runs slightly cooler, and is more efficient across nearly every metric we tested. That efficiency doesn’t translate into direct savings, however. Both chips have a very similar thermal profile.

If you want the fastest possible gaming and productivity performance on this platform and don't mind paying a bit more upfront, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is the CPU to get. The performance gap isn't enormous, but it is still noticeable enough across every round we tested.

Given how close these two chips actually are once you factor in price and efficiency, this is one of the tighter faceoffs we've done. Still, the numbers don't lie, and the 7800X3D is the overall victor in this battle.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

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

Intel’s Robert Hallock, vice president and general manager of the enthusiast channel business, believes that the consumer market will see a split in sockets for mainstream and enthusiast platforms to address the rising costs of PCs for cash-strapped buyers. Tom’s Hardware Premium recently spoke with the technical marketing leader about the state of the PC market, which Hallock described as a “tale of two kingdoms.”

“I think the market's experiencing a tale of two kingdoms. For the folks who have a significant amount of discretionary budget, they can absorb the cost impacts of what's going on in the industry, and most other people cannot,” Hallock said. “And that's having a very different impact, as you can imagine, on different parts of the market. Low-end, mainstream is really taking a beating. Enthusiast and premium, not so bad. You could, depending on the device class, maybe even [say] growing positive. So it's a very starkly divided market at the moment.”

Hallock’s take on the market is interesting. The doom and gloom of the RAM and NAND shortages is omnipresent, but we’ve also seen very expensive launches despite that. Gigabyte launched the $5,300 RTX 5090 Infinity OC in June. Asus demoed its 20th anniversary ROG lineup at the same time, which includes a $3,300 motherboard and CPU cooler bundle, as well as a $6,000 RTX 5090. Saying the enthusiast market is growing given the current market conditions may be a stretch, but RAM prices haven’t killed it — an extra $300 or $400 in RAM in the context of a $5,000 PC doesn’t really move the needle.

That’s not the majority of the market, however, and presumably, those few high spenders aren’t enough to sustain a business at the scale of Intel. We’ve already seen concessions in hardware to reach buyers during the memory shortage, particularly in laptops, with the MacBook Neo, Intel’s own Wildcat Lake, and the newly-detailed Snapdragon C. On the desktop, we’ve seen AMD re-release the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and introduce the Ryzen 7 7700X3D. Intel has sold off its new Arrow Lake Refresh chips at much lower prices than expected, with the new Core Ultra 5 250K Plus recently dropping to just $155 in a limited-time sale.

On desktop, at least, these seem like short-term measures. Hallock suggests that, going forward, there will be a more clear divide between mainstream and enthusiast platforms, not just at Intel, but across the industry if prices don’t let up.

“I truly believe that what the market is going to see going forward, and this is just like an industry-level comment… and I want to stress this is not just Intel. You're probably going to see a split. You'll have a premium socket and a mainstream socket from everybody,” Hallock said. “If you’re playing in desktop space, that is probably what you'll do because the supply chain costs, the upstream costs, the same costs that are currently harming the entry-level and mainstream market, I don't see those abating anytime soon.”

AMD has stressed in its previous two earnings calls that gaming revenue, in particular, is declining due to higher component costs. In Intel’s most recent earnings, it reported revenue in its client business up 13% year-over-year, though clarified that was due to higher average selling price, not increased unit sales, because of “some inflation on our cost and [needing] to pass that on to the end customer,” said Intel’s chief financial officer David Zinsner during the earnings call at the time.

Hallock buttoned up the point clearly: “You're going to have to make some concessions in your product stack, and that's purely to control costs and give people an option that they can actually afford. Otherwise, if you don't do it, the other alternative is it just disappears because it's unaffordable.”

It seems for Intel that the socket split looks like LGA 1700 for mainstream and LGA 1954 for enthusiasts, though Hallock didn’t say that explicitly. In June, Tom’s Hardware first reported on “Raptor Lake Next,” which is supposedly a third refresh to Intel’s Raptor Lake lineup set for early 2027. Hallock didn’t confirm the range to us, though he said that Raptor Lake remains a “core part of the portfolio” that he wants to offer “for years to come.”

LGA 1954 is the socket that Intel’s upcoming Nova Lake CPUs will use. There’s a lot of anticipation surrounding Nova Lake, not only due to the lackluster reception of Arrow Lake, but also the various rumors that have swirled around the range, including the introduction of bLCC as a 3D V-Cache competitor and a 52-core flagship, neither of which have been confirmed by Intel.

Although a lot is riding on Nova Lake, Hallock was clear that, given the current market, it won’t appeal to everyone. “A product like Nova Lake cannot address every single slice of the market. It just can't, given the current market that we're in,” Hallock said. “But I do hope and do believe that people will look back and go, ‘Damn, you know, that was pretty freaking good.’ That's what we’re hoping for.”

You can read the transcript of the full interview at our Tom's Hardware Premium site.

Intel’s Robert Hallock, vice president and general manager of Intel’s enthusiast channel business, told Tom’s Hardware Premium in an interview that the Raptor Lake architecture will be part of Intel’s offerings “for years to come.” Intel has no plans to abandon Raptor Lake, and if anything, the company says it’s working to “smooth out” some of the supply and pricing inconsistencies among the range. Raptor Lake CPUs still rank among the best CPUs for gaming, not only due to the underperforming Arrow Lake (not Refresh), but also due to high DDR5 prices.

“Going forward, 10nm products like Raptor Lake; that is a core part of the portfolio that I want to offer to people for years to come,” said Hallock. “LGA 1700 is still a good socket. Lots of people [are] still interested in DDR4, so [we’ll] keep offering, and you'll see [pricing] smooth out over time. It'll come back to normal. That's the plan.”

Raptor Lake has become a key part of Intel’s roadmap as the RAM shortage strangles budget builders from upgrading to a DDR5 platform. In June, Tom’s Hardware first reported on motherboard manufacturers increasing production of DDR4-based boards with the LGA 1700 socket (the socket Raptor Lake CPUs use), and we’re seeing those products roll out now. Just days ago, in fact, Gigabyte introduced a new LGA 1700 board with DDR4 support.

Motherboards were one issue with Raptor Lake on DDR4 platforms; there were never a ton of LGA 1700 motherboards with DDR4 support to begin with. They were something of a stopgap with 12th-Gen Alder Lake CPUs as Intel transitioned to DDR5, largely falling out of favor (and inventory) as Raptor Lake rolled out and DDR5 prices started coming down. Obviously we’re living in a much different world now.

But as the DDR5 pricing crisis started hitting, Raptor Lake inventory started faltering, in part due to increased demand (at least according to Hallock), and likely also in part due to the gradual phasing out of older products. Today, the pricing situation with Raptor Lake is problematic. The Core i5-14600K, for example, sold for $200 or less for the better part of last year. It’s since jumped to around $250, if you can find it in stock at all. At the time of writing, it’s on backorder at Newegg and $262 at Amazon. Similarly, the Core i7-14700K should be selling for around $330, but it’s $380 at Newegg at the time of writing and sold out at Amazon. Again, for the majority of last year, the 14700K often sold for less than $350.

This wobbly inventory and pricing situation is due to the “sudden inrush of demand” for Raptor Lake CPUs as the RAM pricing crisis started to take hold, and Intel didn’t see it coming. “If people are going to go to more affordable hardware, they still want the fastest available for their money, and that happened to be Alder Lake and Raptor Lake. So there was a sudden inrush of demand into these parts — certainly not anticipated when you start your wafers, and your builds, long before that moment ever happens. So it's very hard to predict,” Hallock said.

And Raptor Lake CPUs do remain top DDR4 performers. In our recent re-review of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, the Core i7-14700K and 13700K matched the 5800X3D in games, all three of which were using DDR4, and offered much better application performance. In our recent comparison of DDR4 against DDR5 across Intel’s LGA 1700 stack, we found that DDR4 is the major bottleneck in games, which is something even the 5800X3D can’t overcome.

Hallock indicates that we’ll see an increase in Raptor Lake inventory, though he didn’t specify what that inventory will look like. As Tom’s Hardware first reported in June, motherboard vendors are gearing up for “Raptor Lake Next,” which is supposedly another slate of refreshes set to launch at the beginning of next year. There are also Bartlett Lake processors that use strictly P-cores, exclusively for embedded applications. Although they haven’t made their way to DIY desktops, the range shows that Intel continues to produce 10nm products and likely will for several years in the future.

Although Intel is making efforts to improve Raptor Lake supply — be that through more stock or Raptor Lake Next — that isn’t coming at the cost of next-gen Nova Lake parts. Hallock indicated that Intel, as well as the industry more broadly, is looking at splitting mainstream and enthusiast offerings due to pricing pressure elsewhere in the market. You can read the transcript of the full interview at our Tom's Hardware Premium site.

This week, we managed to sit down with Robert Hallock, Intel VP and General Manager of Enthusiast Channel Business, in a rare interview that catches the company during a curious time, between product cycles and several months after the launch of the Core Ultra 200S Plus lineup of CPUs. With the company’s data center business booming, have consumer products been left behind, or will Intel continue to step in the right direction in regaining trust with a core audience that it’s appealed to for decades: the humble enthusiast?

The following is a transcript of our interview with Hallock, which has been lightly edited for flow and clarity. We hope you enjoy this unredacted look, exclusively available to Tom’s Hardware Premium subscribers. You can also catch session transcripts from earlier in the year, featuring Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Valve, and more.

Jake Roach (Senior CPU Analyst, Tom’s Hardware): I appreciate you doing this outside of a typical product cycle.

Robert Hallock (VP & GM Enthusiast Channel Business, Intel): Of course.

Roach: I really just wanted to get your read on a lot of things because things are crazy in the enthusiast desktop space right now.

Hallock: They are.

Roach: So, how are things going in enthusiast desktop land given memory shortages, NAND shortages, everything going on right now?

Hallock: I think the market's experiencing a tale of two kingdoms. Yeah. For the folks who have a significant amount of discretionary budget, they can absorb the cost impacts of what's going on in the industry, and most other people cannot. Right? And that's having a very different impact, as you can imagine, on different parts of the market. Low-end mainstreams really taking a beating. Enthusiast and premium, not so bad. You could, depending on the device class, maybe even be growing positive. So it's a very starkly divided market at the moment.

Roach: I guess I hadn't heard that kind of take on it before. I guess it makes sense that you have more discretionary spending, or if you already were kind of invested in a certain ecosystem. I haven't heard that before.

Intel’s flexibility in the consumer market

Roach: I'm curious about the position of Intel right now. There's AMD, Intel, and Nvidia, right? And you've seen a kind of big shift for AMD and NVIDIA. Nvidia doesn't even break out gaming as a business category anymore; it's embedded now, and I think AMD is now coming up on close to double the data center revenue that they have from their client business. But for Intel, the majority of your revenue still comes from the client business. Does that put you in kind of a unique position right now with so much focus on the data center?

Hallock: I think that it does. I like to believe that it does, and I'm hoping, selfishly for myself, that it does. One of the things that I believe that Intel, that people truly sleep on about Intel when talking about the big fight of this company versus that company, just how big Intel is, how many resources Intel has. As I look at, for example, you know our desktop enthusiast roadmap, I don't have to trade supply with a data center part; I don't have to worry about it. I don't have to think about it.

I can build a roadmap and a plan for the market that is sized against purely what is going on in the client market. And that kind of freedom is very empowering when you're trying to run an enthusiast desktop business for enthusiasts, and it doesn't mean that we're immune to what's going on in the market. It doesn't mean we're immune to supply fluctuations upstream of us. That happens too, right? But at a fundamental level, I can sit down with my team and my partners and build a plan for a product for the year, and not have to worry about what's going on with Xeon, as an example, and vice versa, right? That's their luxury too, right? I can do my thing in client land, and they can do theirs in data center land, and it's okay. And so the size of Intel is what allows that to happen. And at it is at its best, it allows us to maximize the investment and the return on multiple product categories. It's a nice one that works out that way.

Roach: I think it's been maybe a few earnings calls back. There were some mentions in a couple of earnings calls about wafer allocation moving toward the data center to meet demand for Xeon. But you're saying that's not really a concern when it comes to future launches.

Hallock: No, and so, just to give a little inside baseball. It depends on what era you're talking about. If we're just coming into the sudden AI boom, where prices are multiplying very, very rapidly. That was a surprising moment for everyone in the industry. Like we kind of felt it coming.

We heard the rumors, but the size and scale were very abrupt. It was immediate. That is still surprising. It was immediate, and in those cases, yeah, you’re probably going to have to trade some supply around. But once you’re in, like once you’re in it, now you know the plan for it.

Roach: Okay, so that was a temporary measure, gotcha.

On Intel’s enthusiast roadamps

Roach: So, shifting back to the desktop, I know you've mentioned several times about this ambitious enthusiast roadmap, presumably that centers around 18A and Nova Lake. So far, what we've seen out of 18A has been more premium offerings. Obviously, we have Panther Lake; we have Wildcat Lake. Wildcat Lake [is] not a premium offering, but it makes some pretty big concessions to reach that budget price point of single-channel memory and all of that. So I'm curious, given that there is such a large divide between this enthusiast premium category, this budget category, do you think that the DIY PC market can be served by a single product stack, especially on this kind of cutting-edge node?

Hallock: I truly believe that what the market is going to see going forward, and this is just an industry-level comment, is, and I want to stress this is not just Intel...You're probably going to see a split. You'll have a premium socket and a mainstream socket from everybody. If you're playing in desktop space, that is probably what you'll do because the supply chain costs, the upstream costs, have the same costs that are currently harming the entry-level and mainstream market; I don't see those abating anytime soon, right? And so it means that in order to continue providing affordable computer hardware, you're going to have to make some design concessions.

You're going to have to make some concessions in your product stack, and that's purely to control costs and give people an option that they can actually afford. Otherwise, if you don't do it, the other alternative is it just disappears because it's unaffordable. So, seeing a split is likely the outcome for everybody.

Roach: I was telling Thomas yesterday when Gamer Days first came out, I think there was a day when the Core Ultra 250K Plus was $150. I’m like, ‘Man, at that price, that is one hell of a deal.’

Hallock: Hell of a CPU? Yes, it is.

Roach: So obviously we have Arrow Lake Refresh. Arrow Lake Refresh is great, very positive reception. But we've also seen this… One of the stories we really heard a lot from the motherboard guys at Computex was spinning up older DDR4 boards with LGA 1700. I think Gigabyte just reintroduced one a few days ago, and that's great to see because there weren't a ton of those boards even when Alder Lake launched.

But, one of the things that has been concerning for me – covering CPUs – is a lot of volatility in pricing on 13th- and 14th-gen processors, oftentimes selling for much more than comparables from AMD or even for certainly from from Arrow Lake. I'm wondering: are there any plans to maybe improve supply, or some sort of effort to stabilize the pricing of those so it's a bit more consistent?

Hallock: Well, I think what you're seeing is the fact that those 10nm parts are still phenomenally good. We don't spend a lot of time talking about them in the media or at Intel. It's old stuff, and we've all moved on. But they're still phenomenally good CPUs. And if you look at the sort of bucket of options that you can buy for these older DDR4 platforms, it is very likely that Alder Lake or Raptor Lake are the fastest of the bunch in that mix.

Roach: They are. I just recently did a whole DDR4 vs DDR5 article.

Hallock: And so what you're seeing is just like if people are going to go to more affordable hardware, they still want the fastest available for their money, and that happened to be Alder Lake and Raptor Lake. So there was a sudden inrush of demand into these parts that was certainly not anticipated when you start your wafers and your builds long before that moment ever happens. So it's very hard to predict. But going forward, 10-nanometer products like Raptor Lake – that is a core part of the portfolio that I want to offer to people for years to come. LGA 1700 is still a good socket. Lots of people are still interested in DDR4, so keep offering. And you'll see it smooth out over time. It'll come back to normal. That's the plan.

Roach: Yeah, it was really interesting going back because obviously with Alder Lake’s launch, there was a bunch of discussion about DDR4 versus DDR5, but seeing how it scaled all the way up to 14th-gen. You have the 14700K with DDR4 at parity with a 5800X3D in gaming, and obviously much faster in applications. So yeah, I’ve been hoping for a $300 14700K that I can recommend to people.

On Intel's approach to AI in the enthusiast segment

Roach: I wanted to shift a little bit away from desktop. I know that is your, well. I guess maybe not desktop, but the kind of traditional view of just a single-socketed processor. Intel has this kind of breadth of IP, great graphics IP, lots of experience with memory and advanced packaging. And honestly, it's been surprising to me that we haven't seen what I like to call the 'big chip’ out of Intel yet, a consumer 'big chip' out of Intel. Between Strix Halo, I guess Gorgon Halo now, the M-series from Apple, and of course RTX Spark. I appreciate that that's not directly under your purview, but do you think that's an important area of the market, or is this a way to kind of capitalize on this sudden rush in demand for kind of these AI developer workstations?

Hallock: Tricky to say. I'm not sure about that part of the roadmap, but it's an interesting place because in a before time, a big integrated graphics device would have been pitched for gaming, right? It would have been pitched for gaming.

And the market has not always responded positively to that sort of setup, like whether or not the performance is right or the power is right, and oftentimes it's better than the CPU plus discrete option you can get for the same price and the same power. It's better.

Just, there's something about it people just don't take it, and then this whole AI thing came along in a real way – the agentic AI component of it – and certainly renewed demand for that kind of hardware. Now, does that sustain? I don't know. Do people come out of this seeing the value for gaming again – that I also don't know. But you know, we are looking at it, we are exploring it. It's certainly an interesting part of the market. A lot of excitement. People love to talk about it. But interestingly, I don’t think the actual run rate is all that high. So, it’s something we’re cautious about.

Roach: I will tell you every single event I have been to where they've had one of these agentic 'buy your box and run an agent forever’ demos, I don't think I've ever seen a single person actually sitting and watching one of those demos. I don't know what that says, but interesting to note.

Hallock: Just on AI software in general… It's an evolutionary process. Businesses can absolutely benefit now, like Intel has. I personally have agents running for me at work to do processes that honestly took a lot of my time. Sure. And now they're completely automated, and I just have to fact-check them, and that's great. I've saved a lot of time doing this, but you know, the transition to an average consumer – I don't know if we're there yet, right? We're not there yet, and I suspect that's probably informing the demo interest. But it is also a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing.

If you are not AI-aware or AI-ingrained, if you haven't just been dunked in the AI bucket because of your job or your profession or whatever, it is difficult to imagine what you could use it for, right? So now you're caught in this trap, 'well, I've heard about it, I don't know what I could use it for, but then I can get my hands on it, and now I don't know what to do with it.' It's like learning a search engine when we all had to do that, right? But on steroids.

Roach: It’s funny having conversations with friends and people who aren’t in this world because… recording and transcription, right? Like, that’s a super great use case of just, I mean, it’s not even an agentic or an advanced thing. I’ll explain that to them. They’re like, ‘Oh, that’s a great use case.’ I mean, for most people, AI is the sloppy AI images and things like that. That’s AI. They see no other use case for it.

Hallock: That's the great injustice in this industry, right? There are so many things that we all call AI. They all have the same name. And some of them are just like a sticker on a toaster, and some of them are legitimately useful, and they run on your computer, and you have custody over your information and your privacy. That's not bad, but that's quite a spectrum. Yeah, one word, and it's such a shame.

Roach: It is a shame too. With the hardware advancements, it's a bummer being at Tom's Hardware, being mostly a consumer-facing brand, and talking about things like Vera, things like Venice. I'm sure later this month, things like Diamond Rapids. You know, and all that stuff is very interesting from a hardware perspective.

Challenging AMD with new consumer hardware

Roach: I was interested to hear your perspective on this. I was at Advancing AI last month for the Venice launch, and I don't know how long it's been, but it's certainly been since Ryzen, since the original Zen, that AMD's leading with Zen 6 in the data center instead of on client. I just wanted to get your reaction to that.

Hallock: I think it's a natural reaction for them. Makes a lot of sense. What I would say is, as we think about our own roadmap, I have a new core. *chuckles* It's coming to desktop first. I hope enthusiasts do the math about that one, and… That's all I'm going to say.

Roach: Okay, perfect. I would expect no less of a diplomatic response, but I appreciate the response nonetheless. That is, it is exciting to hear that there's still a focus on consumers, because I know for GPUs especially, but even some questions with CPUs about, are we even going to get new hardware? Like, is that a thing?

And I think this goes to a bit of an extreme that all of our local compute's going to wither away, and then it's all going to be cloud instances or whatever that we rent from some data center somewhere. I don't think that's the case, but it is encouraging to hear that there is at least some focus on launching new enthusiast products. I'm wonderi–

Hallock: Not just some focus; I have new CPUs all the way out to 2030. I have a back-to-back-to-back-to-back cadence for gamers, for desktop built for that purpose. Obviously I can’t go into what any of that is, but I’m accelerating for the gaming market. We are moving faster than we ever have in product and release cadence. We’re very serious about this.

Yeah, I understand people are skeptical after the last couple of years. I truly get that. But the signal Intel is trying to send is like… We’re gearing up for one of the most significant desktop CPU launches we have ever had.

We took a team that was time-shared with other businesses. And now this slice of the market has a full org structure inside Intel, and if you're not in corporate America, what that means is the company is so serious about it. They're putting real people, with a lot of budget behind it, right? And having an owner, a sponsor, people that care about it, looking after it – custodians of that work – it makes a real difference.

Just... The difference between Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh. That’s the difference.

Roach: Oh man, that was a big difference. Oh. Different teams on those? Okay, I hadn’t realized because when we talked about Arrow Lake Refresh, it was… You had made mention of like ‘Hey, we’ve updated our roadmap, and this is our first, maybe peace offering after Arrow Lake.’

But I didn’t realize it was a completely different, or not completely different, but a different team.

Hallock: Yeah, well. Pretty much completely different. Marketing people, different product managers, different business people, and simply, we have a different philosophy on how this market should run, and what people should get for their dollar. And I’m glad that people appreciate it.

A post-Arrow Lake shakeup

Roach: Okay, so there was a big shakeup after. That was one of the questions I had. What were the key takeaways from Arrow Lake? But it sounds like those takeaways were addressed immediately.

Hallock: A couple takeaways that you saw manifest in the [Arrow Lake] refresh launch: The software experience for DIYers, which nobody likes to admit that we all need software for our CPUs because they all have a lot more cores than any game typically expects these days. And so the resilience of that software experience. How do people obtain it? How do they install it? How can they validate your performance? How can they verify that they're getting what you are promising? All of that was kind of open-loop in the Arrow Lake original timeframe.

We had some aspects coming from motherboard vendor websites, some from Windows updates, some from Intel.com. It's too complicated for people, so that directly led into the Intel platform performance package- like, kind of crazy- but put all your useful bits in one spot and tell people to download it.

Well, when you lose sight of this enthusiast DIY space and how people consume software and hardware in this part of the market, it's easy to get turned around. OEMs have a very different strategy. They go through these massive validation efforts and have huge QA labs and can set up a system image with point releases, and… Normal people don't have those resources.

You have to make it very easy for them. So, software resilience was a big one. And then when you look at a pile of IP, some engineer says, ‘Hey, your CPU can do this to this.’ That's your range of capability, and inside you open the box. You've got some stuff you can smudge around, like frequencies or voltage or core counts or specs on and off. You can decide to remix those very differently too. You decide to price it differently.

So what you're seeing is Intel got healthy on its software foundations for DIYers. Intel got healthy on its respect for performance per dollar for customers. We set up some really healthy internal processes for future platforms. Arrow Lake was a tough, tough lesson to learn, but a good one, because it drove some really, really useful changes inside Intel.

The importance of CPU software optimization

Roach: You've really beaten the drum on the importance of software; software is just as important as hardware. Just this past week I was testing out the BC-250. If you're familiar.

Hallock: Yeah.

Roach: The PS5 APU that was repurposed. And if you need a crash course in the importance of software to a gaming experience, just boot up one of those things. But can you explain, from your view, what the importance of software is, especially given Intel's… This is pretty ancient history at this point, but you know, use of specific compilers and things like that. What is your view about the importance of software to an overall performance package?

Hallock: I am scared to open this box, lest I get misinterpreted. So, here’s the deal. From the perspective of a software developer, it's actually really tough to be a professional software developer, especially if you are not self-publishing, especially if you have a publisher breathing down your neck. Because it means that your publisher is picking the release time, not you.

That's time crunch number one. Time crunch number two is… What hardware are we targeting? What CPU do I have at my desk as a developer? What does our QA lab have? What has the publisher allowed us to buy with our budget for QA? What does my historical install base look like for other games? And every time you open the box on any of those, you find more subdivision of compatibility that you need to worry about. That's time crunch number two.

Time crunch number three is, did you start on a console, or did you start on PC? Which were you targeting first? Probably console. So now you have to do a port, which is a time crunch. Some publishers outsource this. There are companies that all they do is console ports to PC.

Roach: A lot of Sony games.

Hallock: You know, I’m thinking of Nixxes. What a great developer! They've been amazing over the years at doing these kinds of ports. So all you're really doing is budgeting a decreasing amount of time as a dev, and then you're like, okay, well, my game has to run on a CPU anywhere from four cores to, gosh, like 32 threads, 24 threads, depending on the vendor. It's a lot.

And so what ends up happening is they just draw a line in the sand. This is the hardware we have in QA. This is what's on my desk. This is what's in the console, and that's what we have time to look at. And maybe we'll look at other stuff later. And a lot of the time, one thing that many gamers still don't quite understand is, like, it's not even really the Windows scheduler or the OS scheduler that's determining how these CPUs get used when you're running a game-they have their own layer.

It's called an affinity mask, and they tell the OS how to use the CPU. So the game is in control of how to do the scheduling, sending all these hints to the operating system. What if those hints are wrong? What if those aren't the right hints for the CPU you have in the socket? What if the game is newer than your hardware, or substantially older than your hardware? Or the developer never looked at your combination?

These are all moments where the game can easily give up huge chunks of performance, or just not run. And everybody has to deal with this, right? Every CPU vendor has to address these challenges somehow. We call it the Intel Platform Performance package; AMD calls it the chipset driver.

Right, we've all got this, and it's so important because it can reach into the operating system, or reach into the application, or reach into the firmware of the CPU itself, and make those real-time adjustments to get the performance back. Gamers would not like how this industry looks without this software from the CPU vendors. It would be a much, much less performant, much slower, higher frame time, more stuttering, sort of environment.

Roach: Yeah, it’s already quite surprising to deal with.

Hallock: Yeah, software cannot replace the CPU, and that is not what we're proposing, right? We're not saying, 'hey, I'm going to give up 10% on the hardware and give you 10% back on the software because it's cheaper.' No, I want 10% of both.

That it’s not trade; it’s both. And that is why we’re interested in pursuing it, and why I think it’s so important, because I’ve now spent serious time at two processor companies and have seen the performance gains that come from this kind of software, and what they contribute to the experience, including my own gaming system that I’m talking to you on right now.

And so, that’s why I’m big on software, because the performance would be much, much worse without it – not insurmountably, but it would functionally limit the kind of hardware that you can produce if everything has to fit in this lowest common denominator of software. That’s the other outcome, and that would be even worse. We cannot have the hardware be stagnant because of the software.

Roach: Gotcha. Yeah. That’s certainly giving up. It’s not the 10% hardware for 10% software. Leaving stagnant software gives up a lot more.

Hallock: That’s right.

Roach: Yeah. You know, we did a story probably a couple of days ago. This guy who, we call him a hardware researcher, but he really just does memes. He made a C compiler that would compile completely with Move and Assembly, and then he made a leaderboard of… it was the x86 Hall of Shame, where he tried to find a single assembly instruction, how to make it run as slow as possible, and he got one up to 189 billion cycles.

Yeah, it was ridiculous. He basically found the two slowest areas in the fabric, the two highest-latency areas in the fabric. Ran the instruction on one of them, and then had the other one make a bunch of frivolous four-byte reads, and like lock it up. Yeah. Anyway, just a great example of how you can make hardware–

Hallock: What people don't understand, every CPU architecture is like the fine art of intelligent compromise, and it's like, okay, well, just as like a random example, could you make the read and write link the same size? Sure.

But what if the reads are like 10 times more common than the writes? Do you really need them to be bidirectionally the same size? Like it's going to show up on a micro benchmark. Someone's going to complain about it, but in real performance, day-to-day, do you actually need it? Yeah, probably not. And there's stuff like that all over a modern CPU based on decades of just, like, learning how people are likely to use this thing; it actually does shape the microarchitecture itself somewhat, like a reflexive principle, right? We speak it into existence by using our processors in a certain way. It's fun.

Checking in on IBOT

Roach: On software, I think I'm probably much higher on IBOT personally than you know. We've seen some interest in it. We did some testing for it. I think it's this thing that probably becomes more important as time goes on. I'm just wondering how it's going. We've had one update, I believe, one game update. I just wanted to check in on how IBOT’s coming along.

Hallock: Going well. You know, we continue to work on multiplayer support, which was kind of in the initial scope. It's taking, I think, longer than the public may have expected, because we certainly do not want people to get in trouble using this technology. And that means you have to talk to a lot of people to do it. We're actively working on non-gaming workloads.

We are working on another upcoming release. I don't have the exact date for this, but we're working on the bits for the next update. And then we're also thinking about, for Nova Lake, you know, what is version 2.0, for lack of a better phrase? What do we want to build into that release based on the new hardware capabilities? Which I know is both some details and not a lot of details, but it's very important to us; it is a long-term, permanent aspect of our roadmap.

Roach: Yeah, I think the game selection has been interesting to see. Obviously, when we spoke around Arrow Lake refresh, you had mentioned, ‘Hey, there's going to be a lot of games where there's no benefit whatsoever, or a lot of workloads in general where there's no benefit whatsoever. We just want to improve where we can.’

I'm curious how you go about finding those improvements, because surely it can't be just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Hallock: No, well, sometimes it is. Okay. Sometimes it is. It’s a multi-part process. We do have a team that proactively goes out and evaluates things that are very popular, high profile in the community. Just because it's so obvious to go grab those and take a look. We also have automated systems that go through workloads and try to find opportunities. That does a lot of heavy lifting. Dirty word, but we have AI tools that can also help us analyze and find opportunities. So it's one part manual and a lot of automation to find these, and we go from there.

Adressing Nova Lake rumors

Roach: I wanted to ask something a little bit more direct about Nova Lake because speculation around Nova Lake has been going on for a while. I wanted to focus on the high-end, there's been kind of these endless rumors about a 52-core part. You have teased previously scaling up Thread Director to deal with these higher core-count CPUs. I'm wondering right now: What does something like this ultra-high core count, or like a high-end desktop processor, what is that offering right now to the market, in your view?

Hallock: My view has always been that the market will initially go. ‘Ah, what am I going to do with this kind of hardware?’ And then they figure it out. And my most recent example of this comes from my time at AMD. I was sitting at Computex, and at the time we were unveiling our first 12-core CPU. So that would have been the 5900X, I think, maybe the 3900x. It's been a while, and I was sitting in the room with a bunch of journalists who – 18 months ago – had been like, "Why eight-core in consumer? What are you even talking about? Why? Why does this exist?” Same people sitting in front of me. I'm talking about a 12-core CPU, and they're like, "Where's your 16-core?" Like a poorly, poorly kept secret at that point, right? Like it was only like a week away from getting announced, and everybody knew it existed.

How quickly perspectives change. Suddenly, we went from four-core to eight-core, to 12, to 16 in three years. And man, how quickly people’s opinions changed about the value of [higher] core counts. I don’t think, in the history of the PC industry, [that] bigger bar better, more performance better. Never a bad answer. And that does inform my thinking about the roadmap, and Intel’s thinking about the roadmap going forward. It’s never a bad idea to offer more hardware to people.

Roach: The irony. About that, I think it was Zen...It must have been Zen 2. The irony about that is that the 12-core SKUs are always significantly worse than the eight-core and the 16-core. I guess there are some workloads where it makes sense, but yeah, it's interesting to hear.

I think, you know, one of the big hopes for Nova is a competitor to V-Cache. I know this is something you're well aware of, and you know has been brought up numerous times. I watched some previous interviews that you did, I believe, with a recent one with PC Games Hardware, and you had mentioned ways to improve cache locality as something like, ‘Hey, we don't just need to stack a bunch more cache on the chip. We have other levers we can pull to find this performance or to offer something that the X3D chips offer.’

I'm curious what those levers are, because you've made reference to them before, and I just wanted to get a little bit more of a technical explanation.

Hallock: We will have to wait for the fullness of time, won’t we?

Roach: Yes, we will. Hey. You can’t knock me for trying.

Hallock: No, you have to try, and I appreciate and respect that. You know, my bottom line is this is going to be both an answer and a non-answer. Sorry. But I want to try to answer the question for the public more generally. We understand and appreciate there is a like a lot of hope, a lot of expectation, and a lot of desire surrounding Nova Lake. We get it.

And in some ways... selfishly. We’ve lived through it. Every negative comment, every bad tweet, every crappy article. It wears on you. It really does. And we want to deliver a product with Nova Lake that meaningfully addresses these criticisms.

Yeah, just pick one [CPU from Intel or AMD]. I’m not going to confirm anything else, but pick one. I think the Nova Lake product will do the job.

Roach: Okay. Well, that's good to hear. I have to imagine, especially with Nova Lake in particular, given how much they're, you know… There's probably a story on Videocardz or WCCFTech, probably a lot on Tom's Hardware every two or three days. So, yeah, it's a lot.

Hallock: Well, I think it’s reflective of how excited people are, how much anticipation, how much demand is pent up for this moment.

Roach: I know we're almost out of time, but I did want to share with you real quick. It was a big thing that we talked about this year at CES. Actually, I was talking to AMD PR, and they were getting reactions [to AMD’s new announcements]. And I told them, I was like, man, there is a Dark Knight sentiment. You live long enough to see yourself become the villain…happening right now in the industry. I think there's certainly a lot of that reaction that we've seen at least. So, for what that's worth…

Hallock: I have read those comments. Yeah. You know, a product like Nova Lake cannot address every single slice of the market. It just can't, given the current market that we're in. But I, I do hope and do believe that people will look back and go, ‘damn, you know, that was pretty, pretty freaking good.’ Yeah, that's what we were hoping for. And if Intel just keeps going, we're gonna be okay. And that's the trajectory we're on. That's who I want to be, as a business for gamers.

Roach: Yeah, I've heard you say that numerous times, which is encouraging to hear. So I appreciate it, and yeah, thank you so much for taking the time to do this. You know, I always enjoy talking with you, and I'm excited to see what comes next.

[Session ends]

Coming on the heels of Intel's $19.7 billion common stock offering from earlier this week, AMD on Thursday announced plans to borrow $4.75 billion through a new senior unsecured debt offering. AMD does not tie the proceeds to a particular project, saying they will be available for general corporate purposes, including potentially paying down existing debt. Meanwhile, the increasing capital intensity of the industry gives AMD numerous options to use the money.

"We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for general corporate purposes, which may include the repayment of debt," an AMD statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission reads.

The offering comprises four tranches: $1.25 billion of 4.6% notes due in 2029; $1.50 billion of 5% notes due in 2031; $1 billion of 5.25% notes due in 2033; and $1 billion of 5.5% notes due in 2036. Their yields to maturity are 4.64%, 5.018%, 5.264%, and 5.532%, respectively, while spreads over comparable U.S. Treasuries range from 43 to 90 basis points, which indicates that the market is generally confident in AMD and is willing to lend it money at rates that barely exceed those of the U.S. Treasury. Moody's and S&P are expected to rate the securities A1 and A, respectively.

AMD did not disclose how it plans to spend $4.75 billion, but the additional money obtained at attractive rates gives it room to finance its increasingly capital-intensive business as well as cash for debt repayment and other corporate requirements.

AMD hardly appears desperate for additional money. At the end of Q2 2026, the company had approximately $13.1 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. AMD's debt totaled $3.2 billion, and only $875 million is classified as current, which means that the proceeds from the offering by far exceed AMD's current obligations. Meanwhile, AMD's business is becoming very capital intensive.

At the end of 2025, the company had around $12.2 billion in unconditional commitments, which include purchases of wafers and substrates, multi-year cloud-service agreements, software and technology licenses, and guaranteed obligations to third parties. Approximately $8.5 billion was due in 2026.

Also, AMD's working capital requirements are growing. Inventories reached approximately $8.47 billion by the end of Q2, while accounts payable climbed to $5.36 billion. AMD also spent $1.20 billion on property and equipment during the first half of 2026, compared with $494 million a year earlier.

If we were to speculate where AMD can put $4.75 billion, then long-term supply agreements for commodities like memory, logic production, or advanced packaging immediately come to mind. However, given the current market realities, $4.75 billion is 1.8x smaller than AMD's inventories as of late Q2 2026. Furthermore, an average long-term supply deal with a major memory maker now amounts to $7.14 billion (according to Micron's comments made in its recent earnings release).

That said, $4.75 billion may not be enough for AMD to make strategically important purchase commitments. Nonetheless, getting nearly $5 billion at attractive rates amid global undersupply of pretty much everything certainly gives AMD some additional flexibility to run its business.

Intel chief executive Lip-Bu Tan has invested $12 million of his own money in Intel this week as part of the company's $19.7 billion stock offering, indicating his confidence in the company. Meanwhile, Bank of America analysts view the capital raise as an indicator of management's 'increasing foundry conviction,' suggesting growing confidence in Intel's foundry prospects.

"The capital raise […] is still a good leading indicator of management's increasing Foundry conviction (vs. defensive balance-sheet action)," reads an excerpt from BofA's note to clients published by John Intel. "We flag the capital raise also aligns with the recent step-up in capex (for internal customer) and ongoing 14A progress, with further capex increase expected on potential incremental external customer wins (18A-P, 14A, advanced packaging EMIB-T)."

Indeed, it is hard to believe that Intel's management would raise almost $20 billion without a more or less clear plan on how to spend it. In fact, Lip-Bu Tan has said repeatedly that he would not authorize building capacity for external customers unless there was a customer commitment. Of course, at some point, Intel will need additional 18A capacity for its own products as well, but $20 billion is a lot of money, which may indicate that the additional capacity will be aimed both at internal and external clients. This is by no means a confirmation that a formal deal has been reached with a big customer like Apple, AMD, Nvidia, or Qualcomm, but it is at least an indicator of management's confidence in Intel's performance going forward.

In fact, Intel's $19.7 billion stock offering was several times oversubscribed and about 33% of investors who submitted orders received no shares at all, reports @FirstSquawk, which indicates great confidence in the company by regular investors. Apparently, Intel's chief executive, Lip-Bu Tan, was among the investors who managed to get $12 million worth of stock using his own money.

In March 2025, shortly after becoming the head of Intel, Lip-Bu Tan bought $25 million of Intel shares (approximately 1.04 million shares) through a family trust to hold them for five years as a required part of his employment contract. Since then, he neither bought nor sold his Intel stock, so the acquisition of $12 million worth of Intel shares is a significant deal.

"Overall, we view the raise as net positive given foundry scale and customer conviction driving longer term top-line and operational efficiency, more than offsetting modest near-term EPS dilution," the note by BofA reads. "We also flag positive read-through for both front-end and back-end packaging semicap vendors."

Qualcomm is getting into some of the nitty-gritty details of the Snapdragon C system-on-a-chip, the ARM-based platform it announced in June for laptops priced around $300.

The Snapdragon C is an 8-core Qualcomm Kryo CPU, with a single-core max frequency of 3 GHz and a multi-core max of 2 GHz. A Qualcomm spokesperson clarified that "Snapdragon C's 8 cores operate at different max frequencies to optimize for power [and] performance with 1 core at up to 3GHz, 3 at up to 2.6GHz, and the remaining 4 at up to 2GHz. The maximum sustained frequency across all cores is 2 GHz.."

It also has an integrated Adreno GPU with a max frequency of 900 MHz, and a Qualcomm Hexagon NPU, though Qualcomm hasn't listed how many TOPS it supports.

Intel's Core 3 304, the weakest of its "Wildcat Lake" processors for budget systems, has a max performance core turbo frequency of 4.3 GHz and max low-power efficient core frequency of 3.3 GHz..

In updated slides, Qualcomm pits the Snapdragon C (in a reference design with 8GB of memory) against an Acer TravelMate with Intel's N250 and 8GB of RAM. The company claims you get 67% better battery performance than the Intel N250 and up to 2.1 times better battery efficiency, though that's measured with multi-threaded Cinebench. The company did not publish any benchmarks when the systems are plugged in.

Qualcomm claims that, on battery, the Snapdragon C is up to 44% faster in single-threaded Geekbench and 24% higher in multi-core. But its top victories were in Cinebench, running 50% faster single-threaded and 67% faster multi-threaded. But Geekbench and Speedometer 3.1 (+39%) are the real numbers to look at here, as they better showcase the type of work someone might typically do with a cheap notebook.

While Qualcomm is promising "all-day" battery life, it's leaving the number of hours up to its OEM partners. That's likely to vary depending on the display panels and other factors, but in Qualcomm's test reference device, it used a 16-inch screen. Qualcomm notes in its footnotes that the TravelMate has an 11.6-inch display, with "total power configured to match 16" screen."

Qualcomm instead is claiming battery power efficiency over the Intel N250 across all of its tests, from Netflix running in Microsoft Edge (106% better), web browsing (68% better), and a Teams video call (74% better).

Qualcomm is promising designs from HP, Acer, Asus, and Lenovo. At Computex, Acer showed a first look at the Aspire Go 15, its first notebook with Snapdragon C. We know that system has 8GB of RAM, 512GB of storage, and plenty of ports, but the company still has not unveiled a release date or pricing information.

It is possible that the timing of this launch will enable Qualcomm's OEM partners to unveil new systems at the IFA technology trade show in Berlin, unless they decide to wait until CES.

It's also unclear if the $300 guidance will hold, given the increase in cost of components — especially memory. But it's possible Snapdragon C laptops will significantly undercut the MacBook Neo and Windows laptops with Intel's Wildcat Lake. We'll have to test Snapdragon C to see how it performs.

You can see Qualcomm's full slide deck below:

Intel's upcoming Nova Lake CPUs have been a part of the rumor mill for months as excitement builds up for a potential CES 2027 announcement. The latest leak comes from reliable tipster Jaykihn, who's actually updating an older report that said SKUs with cut-down E-cores would also have reduced cache. Now, his new leak claims Intel will keep the L3 cache unaltered, even on chips with partially disabled E-core clusters.

Previously, it was rumored that some Nova Lake configs, such as the 8+12+4 silicon, would only have 33MB of L3 cache since the 12 E-cores are cut down from the 16 we expect on the full-fat variant of this SKU. Now, Jaykihn reports that this config will now have 36MB of L3 cache instead, just like the uncut 8+16+4 config. Similarly, the 4+4+4 config is said to retain 18MB of L3 cache instead of 15MB, same as the fully enabled 4+8+4 SKUs.

This does not apply to every SKU of Nova Lake, however. For instance, the leaker claims that the 6+12+4 config is still limited to 27MB and not 30MB, had the disabled E-core cluster retained its cache. If true, it seems there's no linear scaling at play here; rather, Intel just decides on its own which SKUs get to keep all of the L3 cache regardless of their disabled E-cores, and which ones are still relegated to lower amounts.

Nova Lake desktop CPUs are not the only ones reportedly affected by this change; Nova Lake-HX, the mobile lineup, is also said to follow the same methodology at this point. Therefore, we can expect some of the midrange SKUs to have more cache than previously expected. Keep in mind that all of this is preliminary, unofficial information and subject to change between now and the actual launch, as this very development proves.

Intel's big trick for Nova Lake is expected to be the introduction of bLLC in consumer CPUs, directly meant to challenge AMD's 3D V-Cache. Only mid- to high-end SKUs are expected to get it, including the 8+12+4 and 6+12+4 configs we mentioned earlier. They're said to feature 132MB and 108MB of bLLC, respectively, which is separate from the native L3 cache we've been talking about in this story, so those numbers won't change.

*non-bLLC variants of all the single-tile SKUs are also rumored. All specifications rumored, not confirmed by Intel.

As usual, there might be some level of internal segmentation that we aren't seeing here. Although leaked specs give us a glimpse at what Nova Lake could offer, it's always possible that Intel is testing various configurations, even if those chips won't end up in the main lineup.

If you've ever stumbled upon the Amazon CPU best sellers list over the past few years, you've been greeted by a wall of red boxes. This list isn't a good source of data, without hard sales figures and heavily skewed toward what's available on Amazon at any given time. But AMD senior marketing director Saša Marinković recently shared a screenshot of the Amazon CPU best-sellers list, bragging on AMD's representation. The interesting bit is that the screenshot Marinković shared shows the $80, DDR4-based Ryzen 5 5500 at the top of the charts.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D has since reclaimed the top slot — it is the best CPU for gaming, after all — but the screenshot touches on the prevalence of DDR4 platforms, nearly four years after the launch of Zen 4 and introduction of DDR5 to AMD's platform. It's not just the Ryzen 5 5500, either.

Of the 25 best sellers on Amazon, three slots are occupied by Intel, and one slot is claimed by the Thermal Grizzly AM5 contact frame. AMD holds every other slot, though it's nearly an even split between DDR4 and DDR5. There are nine Zen 3 CPUs on DDR4 platforms to 12 Zen 4/5 CPUs on DDR5 platforms.

It seems Marinković's screenshot is a bit out of date — currently, the split is even closer, with Intel picking up two extra spots and the split between DDR4 and DDR5 AMD CPUs moving to nine and 10 slots, respectively.

The irony here is that Marinković is highlighting AMD's representation on the best-sellers list while a four-year-old CPU is at the top of the charts, not one of the many performant DDR5 processors AMD has released since. It's not hard to draw a straight line between DDR4 popularity and current RAM pricing on your own. However, several motherboard vendors have previously confirmed to Tom's Hardware that they're increasing DDR4 motherboard production due to demand for older platforms.

The Ryzen 5 5500 is one of the cheapest CPUs you can buy at only $80, and it comes with a Wraith Stealth cooler in the box, saving you some money on an aftermarket CPU cooler. It's based on the Zen 3 architecture with six cores and 12 threads and boosts up to 4.2 GHz. It has a cut-down L3 cache compared to other Zen 3 CPUs at 16 MB, however, and it tops out at PCIe 3.0.

We recently published a $100 CPU shootout comparing the Ryzen 5 5500 to some other options around the same price and found its performance lacking, particularly in games; the Intel Core i3-14100F consistently offered better performance with DDR4. That conclusion only holds up if you don't already have an AM4 motherboard, however. If you're in the market for the Ryzen 5 5500, you're already on a tight budget, so a new motherboard probably isn't in the cards.

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 not 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 former of which is relevant to the BC-250.

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

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

Testing performance on the BC-250

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bad and the ugly of BC-250 gaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Tie

More CPU Faceoffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruffling feathers from day one (1996 - 1998)

Ruffling feathers from day one (1996 - 1998)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pentium III incident (1999 - 2001)

The Pentium III incident (1999 - 2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going for gigahertz (2001 - 2004)

Going for gigahertz (2001 - 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cores, more fun (2004 - 2007)

More cores, more fun (2004 - 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The coast of Nehalem (2007 - 2010)

The coast of Nehalem (2007 - 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulldozer bulldozes world records, thermals (2010 - 2013)

Bulldozer bulldozes world records, thermals (2010 - 2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dawn of 14nm (2014 - 2016)

The dawn of 14nm (2014 - 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeling Zen (2017 - 2020)

Feeling Zen (2017 - 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forging a new path (2021 - 2024)

Forging a new path (2021 - 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reckoning with the real world (2024 - today)

Reckoning with the real world (2024 - today)

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

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

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

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

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

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

After granting about a dozen manufacturing licenses to make various x86 CPUs back in the 1980s, Intel ceased to license both its cores and instruction set architecture (ISA) in a bid not to create rivals. However, in an unusual turn of events, Intel has quietly granted startup RosaicLabs access to its Atom processor technology, reports Reuters. The company was incorporated in May and is led by Lip-Bu Tan's co-investor.

Intel provided Rosaic access to an unknown Atom-class core, which enables the company to build its own custom processors based on x86 general-purpose cores, according to the report. The renowned chipmaker plans to ship Rosaic register-transfer level (RTL) code ​for the Atom processor core, which will let the startup build its custom system-on-chip (SoC) both at Intel Foundry and elsewhere.

The startup is reportedly led by Amarjit Gill, a venture capital investor who partnered with Intel's CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, on multiple occasions in the past. The two invested in such companies as Nuvia and Rivos, which were later acquired by Qualcomm and Meta, respectively.

RosaicLabs does not have a website or a LinkedIn profile, which is common for startups when they operate in stealth mode. The company was incorporated in May and is currently seeking a seed funding round of $10 million, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Since RosaicLabs does not have a website or a LinkedIn profile, it is completely unknown what kind of SoC it plans to develop and which markets it is going to pursue. One could imagine that it is in Intel's interests to license technology to companies that seek to address markets which Intel has no plans to address.

Arguably the biggest question is which Atom-class core Intel licensed to Rosaic. Traditionally, Atom cores were developed for inexpensive low-power devices, applications that Intel ceased to address about a decade ago. Since then, the low-power x86 architecture has been used to build custom SoCs for telecom and adjacent applications, embedded CPUs, efficiency (E) cores for client CPUs, and more recently cloud-optimized Xeon processors. Intel's most advanced low-power x86 cores to date are Crestmont, which powers Xeon 6700E-series CPUs, Skymont, which is used in Core Ultra 2-series CPUs, and Darkmont, which powers Xeon 6+ CPUs.

Skymont and Darkmont feature a 9-wide decode, 8-wide out-of-order engine, and 16-wide retire, which makes them fairly capable cores that wed high performance potential with energy efficiency. Meanwhile, Darkmont is optimized for data center workloads, so it has better branch prediction, improved prefetch, an enhanced vector engine, and higher L2 bandwidth. By contrast, Crestmont features a 6-wide decode and an 8-wide retire, which puts it well behind the newer cores.

If Intel gives Rosaic complete, synthesizable RTL of an Atom-class core, Rosaic could technically modify the core at several levels, including changing cache sizes, reorganizing the pipeline, increasing clocks, and altering power-management logic, just to name a few options. However, this does not automatically mean Rosaic has unrestricted rights to enhance Intel's technology, as the company could provide RTL under various conditions with numerous restrictions. After all, it does not want to create a competitor for itself. Still, we do not know the terms of the license.

Intel granted about a dozen manufacturing licenses to build its 80286 and 80386 CPUs in the 1980s to various chipmakers in a bid to provide chipmakers with second sources for its processors and expand usage of its x86 ISA. However, only AMD got an actual x86 license that allowed it to build x86 CPUs of its own designs.

After disposing of its StrongArm/XScale business to Marvell in 2006, Intel witnessed the smartphone revolution essentially empty-handed as its Atom processors could not compete with highly integrated Arm-based SoCs in handsets. Intel tried to expand the reach of its low-power Atom CPU cores in 2009, so it signed a memorandum of understanding with TSMC and planned to port its Atom cores to a TSMC node and enable TSMC clients to integrate that hard IP into their processors.

That initiative has never taken off, so eventually Intel kicked off its SoFIA (Smart or Feature Phone on Intel Architecture) joint SoC development program that enabled third parties to use Intel Atom cores and modem technology (implemented using TSMC's 28nm node) in their application processors for handsets. While both Rockchip and Spreadtrum eventually came up with their SoFIA 3G and SoFIA 4G SoCs based on Airmont cores and made on TSMC's 28nm technology, both processors were released in 2015, had to compete against SoCs made on Samsung's 14nm-class node or TSMC's 16FFC node, and never got popular. Ultimately, Intel produced an eight-core Spreadtrum SoC at its fabs using its 14nm manufacturing technology, but that processor also failed on the market.

As a result, Intel licensing a CPU core to a third party is a very rare occurrence these days and the first in this decade. The reasons behind the move are completely unclear because the RosaicLabs startup is two months old, it cannot pay Intel cash, and its commercial prospects are completely unclear. While one may argue that now that Rosaic has access to x86 cores, it is not going to pursue Arm or RISC-V cores, keeping in mind that hundreds of startups choose Arm or RISC-V every year, addressing one startup does not enable Intel to expand its x86 share compared to Arm or RISC-V tangibly.

In any case, for now, the deal between Intel and RosaicLabs leaves more questions than answers, mainly because all we know about RosaicLabs is that it is led by an old acquittance of Intel's chief exec, Lip-Bu Tan.